Holiness and Glory in the Bible: An Approach to the History of Jewish Thought Author(s): Israel Efros Source: The

Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Apr., 1951), pp. 363-377 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453205 Accessed: 13/10/2010 00:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org

HOLINESS AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE An approach to the history of Jewish thought. By ISRAEL EFROS,Dropsie College MY purpose in this essay is to present two fundamental concepts which, though they tend in opposite directions, always operated in the history of Jewish philosophy. Indeed their very oppositeness stimulated Jewish thinking and steered its course. These concepts we may call holiness (qedushah) and glory (kavod), the first lifting the God-idea ever higher, and the second - pulling it back and bringing it down nearer to man. We may also call them transcendence and immanence, but we must understand that neither one of them ever existed separately, for then we should have either deism or pantheism, but always more or less intermingled, and that it is all a question of dominance and emphasis. This study will concern itself with the Bible only.
I. HOLINESS

It is not just one God that the Bible emphasizes, but a unique God. "Thou shalt worship no other God" (Ex. 34.14), even one. Even in the Shema (Deut. 6.4), the word e4ad probably does not mean "one" but, as already interpreted by Rashbam and Ibn Ezra, 'alone,' 'only.' What this uniqueness is we may learn from the halakic passages in the Bible, which are clear and stern: "No graven image nor any likeness of anything in heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20.4; Deut. 5.8). Nothing so kindles divine jealousy and anger and calls
363

364

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY

REVIEW

forth threats of dire catastrophies as image-worship. Even some of the oldest passages, like Ex. 20.23 (C) and 34.17 (J) contain prohibitions against graven and molten images. This can mean only one thing, dimly perceived at first but bound to grow in clarity and import, that God is imageless and ultimately - words were then extremely inadequate spiritual. For repelled by crass Canaanitish idolatry, the more sensitive spirits of early Israel did not seek to modify or refine the image-system but offered a sweeping negative and posited at first a God who resides in heaven.' This all negatives are infinite in extent, negative, -and on the road of transcendence until the heavens started them too could not longer contain the deity, and the whole course of Jewish thought became an incessant effort towards an ever more precise definition of God's spirituality, i. e. an ever higher transcendence. Here we have the Hebraic protest against paganism. For while all the pagan peoples lived together with their gods in one closed universe, Israel came forth with a discovery, which needed centuries for unfoldment, of another order of being, the realm of the spirit, metaphysics. Hence the Hebraic view is ontologically dualistic: two worlds, the physical and the mataphysical, and in the beginning was the metaphysical world alone. No other people knew such thorough-going dualism, for in the pagan theogony the gods too come from an elementary world-matter, from primeval Apsu and Chaos or from a "movement in the sea."2 Neither, it should be added, did Greek philosophy produce such a dualism. Plato's world of Ideas was real at the expense of this world of reflexions and copies, so that ontologically there was only
R. Harper, "Amos and Hosea," Int. Crit. Commentary, I See W. XC 1 ff. 2 See John Skinner, "Genesis," Int. Crit. Coni. (1925), pp. 7, 43, 47.

HOLINESS AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE-EFROS

365

one world; and his Ideas were completely inert like paintings in a dream. This applies also to Aristotle's pure Form which performed no function except as a final cause and was entirely inactive - a pagan god contemplating eternally its own navel. The element of action and doing never entered the minds of these thinkers in their theological speculations; they were ashamed of "doing." Only in the Bible do we have the first proclamation of two active worlds, with tension between them providing the ground for the whole religious drama of man. Words were lacking to express this metaphysical concept, this sublimation and spiritualization of the deity; but in the word qadosh we have an attempt to express both ontological and moral transcendence. Three meanings are embedded in this term which primarily denotes "set aside," "separate." First, separate or unapproachable because of danger, as in the case of Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19.12) or the Ark (I Sam. 6.20; II Sam. 6.5-7), and hence the prohibition of even looking at holy objects (Num. 4.20). Second, and perhaps latest, being characteristic of D and P, set aside for moral excellence and divine worship, as in rrp 'via (Ex. 19.6). And third, which alone concerns us here, and which came between the other two strata of meaning, unapproachable not because of danger but because of ontological and ethical excellence. It is this third sense which we obtain in the Seraphic song of thrice qadoshto indicate absoluteness - in Isa. 6.3.

