US' LIIBR^RV OK THI. University of California. OTKT CM-' ^ r Class XS^be TUnlverslti^ of dbicago FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER THE DAY OF YAHWEH PART OF A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL, IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILO<^OPHY (department of old testament LITERATURE AND 'NTERPRETATION) BY JOHN M. P. SMITH PRINTED BY ^be TIlniversitB of Cbicago press THIS DISSERTATION WAS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY AND ACCEPTED IN JUNE, 1899 [Reprinted from the American Journal of Theology, Vol. V, pp. 505~3.>] occ^ \B P * '< )' \j?.^ THE DAY OF YAHWEH. The origin of the idea of the Day of Yahweh must be sought in the pre-prophetic stage of Israel's history. The first appearance of the conception in the Old Testament is in the prophecy of Amos, where it is clearly defined and formulated. The idea which Amos found already existing and occupying a large place in the thought of the people was apparently a conception of the day as a time when a period of great glory and prosperity was to be inaugurated for Israel. Naturally such a day was greatly desired. Whence came this idea ? It seems to be a development of several ideas in combination. One of these is the conception of a divine mission which early took possession of the con- sciousness of Israel.' Tradition exhibits many traces of such a con- ception. The founders of the nation and all her great leaders are said to have had in mind a unique position for Israel among the nations. Utterances to this effect are common in the J and E documents,* and, belonging as they do to some of the earliest of Israel's historical records, it is not probable that they are wholly without basis in facts. They may, therefore, be properly taken as evidence for the existence in very early times of a hope for a glorious future of the nation as Yahweh's representative in the world. In further support of the existence of some such ambition as this may be urged the presence of similar hopes among Semitic peoples in general.^ The national character of Semitic gods seems best explained on the supposition that small and weak families, clans, and tribes sub- mitted to the dominion of larger and more powerful communities because of some necessity, such as conquest, lack of food, or need of protection and assistance against powerful enemies. In such a union the superiority of the god of the more powerful body of people was acknowledged, and the god of the weaker people was reduced to subordinate rank. As this process continued, a nation gradually came into existence, and the original tribal god developed into a national god.* But the fact of his having reached this dignity did not rob him ' Cf. Frants Buhl, American Journal of Theology, Vol. II, p. 767. '^. g-., Gen. 12 :2S.; l8:l8ff.; 27:29; 28:14; Exod. 19 : 5 f.; 34 : 10 ; Numb. 23:9; 24:9, 17. 3W. R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 2d ed., pp. 75-81. * So Menzies, History of Religion, ■^'^. 79 ff.; D'Alviella, Idea of God, pp. 20 ff.; etal. 3 4 THE DA Y OF YAHWEH of his original expansive force; his nature remained essentially the same, and his ambition for power would carry him on to universal dominion, were his adherents sturdy and aggressive enough to attain that goal. It was therefore the natural and proper desire of every Semitic nation to extend the influence of its own particular god to the farthest possible limit. This could best be accomplished through the conquest of new territory over which the sway of the god might be established. Hence wars of conquest, which were at the same time religious wars, were of unceasing occurrence. Assyrian records furnish the best illustrations of this spirit of expansion in political and religious affairs. The wars of Assyria were preeminently religious wars. Every king in every campaign declares himself to have been incited, emboldened, and prospered by his nation's gods. Kings felt and declared themselves to be the agents of the gods, and regarded it as one of their chief duties to widen the dominion of the gods and to manifest their power.^ Esarhaddon, for example, well expresses the animating spirit of Assyrian warfare thus: "The names of the great gods they invoked together and trusted to their power. I, however, trusted in Ashur, my lord, and like a bird out of the moun- tains I captured him and cut off his head. In order to exhibit the might of Ashur, my lord, before the eyes of the peoples, I hung the heads of Sanduarri and Abdimilkuti upon the necks of their great men."* The inscrip- tions of Tiglath-pileser I., Shalmaneser II., Tiglath-pileser III., Sar- gon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, and others are full of illustrations showing the place and influence of religious ideas in con- nection with the national territorial development.' The evident desire was that Ashur should be acknowledged as the supreme deity through- out the known world. The kings certainly regarded him as such and commonly spoke of themselves as kings of the four quarters of the world over which Ashur had given them dominion.