earliest days. But the state of the deceased, or the "shades,"1 in Sheol or Hades, was in itself a state of unblessedness, not worthy to be called "life"; and only very gradually did the conception of a resurrection make its way among the Jews. What the pious Jew really looked for was life in and with God; that is the "eternal life" which is offered to mankind in both the Old and New Testaments alike. It has been truly said that "the antithesis in the psalmist's mind is not between life here and life hereafter (as we speak), but between life with and life without God; and for the moment, in the consciousness of the blessedness of fellowship with God, death fades from his view." So by degrees the Jew who had come to believe in "the living God" and his own communion with Him, came at last to see that there was involved in this the doctrine of a future life, for the communion could not be broken by death. is, however, often hard to say whether the union of the soul with God, after which the psalmists were feeling, was contemplated by them as consummated in this life. or the next. Such Psalms as xvi., xvii., xlix., and lxxiii., which contain the most exalted language on this subject, have been variously interpreted. But even if we put it at the lowest, they contain "the germ and principle of the doctrine of the resurrection." Still, however we may interpret them, it is clear that the doctrine was no article of faith to the Jews. It formed no part of the creed of the Jewish Church. There could not be a better instance of the manner in which it was worked out by the individual than that given by the Book of

It

1 D', the word is used for the clowλa kaμóvтwy in Job xxvi. 5; Ps. lxxxviii. 11; Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 16; Isa. xiv. 9, xxvi. 14, 19. It signifies properly "relaxed" or "weak."

* Professor Kirkpatrick on the Psalms (Cambridge Bible), vol. ii. p. 274.

The choice of the house of David marks a fresh stage in the development of the hope. From the time of the great promise made to him in 2 Sam. vii., the consummation of the kingdom of God is connected with a king of the line of David, to whom God will be in a special way a "Father," and who shall be in a special way God's Son." But even so, for some considerable period, the thought is rather of a line of kings than of one individual;1 and not till the crisis of the Assyrian invasion in the eighth century do we find that the hope is definitely connected with the thought of a personal Messiah. In the prophecies of Isaiah and Micah we meet for the first time with detailed predictions, which point forward with unmistakeable clearness to a child who should be born, whose name should be called "Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace," and who should reign on the throne of David.2 From this time onward, the evidence of the expectation of a personal Messiah is clear and decisive, and may be traced in the writings of the later prophets, both before and after the Captivity, as well as in later

erroneous reading, nhw for bw. The latter reading is implied in most of the ancient versions, and would give one or other of the following renderings: (1) "Till there come that which is his," or (2) "Till He come whose [it is]." In the latter case there is reference to a personal Messiah, whereas, if the former rendering be adopted, the clause must be regarded as an indeterminate expression of the Messianic hope. See, on the whole passage, S. R. Driver in the Cambridge Journal of Philology, vol. xiv. No. 27, and Spurrell's Notes on Genesis, p. 335 seq.

1 That the thought is primarily of the line in the original promise in 2 Sam. vii. is shown by ver. 14. "I will be his father, and he shall be my son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men." It is impossible to apply these last words to the personal Messiah.

* See especially Isa. vii. 14, ix. 6, 7 and xi. 1-10; Micah iv. 8, v. 2–7. 3 In Jeremiah there are the great prophecies of "the Branch" in xxiii. 5-8, and xxxiii. 14-26, and in Ezekiel there is the promise of "one Shepherd, even my servant David,” ch. xxxiv. 23, xxxvii. 24; cf. ch.

Jewish writings, such as the Book of Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon,1 which never obtained admission within the canon.

Modern criticism may affect the interpretation of particular passages. It may show us that texts which were relied on by the older expositors as prophecies of the Messiah can no longer be appealed to with the same confidence as formerly. It may even involve a rewriting of the whole history of the Messianic hope. But the broad truth stated in the Article will remain untouched by this, for the undeniable fact that, before the Incarnation, the fathers who lived under the Old Covenant had come to look for the "redemption of Israel," and were expecting a personal Messiah of the house of David is sufficient to justify the general statement that "both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man.'