II.

KAVOD

Together with this process of sublimation there was also the opposite tendency to bring the deity back into the world, a tendency born out of the longing for nearness and for a responsiveness to our cries in distress. Otherwise, of

366

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

what benefit is He to the world and of what use to man? And here we note a strange and striking phenomenon. Not only does man crave for the nearness of God, but also God craves for the nearness of man. In no other religious work of antiquity does one find God calling incessantly to man as He does in the Bible. How He is concerned to be known, how He pleads time and again, in varied phrases, that man should understand and know Him! And after the making of the golden calf, He changes his plan of complete destruction as soon as Moses advances the argument that the Egyptians will misunderstand. Why is He so concerned in man's knowledge? Why does He seem to be knocking on all the windows of the universe and of the human soul in order to be admitted? The answer seems to be that just because He is so transcendent, He longs for the concrete. The great Nought - to use a cabbalistic term - craves to be real, and the key to His reality lies in the soul and in the understanding of man. One is tempted to say that God needs man even more - because He is so much morethan man needs God. Thus the Hidden God becomes a Revealed God. The former concept is born out of the infinite negative of holiness, out of an intellectual process always denying and transcending the Here; the latter - out of the longing for contact and the faith that in some mystic way the Highest can also be the nearest and dwell among us. Thus the Revealed God comes out of the hidden man, and the Hidden God - from the revealed man. For this self-manifestation of divinity, we have the Biblical term kavod, which medieval Jewish philosophy identifies with mnl and nr'lW.3 Spinoza too recognizes the
3 See my study "Some Aspects of Yehudah Halevi's Mysticism," in the Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. XI (1941), pp. 39-40.

HOLINESS AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE-EFROS

367

terminological character of this word and remarks, "This love or blessedness is called Glory in the sacred writings, and not without reason."4 Hence we can understand somewhat differently the anthropomorphic statements in the Bible. The Talmud and the Jewish medieval philosophers apply to them the dictum "the Torah speaks in the language of man," and Bible-critics discern in them an earlier stratum. We may say that they represent the kavod-literature, just as the Biblical halaka represents the qedushah-literature. And when Isaiah's Seraphim sing "holy holy holy" and add "the whole earth is full of His glory," we hear the whole song of Israel containing both transcendence and immanence. In the earliest documents, as JE and the Book of Samuel, the term kavod denotes: (1) an object in which divinity rests, like the Ark; (2) signs and miracles, like those shown in Egypt and in the wilderness; and (3) the ethical nature of God, His thirteen attributes.5 The prophets, as we shall see, added (4) His self-manifestation in history,6 and (5) a nogah,7 or radiance, which was enlarged by P into (6) a variety of physical phenomena accompanying a theophany, such as fire and cloud.8 This physical manifestation, medieval Jewish philosophers sought to refine, to apply the process of kedushah to the notion of a physical kavod, so that Saadia produced his theory of a "created light" and a "second air."9 The Psalms added still another
See H. A. Wolfson, Spinoza, II, 311. See I Sam. 4.22; Num. 24.22; Ex. 33.18; 34.5-7. P too uses for glory through miracles the expression riynz n'nzin which comp. with Ezek. 39.13. 6 See e. g. Isa. 59.10. 7 See e. g. Ezek. 1.28. 8 Ex. 16.7, 10; 24.17; 40.34, 35; Lev. 9.6; Num. 14.10; 16.19; I Kings 8.11. See also Ex. 29.43. 9 See Saadia, Emunot we-deot, II, 10, and his Commentary on Sefer ed. Lambert, p. 94; and also Maimonides, Moreh Nebukim, Ye,virah, I 5, 10, 18, 19, 21.
4 5

368

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

meaning, namely (7) His self-revelation in the beauty and harmony of the Cosmos: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the earth showeth His handiwork."Io