^ The amazingly rapid spread of the religion of Mohammed is another illustration of the efficient service rendered by religious ideals S Cf. McCURDY, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, Vol. I, pp. 63 f.; Savce, Early Israel and the Surrounding Nations, pp. 248 f. *The Six-Sided Prism, Cylinder A, col. i, 11. 43 ff. T Cf. Sennacherib, Taylor- Prism, zo\. \, 11. 10 ff., 63; i, 42 f ; !ii, 42; iv, 43; Esarhaddon, Cylinder A, col. ii, 1. 45 ; iii, 7-12, 40-48, 53 ; iv, 19-25, 38-47 ; Ashur- banipal, Annals, col. iv, 1. 34; viii, Bff.; ix, Ii2ff.; etc. ^For the same idea see the closing tablet of the Dibbara Legend, translated by Iastrow in Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 535, and by W. Muss-Arnolt in R. F. Harper's Assyrian and Babylonian Literature ("The World's Great Books," Aldine edition; New York: D. Appleton, 1901), p. 314. THE DAY OF YAHWEH 5 in the furtherance of political development. The religious and ethical principles upheld by Mohammed were certainly purer and more vigor- ous than those of the earlier Arabic religions opposed by him, and his success was, no doubt, largely due to this fact; but it seems prob- able that the old Semitic idea of a national god upon whose people there rested an obligation to extend his dominion had much to do in arousing the extraordinary zeal and energy with which the new religion was propagated, and that chiefly by force of arms. For such a religion and such a god success was the best recommendation ; a recital of the triumphs already achieved was one of the best argu- ments for inducing still other peoples to acknowledge the supremacy of the new religion and the new god. Moreover, confidence engendered by successes already won carried the victors on to fresh contests and victories for their god. In view of such corroborating testimony from without, it is not strange to find evidence within Israel of a similar laudable ambition for Yahweh and of a hope for the time when he would bring great glory to his people. That this hope originated at a very early date is evident, since it appears strongly in the earliest literature. Moreover, as suggested by Professor McCurdy,' the possession of such a hope is a necessary presupposition to any satisfactory explanation of the fact that Israel was able to obtain and hold for herself a home among the tribes of Canaan, poorly disciplined as she was and beset by foes on every side. Her strong faith in Yahweh's power and in his purpose to bring glory to himself through Israel gave her courage in the face of all sorts of dangers and difficulties. Hence it is that every forward step during the period of the conquest and the years immediately following seems to have been preceded and accompanied by a great revival of zeal for Yahweh. Furthermore, the course of Israel's early national history was not unfavorable to the growth of this idea of a glorious destiny. Beginning with Saul and continuing through the days of Solomon, victory and prosperity had come to Israel in no small meas- ure. Even in later centuries the reign of David was looked back upon longingly as a sort of golden age, and ideals of the future were shaped in accordance with the glorified and magnified traditions of the Davidic days. Solomon extended his influence so far, established his kingdom so securely, and equipped himself so splendidly as to be the source of envy and wonder to all surrounding peoples. He was in a fair way to make Israel aworld-empire such as Assyria and Babylon later came to be. 9 Op. cit., Vol. II, pp. no f. 6 THE DAY OF YAHWEH After the check consequent upon the division of the kingdom, north- ern Israel, under the able leadership of the house of Omri, gradually- reasserted herself. This new development was retarded by the long war with Syria, but by the time of Jeroboam II. Damascus was subdued, and Israel had attained prosperity and power second only to those enjoyed during the age of David and Solomon. History thus seemed to jus- tify the popular hope of a gloriously bright future." In addition to this, the work of the earliest prophets tended in the same direction. All the prophets up to the time of Amos, with the possible exception of Elijah, seem to have foretold success and glory for their people." They constantly emphasized the fact that Israel was Yahweh's people, and that, if Israel remained faithful to him, he would and must lead her on to victory. Thus far we have found the hope of a great future for the nation through Yahweh's help to have been (i) fostered by tradition ; (2) an outgrowth of the general Semitic conception of a God-given commis- sion to enlarge the sphere of the divine authority; (3) a prerequisite