Whether the Torah conceives of Jehovah's love for Israel as absolute
Whether the Torah conceives of Jehovah's love for Israel as absolute(TOC)
Somewhat more difficult it is to answer two other questions, viz., whether the Torah conceives of Jehovah's love for Israel as absolute or conditioned by causes outside of Himself, and in how far the other attributes, such as wrath and justice, which are plainly conditioned in their nature, affect its operation. As regards the first origin of this love, it is easy to show that this is absolute, in that it springs from God independently of any excellent qualities, ethical or otherwise, which might be naturally inherent in Israel. It is explicitly denied that Jehovah set His love upon them because they were more in number than any other people (Deuteronomy 7:7). The influence of ethical considerations in attracting God's choice to Israel is plainly excluded by the repeated statement that He knew them for a stiff- necked and rebellious people, and that, while the Canaanites were driven out from the land because of their unrighteousness, it is by no means followed from this that Israel took their place because of its righteousness (Deuteronomy 9:4, 6, 24). Thus the motives determining Jehovah's love for Israel are sought in Himself alone. The only apparent exception to this is that the ancient love for the fathers is said to lie at the basis of God's favor for the people of the Mosaic period. But in reality this only carries the sovereign initiative of the relationship on the part of God one step further back. If He loved the posterity because He was faithful to His love for the patriarchs, His love for the patriarchs originated from Himself alone. On the other hand, it must be confessed that the permanent enjoyment of the special favor of God is made throughout dependent on faithful performance of the covenant obligations by Israel, and in so far, therefore, appears ethically conditioned. It is true, according to the evolutionary hypothesis at present in vogue, the bestowal or withdrawal of Jehovah's favor was, in the pre-prophetic period, conceived of as a matter of pure incalculable caprice, because the stage of evolution had not yet been reached in which the ethical element in the divine character began to be regarded as central and supreme. But this, of course, rests on the opinion that those parts of the Pentateuch in which the statements under review occur belong to a much later than the Mosaic period, and reflect the ascendancy of the prophetic ideas. Hence we may safely discard it for our present purpose. It is universally acknowledged that the law as a whole, to whatever age its several documents may belong, represents the attitude of Jehovah toward Israel as governed by strictly ethical considerations. He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of them that hate Him, and shows mercy unto them that love Him and keep His commandments. He proclaims Himself in the ears of Moses Jehovah God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. But not only is the divine attitude represented as varying according to the varying conduct of individuals or families among Israel, with reference to the entire nation also the possibility of the favor of Jehovah being succeeded by His displeasure, owing to apostasy on a national scale, is contemplated. Both the prophetic chapter appended to the book of Leviticus and the discourses in Deuteronomy are explicit on this point. Nevertheless a difference is to be observed between the manner in which the judgment to be brought upon the nation in its organic capacity is spoken of and the expressions used with reference to the punishment of individuals. While the issue of the latter is final destruction, and consequently the process leading to this purely retributive (Deuteronomy 29:21), the national judgment has for its goal the ultimate conversion of Israel, and is characterized as bearing the nature of chastisement rather than that of retribution. It must be conceded that this distinction is not everywhere drawn with equal clearness, and sometimes even the divine procedure against the nation is referred to in terms of retribution as well as of discipline.[2] The law in this respect speaks the language of ordinary human life: its method is that of a father who, while fully intending to inflict punishment for the good of his child, yet naturally, in referring to it for the sake of warning, speaks of it as a just recompense for evil. It belongs also to the anthropomorphic mode of expression when the anger of Jehovah is said to replace or extinguish His love, and conversely the return of His favor is described as a repentance, or explained from the sudden remembrance of His covenant that comes to Him after the tempest of wrath has spent its force. The Semitic habit, above alluded to, of regarding the divine attributes as modes of action rather than as psychological dispositions facilitated this manner of speech. In the midst of all, however, the important fact remains, that a real continuity is ascribed to Jehovah's covenant love for Israel. Whatever His outward attitude may be, the affection in His heart survives. The renewal of the covenant after the captivity, which is looked forward to in the prophetic discourses of the law, is on every occasion derived from the sovereign love of Jehovah alone. That such a renewal remains possible, notwithstanding the rigor with which the plan of the covenant makes its perpetuity dependent on obedience, is plainly due to the sovereign origin of the covenant in the beginning. God reserves for Himself the right to do in the future what He did in the past, viz., to love Israel freely and thus to introduce into His dealings with them a principle which cannot be explained from the ethical structure of the covenant itself. To be sure, even here the interests of God's moral government are carefully safeguarded, lest they should suffer detriment from the operation of this sovereign principle. The renewal of the covenant does not take place except after previous repentance. Such repentance, however, besides being the gift of God (Deuteronomy 30:6), is but the prerequisite, by no means the meritorious cause, of Israel's restoration to favor. The law always gives as the true ground of the latter God's sovereign love (Leviticus 26:44, 45; Deuteronomy 4:31).