III. RELATED IDEAS

These two concepts constitute focal points, around each of which cluster attitudes on such problems as the chief attribute of God, the existence of angels, and the selection of Israel. 1. The thirteen attributes (Ex. 34.6-7) really resolve themselves into two: mercy and justice (nvi m'i:nnirT n-rr i",,). It is obvious however that justice flows more directly from kedushah, and mercy -from kavod. For justice is objective. It is a law of moral causality: sin inevitably leads to suffering as any physical cause leads to a physical effect. It was on this law that the prophets based all their predictions concerning the destiny of nations. Later on they were sometimes shaken in their trust and cried out against the defying facts of life (see e. g. Jer. 12.1), and the whole book of Job was devoted to this problem; but they could not relinquish it, because all their faith and understanding of history were involved in this law. Justice then works automatically like any law in nature and needs no divine interference. Mercy on the other hand is subjective. Here the judge appears on the scene and momentarily halts the wheel of justice and reveals himself in pity and atonement. This quality then is related to kavod; and Spinoza saw clearly when he said: "this love or blessedness is called Glory." It is God and man in miraculous nearness. 2. In the Glory-passage of Ex. 33.12-23, God yields to
'0

Ps. 19.20. See also Ps. 24.10; 29.3. 9

HOLINESS AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE-EFROS

369

the plea of Moses: My Face shall go with thee (Ex. 33.15). Whatever is meant by "Face," it is undoubtedly a higher degree of divine intimacy than an angel and represents the deepest longing of kavod. This is echoed in DeuteroIsaiah 63.9, where the LXX has the more correct reading: "No messenger nor angel, His Face saved them."", But angels too, though intermediaries, would be favored by kavodin the Bible as a form of divinity in self-manifestation. Indeed medieval Jewish thinkers called them Glories (kevodim).2 Qedushah however would object to angelic appearances, as too anthropomorphic, even as J and E in their time objected to statements of God's personal appearance and substituted angels for it, though not always effacing the earlier traces. A distinction however must be made between angels and celestial beings like the Seraphim and the host of heaven. The former are sent down on earth and therefore are anthropomorphic; while the latter, the Qedoshim, the transcendent one, even Qedusha would accept. 3. Universalism harmonizes more with the idea of holiness, whereas the doctrine of the covenant and the selection of Israel are more in line with kavod, for it insists on the particular manifestation of God in Israel and interferes with the even and impartial law of moral causality.

IV. Two

SCHOOLS

We are now ready to trace all these four concepts in the thoughts of the great prophets. We shall see how these thoughts arrange themselves like iron-filings around the
-

The LXX reading is

i1"

ItAwi,

tH .onnx i::

yvlon l

nr

OlyTrl.
12 See Kifib ma'ani al-nafs, ed. I. Goldziher, p. 37*, and my "Some Aspects of Yehudah Halevi's Mysticism," pp. 38-39.

370

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

positive and negative poles, some of them nearer to the opposite camp and some of them occupying the extremes. 1. Amos and Hosea may be said to have started the two schools of thought: holiness and glory, respectively. They do not yet use these terms. Indeed, once Hosea uses the term qadosh, but in a sense which converts it to the idea of kavod: wirp Inpn, within thee is the Holy One (Hos. a watchword which, as we shall soon see, was 11.9)taken up both by people and prophet and had varied implications. Amos speaks in the spirit of stern justice; Hosea in lovingkindness and mercy. Amos never refers to angels, Hosea does refer to them calling them elohim (Hos. 12.-5). Amos takes a universalistic attitude. "Are you not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, 0 children of Israel? saith the Lord" (Amos 9.7). He does not deny the election of Israel, but the election only means the operation of the law of moral causality with greater force (Amos 3.2). The covenant between God and Israel he never mentions. Hosea on the other hand speaks of a covenant of complete security. Heaven and earth will combine for greater fertility, and there will be a personal, intimate relationship, a betrothal in lovingkindness and in mercy, which, from the human end, Hosea (4.1, 6; 6.6) sometimes terms t'Ur%inyr not in the sense of philosophical knowledge but, as parallel to n denoting love and union with God. Thus Amos starts the school of holiness, and Hosea - the school of glory. 2. Isaiah follows Amos and gives fuller development to the thought of that school. His term for God is orrpand iww w'rp. In the Seraphic song (Isa. 6.3), the thrice repeated word qadosh indicates absolute transcendence, and the term kavod in the second distich no longer means a physical manifestation but is sublimated to mean God's majesty and power unfolding themselves in history and is

HOLINESS

AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE-EFROS

371

echoed in Num. 14.21 (JE). But this is the only time he uses the concept of kavod;I3 his message is transcendence, so that the word qadosh is synonymous with "high" and
'exalted."
14

Nor does he ever use the word -mn or t3inr1'5but rather

LDswt. "The Lord is a God of judgment" (Isa. 30.18).