as a source of inspiration and courage in the great work of the conquest of Canaan ; (4) developed and strengthened by its apparent partial realization in the progress of the nation's history; and (5) enforced impressively upon the national consciousness by the nation's prophets, the spokesmen of Yahweh, the nation's God. In view of these facts the existence of such a conception of Israel's national destiny in the eighth century B. C. seems certain. It was not a conception of an exalted ethical and religious content, for ethical and religious stand- ards were as yet comparatively low. It was rather the conception of a mission, one of the chief ends of which was to bring glory to those who fulfilled it. A second and important element in the formation of the early idea of the Day of Yahweh was the conception of Yahweh which then pre- vailed." The people were not far removed from polytheism, as is shown, among other things, by the frequency and ease with which in after years they took up with idolatrous rites ; by the survival of the plural form D%"i'bi< ; by the use of teraphim; by the incident of the calf- worship at Sinai ; and by traces lingering in many words and customs.'" " Cf. G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, Vol. I, pp. 49 f- " Cf. I Kings 20: 13, 28; 22:6, II, 12; 2 Kings 2 : 13-19; I3 = H-IQ; M = 25- '« Cf. R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel in fudaism and in Christianity, pp. 85 f. »" Cf. Baudissin, Studien ztir semitischen Rcligionsgeschichte, Heft I, pp. 55-65- THE DA Y OF YAHWEH 7 The intermediate stage, monolatry, was essential as a stepping-stone to monotheism, and the religion of Israel in the eighth century was of this kind. Israel's God was only one among many gods; the name Yahweh as a proper name distinguished him from Chemosh, god of Moab, Milcom of Ammon, Baal of Phoenicia, and the gods of other surrounding peoples. This monolatrous worship persisted far into the prophetic period, monotheism not being fully accepted and estab- lished in the thought of the nation until the days of the exile.'^ The difference between Yahweh and other gods was but dimly realized in the early days of Yahwism. The points of resemblance between the worship of Israel and that of Canaan were more noticeable than the points of difference, and the constant endeavor of Israel's religious leaders was to keep the people from taking over so much of Baal- worship into the Yahweh-worship as to destroy the distinctive character of the latter. The preservation of true Yahweh-worship was essential to the development and continuance of national life and individuality. The Yahweh-religion was almost the only unifying influence which held together the heterogeneous and widely scattered elements of Israel. Yahweh's especial function was to be the deliverer of Israel in time of danger. He was emphatically a war-god, and it was as such that he was honored by Israel. He had proven his superiority to the gods of Egypt at the time of the exodus ; and again, in the attack upon Canaan, he had demonstrated his superiority to the Canaanitish Baalim by conquering them and their people. This was, indeed, the only kind of superiority that Israel was as yet prepared to appreciate. Her existence during the greater part of the pre-prophetic period was one constant struggle to maintain her place against the peoples of Canaan, and a god who could not, or would not, render efficient service in this contest was not likely to command her respect and adherence. The victories of Israel over her enemies were necessary, not only to her national existence, but also to her retention of the Yahweh-religion. The work of Elijah in his fearless opposition to Baal-worship, and the work of Elisha as the source of the inspiration, wisdom, and patriot- ism in the conduct of the war with Damascus which enabled Israel to achieve final victory, sealed Israel to Yahweh in closest allegiance. '3 See Judg. 6 : 31 ; 9 : 13; 11 : 24; Gen. 28 : 20 f.; Exod. 15 : 11 ; 18 : 11 ; I Sam. 26 : 19 ; 28 : 13 ; Amos 9:7; Ezek. 8:12; 9:9; etc. For a fuller treatment of the matter consult Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichie (2d ed.), pp. 193-200 ; MONTEFIORE, i?if/?g-zo« of the Ancient Hebrews {=^"T\iQ Hibbert Lectures," 1892), pp. 228, 268 f.; McCurdy, op. cit., Vol. Ill, pp. 370 f.; W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel {n&vf edition), pp. 59 ff.; Schultz, Old Testament The- ology, Vol. I, pp. 175 f.; BUDDE, Religion of Israel to the Exile, pp. 210 f. 8 THE DA V OF YAHWEH Though the recognition and acceptance of Yahweh as Israel's God did not involve the denial of reality to the gods of neighboring peoples, but permitted them to be regarded as real deities holding rela- tions with their worshipers similar to those existing between Yahweh and Israel, yet Yahweh was supreme in Israel and in everything relating to Israel, and