II. The Old Fathers did not look only for
Transitory Promises.

Here again it can scarcely be thought that the Article is designed to close the door to criticism on a subject on which widely different views have been held by devout schplars within the Church, namely, the belief of the Jews, under the Old Dispensation, in a future life beyond the grave. The statement that they are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises can never have xxi. 27, where there is a probable allusion to Gen. xlix. 10. In the prophets of the return from the Captivity, the clearest Messianic prophecies are those in Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12, of "the Branch," which rest on the previous ones of Jeremiah. In Haggai ii. 6-9 the thought of a personal Messiah isiot prominent. See the R. V. "the desirable things of all nations shall crame," for "the desire" of the A.V.

1 See the Book of Enoch, ch. xlv-lvii., which describes the coming of

been intended to compel us to maintain that the doctrine of a future life was clearly taught by Moses. We are expressly told in the New Testament that "life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel,"1 and the whole tendency of modern criticism is to emphasise this by denying that there are sure and certain traces of a belief in a state of future bliss till a comparatively late period in the history of the Jews. It is patent to everyone that the promises of the Mosaic law, as a rule, refer exclusively to this life (see Ex. xx. 12, xxiii. 25-31; Levit. xxvi. etc.), and that length of days and temporal prosperity are the rewards contemplated in it. Moreover, it would seem that throughout the Old Testament, attention is for the most part concentrated on this life. It is "the land of the living" (see Ps. lii. 5; Isa. liii. 8; Jer. xi. 19, etc.). Death is regarded as an evil, and the dread of it is evident even among the best of the Hebrews, so that it has been said with some show of truth that they never spoke of death without a shudder (see Ps. lxxxviii. and Isa. xxxviii. in illustration of this). Nevertheless, while all this is admitted, it must not be forgotten that there is another well. Death is never regarded as annih existence of some sort after death is everywhere assumed in the Old Testament. Dathaners and Abiram go down "alive" into Sheol (Num. xvi. mu 30). Jacob's anticipation that he will go down to Shee (Gen. xxxvii. 35), and the familiar expression that a hizeol to Joseph man was "gathered to his fathers," are origi

side to it as

ilation. An

belief in a "something" beyond this lifter,vidences of a

the chosen ruler of God, and ch. xc., where the Me under the figure of a white bullock. In the Psal

ith e even in the S imp

ssiah is introduced

Messiah of the house of David is spoken of in xvii. 23 Mims of Solomon, the and is for the first time definitely called χριστός Κύριο he E

12 Tim. i 10.

seq. and xviii. 1-9,

1

earliest days. But the state of the deceased, or the "shades," in Sheol or Hades, was in itself a state of unblessedness, not worthy to be called "life"; and only very gradually did the conception of a resurrection make its way among the Jews. What the pious Jew really looked for was life in and with God; that is the "eternal life" which is offered to mankind in both the Old and New Testaments alike. It has been truly said that "the antithesis in the psalmist's mind is not between life here and life hereafter (as we speak), but between life with and life without God; and for the moment, in the consciousness of the blessedness of fellowship with God, death fades from his view." So by degrees the Jew who had come to believe in "the living God" and his own communion with Him, came at last to see that there was involved in this the doctrine of a future life, for the communion could not be broken by death. It is, however, often hard to say whether the union of the soul with God, after which the psalmists were feeling, was contemplated by them as consummated in this life or the next. Such Psalms as xvi., xvii., xlix., and lxxiii., which contain the most exalted language on this subject, have been variously interpreted. But even if we put it at the lowest, they contain "the germ and principle of the doctrine of the resurrection." Still, however we may interpret them, it is clear that the doctrine was no article of faith to the Jews. It formed no part of the creed of e Jewish Church. There could not be a better of the manner in which it was worked out by th thndividual than that given by the Book of

pas
cf. Dice

inct

1 ', the vend is used for the clowλa xaμbvтw in Job xxvi. 5; Ps. lxxxviii. 11; v. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 16; Isa. xiv. 9, xxvi. 14, 19. It signifies properly "relaxed" or "weak."

'Professor Kirkpatrick on the Psalms (Cambridge Bible), vol. ii. p. 274.