And he never refers to angels, Isa. 37.36 being taken from the histories; but of course he speaks of the Seraphim, to which, as already stated, in so far as they are not sent down on earth 'to appear in human flesh, the concept of Holiness does not object. As for universalism, his vision is the universal recognition of God and a spiritual alliance "whom the Lord shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance" (Isa. 19.24-25). Perhaps no sharper implication of the equality of all mankind can be found anywhere else. And he does not even mention the covenant, except in a general sense of law (Isa. 24.5; 33.8). Thus Isaiah may be taken as the great exponent of the qedushah-school. 3. Prima facie Jeremiah derives from Isaiah and Amos. He uses the term %rnwv wzrp. There is also an opinion that he may have had a part in the "hiding" of the Ark of the Covenant,'6 which was called Glory.'7 Indeed he makes some disparaging remarks about the Ark and the Temple.'8 But all this was an attempt to eliminate a false sense of
irr ;n;n (Isa. 35.2) is generally regarded I3 The expression 'n nm.z together with its entire section as belonging to Deutero-Isaiah. I4 See Isa. 5.16, rTp-mm vi-p wri-prnw tommmnnwmx'n nmn', where Wi-p 11 rmr'l, and wri7- ~iR 11 ninx
I5

'n.

In Isa. 30.18, the idea is that He will hold back His mercy. Isa. 14.1 is generally taken to be by a later prophet. I6 See Meir Ish-Shalom, jirmr mv p'ri, in Hashiloah, XIII, 511-549,
and Neumark's
I7

inwm n'-up,y nr,iln, p. 49.

See I Sam. 4.21-22, wn;mIrim np'ir

Jer. 3.16-17; 7.14.

z 'bv

ivnmz

rr).

I8

372

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

security pinned to something which was in danger of becoming a fetish. The idea of kavod he does not deny. The whole of Jerusalem becomes the Throne of Glory.'9 And together with the Deuteronomic school he reechoes Hosea's watchword in the outcry: "And Thou art in our midst, 0 Lord," i. e. the in-dwelling of God.20 It is important to compare Micah with Zephaniah with reference to this clause in order to understand the atmospheric change from the times of Isaiah to the times of Jeremiah. Micah (3.11) complains of the moral chaos of the people who at the same time are sure that no retribution will come, and refers probably to the Ark or to the Temple, in the challenge sy:1 13by 14inn t6 m-ipn 'n t6n. In Zephaniah,after more than a century, we find the people in a different mood. The Ark is gone, and the people begin to think that God is too qadosh, too transcendent to care, that "the Lord will not do good, neither will he do evil" (Zeph. 1.12). This is not atheism but too much transcendentism. Similarly Jer. 5.12; Ezek. 8.12; 9.9; Mal. 2.17; and Ps. 10.4; 14.1. And therefore Zephaniah (1.5) refers to them as rymmmi'i, C oby t3zinz, that is, those who resort for their material benefits to the local deities as a sort of vice-regents or the Lord's representatives on earth. Now was the time for a new emphasis on the in-dwelling Lord, and this is what Zephaniah (3.5, 15, 17), Jeremiah, and the Deuteronomists effected, and this is kavod. It is noteworthy in this connection that Deuteronomy never speaks of God as holy but only of the people as holy to God. Jeremiah never refers to angels; but in the light of Zephaniah's reference to those "who swear by the Lord and swear by Milcom," we may have an explanation for
'9 I-mmz mDz i::n im (Jer. 14.21). See also Jer. 3.16, oiin mnz mm. ri and Jer. 17.12: lpWmDnn N 1D: iW.np'
20

17 m'mm ny:

See Jer. 14.9, and comp. Deut. 7.21; 9.3; 23.15.