thus, when the interests of Israel clashed with those of her neighbors, it was to be expected that he would bring about the triumph of his own nation. However, the recognition of the reality of the gods of the nations was a great hindrance to Israel's full realization of the true nature of her mission to the world. It shut off almost entirely the outflow of the altruistic spirit and left the concep- tion of Israel's destiny to find embodiment in hopes for Israel's supremacy among the nations and Yahweh's dominion over the gods. It was a self-centered mission, a destiny founded on ambition for Israel, and jealousy for the honor of Yahweh. Another source of light upon the origin of the idea of the Day of Yahweh is found in the political relations of early Israel with outside nations. After the fierce struggles connected with the early days of the settlement in Canaan, Israel seems to have adopted a policy of conciliation toward the Canaanites in whose land she was an unwel- come intruder. The battle led by Deborah and Barak was the last great conflict with the people of the land. Deadly enmity gave way little by little to peaceful intercourse. Conciliation was Israel's wisest course; dwelling in the midst of a numerous people far more advanced in civilization than herself, and ready to take advantage of any and every opportunity to drive her out of their territory, it was necessary for her to strengthen herself in every possible way. She therefore gladly admitted "strangers" into her ranks and threw open to them all the privileges of Israelites.'^ She gained much by accretions resulting from such a policy and by the friendly feeling thus cultivated toward neighboring tribes. But, though Israel succeeded thus in bringing her immediate neighbors into harmony with herself, she was not suffered to develop her resources in peace. Her whole life up to the eighth century was one almost continual struggle for existence. Occupying, as she did, the most fertile oasis in northern Arabia, she was subjected to the onslaughts of less fortunate tribes who coveted the rich possession for themselves. Prior to David's time contests were waged with the '*For a discussion of the whole question of the place of "strangers " in Israel see Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, pp. 1-67. THE DA Y OF YAHWEH 9 Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Philistines, Midianites, Edomites, and Syrians, deliverance being wrought for Israel under the leadership of Ehud, Shamgar, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, and Saul. David's reign was a period of war and conquest resulting in great renown for Israel. The territory acquired by David began to revolt and slip away under Solomon's administration. The long struggle with Syria began in the reign of Baasha of Israel, and continued with bitter hos- tility down through the reigns of Jehoahaz and Jehoash. In addition to this there were skirmishes with the Philistines in the days of Nadab of Israel; war with Mesha, king of Moab, in the time of Jehoram ; revolt and reconquest of Edom under Joash and Amaziah respectively. Moreover, Assyria appears upon the scene as collector of tribute from Jehu. The last great war, that with Damascus, was a long drawn-out agony for Israel ; but at last Yahweh sent Israel a savior in the person of Assyria, and she enjoyed a brief respite from fighting. The feel- ings of an Israelite, as he looked back upon his nation's long struggle, can scarcely have been amicable toward those with whom he had waged so many conflicts. He rejoiced in the downfall of Damascus, and would have taken equal pleasure in the discomfiture of other hereditary foes. Revenge was a far sweeter thought to him than for- giveness, and one more likely to stir his enthusiasm and arouse his zeal. The bearing of the preceding discussion upon the question of the origin of the idea of the Day of Yahweh may now be briefly summa- rized. The people of Israel in the eighth and ninth centuries had inherited and developed the idea that they were destined by Yahweh for great things. They thought themselves certain of attaining political preeminence. They were to be instrumental in demonstrating to the nations the superiority of Yahweh, Israel's God, over all the gods of the nations. With a conception of Yahweh as but one — howbeit the greatest one — among many gods, it was necessary for them to prove his greatness to the surrounding peoples who were in like manner proud of their own respective gods. Yahweh had repeat- edly shown himself to be efficient and worthy of all confidence as a war-god. It was along this line that his superiority was to be proved to the nations. Yahweh had shown his pleasure in Israel and had mani- fested his power in recent days by overthrowing Damascus, her bitterest foe. How natural that the great majority in Israel should feel encour- aged and should hope for the speedy coming of the day when Yahweh should manifest himself in behalf of his people and bring disaster and lo THE DAY OF YAHWEH destruction to all their foes, thereby proving his own supremacy over all other gods and the superiority of his chosen people over all the peoples of other gods ! T\\t popular conception of the Day of Yahweh was, in short, that of a great day of battle on which Yahweh would place himself at the head of the armies of Israel and lead them on to overwhelming victory over all their enemies. '= In the hands of Amos this conception underwent a transformation. As heretofore it had been instrumental in stimulating the national spirit and life, so now, purified from its grosser elements, it is made to contribute to the development of the religious and moral life of the people. Instead of being the day of Israel's glorification at the expense of her enemies, it now became the day of her humiliation and chastisement at the hands of Yahweh. It was a complete reversal of all the hopes which Israel had so long centered in this day. The first announcement of the new doctrine (Amos 5 : i8 ff.) must have fallen upon the people with startling suddenness ; it was a rude awakening from a pleasant dream. 'SThe view of Hoffmann, Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft {^ZATIV.), 1883, p. 112, that in the popular conception the Day of Yahweh was looked upon as z. feast day has no support aside from the fact that the context of Amos 5 : 18 ff. takes up the question of feasts, and this is not sufficient to establish the usage in view of the indications favorable to the view adopted here. For other instances of DT^ in the sense " day of battle " see Isa. 9:3 = "j'^TQ DT3 , and Hos. 2:2 = bi^yiT"^ DT^ ; cf. Obad., vs. Ii = THi? DT', and Ps. 137:7 = DblDI"!"! 011. The Arabic (1^. is frequently used in the same sense; see the Quran, Sura 45, vs. 13, where the expression "days of God" is interpreted by Arabic commentators as meaning days when God overthrows the infidels in battle. Schultens, Liber Jobi cum nova ver- sione . . . . et cotnmentario perpetuo, etc., Vol. I, pp. 54 f., quotes in support of this usage the following passage from Hamasa: ^w>Jo xjLco oiaJI Ijl "Who saw our day and the day of the sons of Teim, When the dust was made coherent with its blood ?" 2^\A ixom. Omar ibn Keltsoutn : LiJoLc JU-Lo (•Ls^l oJbl Uj "Nor have the days \i. e., days of battle] left any resources in our possession." W. R. Smith also {Prophets of Israel, Lecture III, note 15) refers to a section on the "Days of the Arabs" in the Ikd oi Ibn "Abd Rabbih, Egyptian ed., Vol. Ill, pp. 60 f., from which he cites the phrase "the days of Tamim against Bekr" {Ikd, p. 80) in illustration of the fact that among the Arabs the day of battle was often named after the combatants. See also the Arabic illustrations of the same usage cited by Gesenius in his com- mentary on Isa. 9 : 3, and by Steingass, Arabic Dictionary, sub voce. THE DA Y OF YAHWEH 1 1 The new conception of the day introduced by Amos was the out- growth of the new idea of Yahweh which had taken possession of him. It was the practical application of his thought of God to the conditions of his age. For him Yahweh's predominant characteristic was right- eousness (Amos 5:4-6, 24) ; and this called for a corresponding right- eousness on the part of Israel. The peculiar relation she sustained to Yahweh only increased the obligation upon her to be righteous (Amos 3 : 2). In the presence of this demand for moral integrity Amos saw Israel's fearful depravity. Northern Israel had probably never before enjoyed such outward prosperity and political prestige as at this time.'* Hints are not wanting in Amos of the great wealth and luxury of the times (Amos 3: 10, 12, 15; 5:11; 6:4-8). But it was alto- gether too manifest that this was secured largely at the expense of the poor, and that cruelty and vice of every description abounded (Amos 2 : 6-8 ; 3 : 9, 10 ; 5 : 10-13). Even the women had sunk to the lowest depths of degradation (Amos 4 : 1-3), and the political leaders, as well as the religious leaders, were foremost in wickedness. Yet amid all this moral desolation, having no conception of Yahweh's demand for righteousness, the people prided themselves on the fact that Yahweh was with them, and that evil therefore could not overtake them.'^ Realizing the righteousness of Yahweh and the wickedness of Israel as fully as he did, Amos was forced to the conclusion that nothing short of Israel's destruction would satisfy the demands of Yahweh's justice. As the instrument for the execution of Yahweh's judgment upon Israel, his attention was naturally turned to the invincible Assyr- ian army, whose victorious progress was ever drawing nearer and nearer to the borders of Israel. The nation was ripe for destruction ; the destroying agent was close at hand ; therefore the Day of Yahweh must be coming full soon — perhaps even in his own generation. It was to be the close of the existing degenerate age rather than the opening of a new and glorious one, as the people had fondly hoped. With such a message Amos addressed northern Israel. Wellhausen has called attention to the artistic and dramatic way in which he intro- duced his startling announcement.'