HOLINESS AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE-EFROS

373

this too. For these be'alim, these local deities, performed the functions of angels, so that a belief in angels would provide the ideological basis for their faith in these deities. in Mal. 3.1, from the Thus Gressman2l drives ni-nn jn Ba'al-Berith of the Shechemites (Judg. 8.33; 9.4, 46). At any rate the elimination of angels only makes for that more intimate contact craved by Moses in Ex. 33.14-15. The clause D by yzr occurs in the inaugural visions of both Isaiah and Jeremiah, but in the latter it is a touch by the very hand of God. Otherwise Jeremiah entirely follows Hosea. Tried as he was in the crucible of suffering at the hands of the aristocracy, it was not justice that he pursued but mercy. His i' (3.12), and many are the God Himself proclaimsUK 'vIon passages that sing in the very tone and with the tenderness of Hosea. His breaking with the old belief that God visits the sins of fathers upon the children was also inspired by lovingkindness (31.26-29). And he also follows Hosea in his promise of a new, intimate, and eternal covenant between Israel and God, as unshaken as the laws of nature. (31.30-33; 32.40; 33.20, 21, 25, 26; 50.5) 4. But the chief prophet of kavod and of all its implications is Ezekiel. He never uses qadosh except once in the phrase wirvW'rnp (39.7) which echoes the above-mentioned Hoseanic watchword and which converts it to mean immanence.22 He also uses the expression 7rrp nw23 to indicate God's concern that His Holy Name be known or be not profaned, but here too the word ow gives it the sense of the manifestation of holiness, i. e. the sense of glory. He never
Gressman, Eschatologie,202; "Malachi," Int. Crit. Com., p. 63. The expression in Isa. 12.6 Riv" Vrrp lxInpmi1vT3'z is generally regardedas a post-exilic psalm. 23 Ezek. 20.39; 36.20, 21, 22; 39.7, 25; 43.7-8. This expression is also a favorite of P. For the parallelismof ov with rnn, see Isa. 43.7; 59.19.
21 22

374

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY

REVIEW

'-I used by all the prophets, but also uses the term n51MX avoided by Hosea, and denoting sublimity.24 His favorite term is 'ir rn-1, and his main interest is God as revealed. In the inaugural vision of Isaiah it is the hems of His garment that fill the Temple, meaning the manifestation of God in the universe. Here, in Ezekiel, the manifestation is more intimate, more personal. God Himself is halfway indwelling and halfway transcendent. This seems to be the meaning of Ezekiel's division of the Man on the Throne into hashmal from His loins upwards and fire from His loins downwards. And it is the nogah and the rainbow-colors around the fire of the lower half, that is, of the immanent God, that constitute the Glory.25 This world therefore shares, though in a fainter degree, the very essence of divinity, and the splendor of the indwelling God may be experienced by a prophet in a physical sensation. But the term Glory also denotes something that all people can seeGod revealing Himself in the affairs of nations.26 Hence the prophet's zeal for the above-mentioned Holy Name that it be not profaned, i. e. misunderstood, and also his tirelessly repeated refrain "and they shall know that I am the Lord;" for without this knowledge the Glory is gone. It is generally believed that Ezekiel admitted the existence of angels into his faith. Perhaps his Cherubim need not be classed together with Isaiah's Seraphim. Noteworthy in this connection is the fact that, unlike the Seraphim, these are placed under "the firmament" and that they seem to be composite beings. They may therefore be only symbols of the orders of life on earth, even as
See Isa. 59.19 where oWparallelsrnnz. Ezek. 1.26-28. The usual interpretationis that the mnencompasses the whole appearanceof the Man on the Throne, but the Targum's renderingseems to be correct. 26 See Ezek. 39.21, and comp. Isa. 66.19. See also Ps. 97.6; I Chron. 16.24.
24
25