^ By denouncing the neighboring peoples and foretelling their destruction he raised the hopes of his lis- teners that the Day of Yahweh was about to come upon their foes, as ^^Cf. 2 Kings 14 : 25-28, and McCurdy, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 308 f. '7 Amos 5 : 14 is suspected as a later insertion by Valeton, G. A. Smith, Volz, Nowack, Lohr, ei al.; but in any case the blind confidence in the protecting presence of Yahweh which is there attributed to Israel was characteristic of her in the eighth century B. C. ; cf. Mic. 3:11 and Judg. 6:13. ^^ Die kkitien Propheten, on Amos 2 : 14 ff. r 1 2 THE DA Y OF YAHWEH they had long desired, only to dash those hopes to the ground with startling suddenness when he announced to them that judgment was about to fall upon them themselves. "Woe unto you that desire the Day of Yahweh," says Amos; "wherefore would ye have the Day of Yahweh ? It is darkness and not light Shall not the Day of Yahweh be darkness and not light, even very dark and no brightness in it ? " This statement was followed up and reinforced by the declaration of Yahweh's hatred of their luxurious and superstitious worship, and his intention to drive Israel into exile because of her sins. In the face of incredulity, jeers,'' and threats, Amos persisted in his mes- sage. That day is to be ushered in by terrible portents in earth and heavens. Mourning and lamentation will take the place of the songs and feasts of the present. No one will be able to deliver himself from the universal calamity ; all the workers of iniquity will perish. Not a ray of light illumines the darkness of the Day of Yahweh as described by Amos.'° He saw that the popular idea of it as a time for Israel's glorification was deeply wrought into the life of the nation and was fraught with great danger to the higher interests of Israel, so that nothing less would do than to transform it completely and present it from an entirely new point of view. He must draw the thoughts of the people away from illusive hopes and fix them upon stern realities. In the formulation of his doctrine of the Day of Yahweh Amos did not break away completely from the past. He utilized some elements '9 Amos 6 : 3. Cheyne, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. A New English Trans- lation, p. 135 [ = Polychrome Bible, or SBOT], seems to regard this passage as testi- fying to the existence of two opposite views concerning the Day of Yahweh among the people in the time of Amos — the one looking forward to it eagerly as a time of joy for Israel, the other regarding it as an evil day, but supposing it to be still distant. If this was the case, all that Amos did was to adopt the darker view already existing and endeavor to convince Israel of its near approach. It seems more natural, how- ever, to take this utterance of Amos as addressed to those who received his doctrine of the Day of Yahweh skeptically and ironically, blindly trusting in their present ease and security, and refusing to credit gloomy forebodings concerning a coming disaster of which they can see no signs. Cf. the interpretations of this passage given by Well- hausen. Gunning, Mitchell, Driver, and G. A. Smith. ^'The promise of Amos 9 : 8^-15 is from a later hand. The argument against these verses is set forth in detail by VoLZ, Die vorexilische Jah'cveprophetie unJ der Messias, pp. 22-4 ; cf. G. A. Smith, op. cit.. Vol. I, pp. 190-95. Among many others who assign them to a later time may be cited Wellhausen, Stade, Smend, Cheyne, Cornill, Marti, Nowack, Lohr, Schwally, ZATIV., 1890, pp. 226 f.; Preuschen, ZATW., 1895, PP- 24-7; ToKKV^y, Journal of Biblical Literature,WQ\.XN,-pY).iS'i^-\ J.Taylor, article "Amos" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. For a defense of the authenticity of the passage see Driver, Joel and Amos, pp. 219-23. THE DAY OF YAHWEH 13 of the popular conception already existing, viz., the thought that Yahweh was to manifest himself personally in judgment; that this would occur on a specific day ; that this day would be a day of battle ; that wonderful phenomena on earth and in the heavens would accompany the day; that in connection with the judgment punishment would fall upon the enemies of Israel and of Yahweh ; and, above all, that it would be the time when Yahweh would vindicate himself in the sight of the whole world. But a radical departure from the popular idea is seen in the essential content of the new doctrine in accordance with which Yahweh's vindication involves Israel's discomfi- ture rather than