HOLINESS AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE-EFROS

375

the ofannim with their many-eyed rims were not meant to be the angels of a later age but only symbolic of matter which supports life but is in itself also alive. One cannot help being impressed with the symbolic character of the whole vision of the Chariot. But the six men with the destroying tools and the man clothed with linen (ch. 9) and the man whose appearance was like brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and who speaks to the prophet (ch. 40)these seem to be visions of angels sent down on earth, the kind which, as said above, kavod would favor and kedushah - reject. Ezekiel is an angry prophet, and many are the harsh words expressed against "the house of rebellion," but the attribute of lovingkindness and mercy enters also into his philosophy, if not for the sake of Israel, then for the sake of the Holy Name that it be not profaned and that it be known in the world. It is this spirit which permeates particularly chapters 36 and 37, the latter with its vision of the dry bones. And like Jeremiah he speaks of the eternal Covenant, borrowing words directly from Hosea to describe what he calls twice tniw n-n (Comp. Ezek. 34.25; 37.24, with Hos. 2.20), and he also emphasizes the personal relationship between Israel and God (Ezek. 37.2428). Thus Ezekiel on all these questions takes a stand opposite to that of Isaiah. 5. In Deutero-Isaiah however we find the refiner and harmonizer-of the two schools. His favorite term is, like that of Isaiah, twir' wrip, and he stresses the transcendence and incomparability of God. "To whom will ye liken Me or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One" (Isa. 40.25). He also reverts to the term nlKNs 'i. But he avails himself of Ezekiel's term 'i -nin, dwelling to a greater extent than has been done before on the Glory unfolding itself in history.27
27

Isa. 40.5; 58.8; 59.19; 60.1; 66.19.

376

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

He does not refer to angels,28in the usual sense of the term, but elevates the prophets to angelhood.29 As to the divine attribute, this prophet is entirely on the side of comfort and mercy. He is the bearer of good tidings. But the term that he uses so frequently and with a deeper meaning than the usual is pirs or rlp'r, and his God is p'rix,30 whereas Jeremiah's God was -r'n. The terms 9wo and ion of Amos and Hosea respectively carry a limited immediacy, and -ron seems an interference with the free course of moral causality, God as it were interfering with Himself. But the term pirs commands a wider vista and denotes a triumph of God's plan in history, in international vicissitudes, in which the flnnn? i", as Deutero-Isaiah states, unveils Himself as a Savior.3' In this term the dichotomy of judgment and lovingkindness is elevated and resolved. The word p"ls means triumphant. Also in the question of universalism vs. nationalism there are an elevation and reconciliation. Surely all the chapters of this prophet are permeated with an ardent feeling for the chosenness of his people. He speaks of God's glory shining upon Israel (60.1-3), about Israel being called by His name and created for His glory (43.7), and about the regathering being an act of God's glory (55.8); though he sometimes re-integrates Ezekiel's angry thought that salvation will come only for the sake of God's name (48.11). He speaks of the "eternal covenant" of Jeremiah-Ezekiel and of the "peace-covenant" of Ezekiel.32 But he adds a new term
28 As for Isa. 63.9, the LXX seems to have the correct reading, which see n. 11. 29 See Isa. 42.19; 44.26. As for p'ri and rrp'i, 30 For the term p"r, see Isa. 41.26; 45.21, 49.24. see particularly Isa. 41.2, 10; 42.6; 45.8, 13, 23; 51.5-9; 59.17; 61.10, 11; 62.2; 63.1. In some of these references it is parallel to inyir. 31 See Isa. 45.15. 32 Isa. 54.10; 55.3; 59.21; 61.8.

HOLINESS AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE-EFROS

377

a covenant of mankind,33 so that the very term which has heretofore implied Election achieves the meaning of universalism. Israel is to be the bearer of the covenant of mankind, and "a light for Gentiles."34 It is this combination of a belief in Israel's uniqueness and a concern for all ,rnny,35 which takes mankind which inspired his theory of 'n over the thought of Amos 3.2, that there is a special connection between the election of Israel and the punishment of its sins36 and he develops it into the doctrine that the Servant "shall be exalted and extolled and be very high" through vicarious suffering, through being the sacrifice for the world's iniquities. Here the Glory which is in Israel becomes reconciled with the Holiness which regards equally all mankind, and judgment itself becomes, in a divine mystery, lovingkindness. Thus we see how the two schools of thought, started by Amos and Hosea, found their protagonists in Isaiah on the one hand and in Jeremiah and Ezekiel on the other, and how they were combined in a lofty harmony by DeuteroIsaiah. In the prophecy of the second commonwealth the school of kavod triumphed, but the conflict between the two basic tendencies continues in talmudic literature, in medieval Jewish philosophy, and in the two mystic movements: Cabbalah and Hasidism.
y nrin,

33 Isa. 42.6; 49.8. In 42.5, oy =mankind. Jesaja, ad loc. 34 See Isa. 42.6; 49.6. 35 Isa. 52.13-53.12. 36 Comp. Prov. 3.12.

See Karl Marti, Das Buch