her triumph. This was the necessary outcome of the new conception of Yahweh arrived at by Amos, for whom Yahweh's love of righteousness was greater and stronger than his love for his people. The effect of the application of this new idea of God to the doctrine of the Day of Yahweh was to lift the doctrine to a far higher plane and to make it subserve ethical and religious ends no less efficiently than it had thus far subserved the purpose of national and political develop- ment. The doctrine henceforth becomes one of the most powerful arguments of the prophets in their appeals to the people of Yahweh to forsake evil and cleave to that which is good. Following the lead of Amos, the prophets continued to use the idea of the Day of Yahweh as a factor in the work of developing a purer national life and a keener moral sense. The pre-exilic prophets, how- ever, with the exception of Zephaniah, did not give the idea a promi- nent place in their teaching. The term "Day of Yahweh" appears neither in Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, nor Jeremiah, and but a few times in the genuine utterances of Isaiah,""' while Amos himself mentioned it only for the purpose of combating the erroneous popular conception in regard to it and of putting an entirely different meaning into it. This avoidance of the use of the term was due, perhaps, to a desire to refrain from calling to the remembrance of the people the perverted idea which it represented, an idea so strongly intrenched in the minds of the people that expulsion by direct attack seemed inadvisable; hence the earlier prophets chose the more indirect and effectual method of teaching correct fundamental ideas about Yahweh, the acceptance of which would drive out false conceptions of the Day of Yahweh. ='Isa. 2: 12 £f.; cf. 5: 18 £.; 7: 18 ff.; 9:8—10:4; I7:4ff.; 22:5ff.; chap. 13 and 34 : 8 are of later origin ; see the commentaries of Duhm, Marti, and Cheyne on Isaiah. 14 THE DAY OF YAHWEH Though the immediate successors of Amos avoided the use of the term for the most part, yet its content as formulated by Amos was taken up by them and strenuously enforced upon the nation. No important contribution was made to the idea by Hosea, Micah, or Isaiah ; they adopted the view of Amos without essential change. The day of Yahweh's visitation continued to be thought of as a time for the punishment of Israel's sins." Isaiah's doctrine of the Remnant, however, opened the way for the announcements of a blessed future from later prophets. Nahum's vision is confined to a picture of the overthrow of Assyria; it is a rehabilitation of the popular conception of the Day of Yahweh, with a change in the reason assigned for the destruction of Israel's foes ; it is no longer merely because they are foes to Israel and Israel's God, but because they are wicked."^ This view was stated still more fully and forcibly by Habakkuk at a some- what later date.^^ In the words of Professor Charles : "According to the primitive view, Yahweh was bound to intervene on behalf of his people on the ground of the supposed natural affinities existing between them, whereas, according to the view of Nahum and Habak- kuk, his intervention must follow on the ground of ethical afifiinities; for Israel and the gentiles are related to each other as the righteous, p^"i:2, and the wicked, T^'^ (Hab. i 14, 13)." '^ The prophecy of Zephaniah was concerned with the Day of Yahweh as no previous one had been ; it is the dominant thought everywhere present in his utterances. His conception agrees with that of Amos in that it supposes the day to be close at hand (i : 7, 14), and to be a ^ The passages in the books named after these prophets which present pictures of a bright future in connection with the coming of the Day of Yahweh are regarded by an increasing number of scholars as of late origin. 'i&Q.,e.g.,No'LZ,Dievorexilische Jahweprophetie und der Messias ; NowACK, Die kleinen Propheten ; Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten; W. R. Harper, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XVII, pp. 1-15; Stade, ZATIV., Vol. I, pp. 161-72; CORNILL, Einleitung in das Alte Testament; Cheyne, Lntroduction to the Book of Isaiah, 2XiA SPOT., Part 10; Duhm, Das Buch /^ja?a ("Handkommentar z. Alt. Test."); Marti, Das Buch Jesaia ("Kurzer Hand-Commentar z. Alt. Test."), and article "Hosea" in Encyclopedia Biblica; Hackmann, Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaia. ^3 Chap. 1:1 — 2:3 is assigned to a later date by Bickell, Gunkel, Cornill, Nowack, ei al., chiefly on the basis of its form and structure. However, all agree that this opening section gives a description of the Day of Yahweh fully in keeping with the spirit and contents of the rest of the book. ** Chap. 3 is quite generally regarded as a later addition; so, e.g., Kuenen, Cheyne, Cornill, Wellhausen, Nowack, Driver, A. B. Davidson, G. A. Smith. *s A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, p. 94. THE DAY OF YAHWEH 15 day of gloom and terror bringing judgment (i : 2-6, 15 ff.), which is to fall primarily upon Yahweh's people, but also upon their enemies (i : 7-18 ; 2 : 4-15). But Zephaniah goes farther than any of his prede- cessors, if we may suppose 3 : 8 to have come from him, in that he makes the judgment well-nigh world-wide. It is not, however, strictly speaking, a universal judgment, since certain "guests" are evidently excepted (i : 7), and, furthermore, all are clearly not on the same level before Yahweh, for Judah is still regarded as Yahweh's people, and given blessings and privileges at the expense of her enemies.'* Out of this wide-reaching judgment a remnant of poor and afflicted people who trust in Yahweh's name, do no evil, and refrain from deceit is to remain and continue the relation between Judah and Yahweh.'^ Jeremiah's work furnishes a good illustration of the prophets' dependence upon history. After his first utterances, which seem, like the words of Zephaniah, to have been called forth in connection with the Scythian invasion, little or nothing was heard from him until about the time of the battle of Carchemish, where Nebuchadrezzar appeared as the coming conqueror of western Asia. Jeremiah at once grasped the significance of this event and sounded the alarm for his people, continuing to preach repentance as the only way of escape from com- plete overthrow until the day his words were fulfilled. He did not call this coming calamity the Day of Yahweh, as Amos had done on a sim- ilar occasion in northern Israel, and as Zephaniah had already done in Judah. In the present state of the criticism of the book of Jeremiah it is difficult to determine just what the exact teaching of Jeremiah on this subject was.''^ But it seems to have included a simple, yet scath- ing arraignment of Israel's wickedness and a call to immediate repent- ance. He lays greater emphasis than any of his predecessors upon the '6 Professor Charles' treatment {pp. cit., p. 98) of Zephaniah's teaching con- cerning the Day of Yahweh is based largely on the doubtful passages 2 : 8-10 and 3:8-10. 'Moreover, the treatment is inconsistent in that part of its conclusions is based upon the authenticity of these verses, while part is based upon the supposition of their being interpolated. '7 Zeph. 3:14-20 is considered late by most interpreters, e. g., Oort, Stade, Kuenen, Schwally, Wellhausen, Budde, Cornill, Nowack, G.A.Smith. 2:8-11 is regarded as late by Oort, Wellhausen, Schwally, Budde, Nowack, G. A. Smith. Well- hausen and Schwally reject 3 : 8-10, and Budde, Nowack, G. A. Smith, 3 : 9, 10. ^^ All messianic passages are referred to a later time by VOLZ, Die vorexilische Jahwepropheiie und der Messias, pp. 68-80. ScHWALLY, ZATW., Vol. VIII, pp. 177- 217, denies chaps. 46-51, and much of chap. 25, to Jeremiah. Cornill, SBOT., Part II, assigns to later times : 10: 2-16; 17:19-27; 19 : 1—20 :6; chaps. 26-28, 34, 36-44, and 50-52, and many glosses besides. To these sections he adds, in his recently pub- lished pamphlet, Die nietrischen Stiickc des Buches Jeremia reconstniiri (Leipzig, 1 90 1, 1 6 THE DAY OF YAHWEH religious life as distinguished from the ethical. The sins he rebukes are idolatry, sun-worship, human sacrifice, a superstitious multiplica- tion of sacrifices and offerings to Yahweh in the hope of thereby secur- ing his favor, a blind trust in the inviolability of Jerusalem with its temple, and failure to keep the covenant and ordinances of Yahweh ; see, e.g., 7 : 4-10 ; 11:13; 15:4. He soon saw that Judah had gone too far in her downward path to be able to return, and that destruction was therefore inevitable. He looked upon Nebuchadrezzar as Yah- weh's servant (27:6 ff.), through whom he was about to bring Judah and all the nations to judgment (25 : 15-26). He makes a great advance in that he admits the enemies of Judah to a share in Yahweh's mercy; those who repent and learn Yahweh's ways will be restored to their own lands after their punishment ; only the nations that refuse to obey Yahweh will be completely destroyed (12 : 14-17), However, the judg- ment is still national rather than individual in character ; Jeremiah seems to have only introduced the thought of individualism into the religion of Yahweh and to have left the full working out of the idea to his successors. The eschatological, apocalyptic tone of Zephaniah's threats of woe is almost entirely lacking in Jeremiah's preaching. He knows of no per- sonal appearance of Yahweh upon earth, no extraordinary departure from the laws of nature, no threats of sudden visitation. His thought of Yahweh's activity and personality seems more spiritual than that of earlier prophets, and his presentation of the future is more sane and rational, pp. xiii-|- 43), the following passages: chap. 30; 31 : I, 6-9rt, 10-14, 2i