holiness and glory in the bible- efros, israel

8/12/2019 Holiness and Glory in the Bible- Efros, Israel

1/16


2/16

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 fundamentalconcepts which, though they tend in opposite directions,

always operated in the history of Jewish philosophy.Indeed their very oppositeness stimulated Jewish thinkingand steered its course. These concepts we may call holiness(qedushah) and glory (kavod), the first lifting the God-ideaever higher, and the second - pulling it back and bringingit down nearer to man. We may also call them trans-cendence and immanence, but we must

understand thatneither one of them ever existed separately, for then weshould have either deism or pantheism, but always moreor less intermingled, and that it is all a question of dom-inance and emphasis. This study will concern itself withthe Bible only.

I. HOLINESS

It is not just one God that the Bible emphasizes, but aunique 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 inter-preted by Rashbam and Ibn Ezra, 'alone,' 'only.' What

this uniqueness is we may learn from the halakic passagesin the Bible, which are clear and stern: "No graven imagenor any likeness of anything in heaven above or in the earthbeneath or in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20.4; Deut.5.8). Nothing so kindles divine jealousy and anger and calls

363


3/16

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, themore sensitive spirits of early Israel did not seek to modify

or refine the image-system but offered a sweeping negativeand posited at first a God who resides in heaven.' Thisnegative, -and all negatives are infinite in extent, -

started them on the road of transcendence until the heavens

too could not longer contain the deity, and the whole courseof Jewish thought became an incessant effort towards an

ever more precise definition of God's spirituality, i. e. anever 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 dis-

covery, 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 elemen-

tary world-matter, from primeval Apsu and Chaos or

from a "movement in the sea."2 Neither, it should beadded, 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

I See W. R. Harper, "Amos and Hosea," Int. Crit. Commentary,XC 1 ff.

2 See John Skinner, "Genesis," Int. Crit. Coni. (1925), pp. 7, 43, 47.


4/16

HOLINESS AND GLORY IN THE BIBLE-EFROS 365

one world; and his Ideas were completely inert like paint-ings in a dream. This applies also to Aristotle's pure Formwhich performed no function except as a final cause andwas entirely inactive - a pagan god contemplating eter-nally its own navel. The element of action and doing neverentered the minds of these thinkers in their theologicalspeculations; they were ashamed of "doing." Only in the

Bible do we have the first proclamation of two activeworlds, with tension between them providing the groundfor the whole religious drama of man.

Words were lacking to express this metaphysical concept,this sublimation and spiritualization of the deity; but in theword qadosh we have an attempt to express both ontologicaland moral transcendence. Three meanings are embeddedin this term which primarily denotes "set aside," "sep-arate." First, separate or unapproachable because ofdanger, 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 ofeven looking at holy objects (Num. 4.20). Second, andperhaps 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, andwhich came between the other two strata of meaning,unapproachable not because of danger but because ofontological and ethical excellence. It is this third sensewhich 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 alsothe opposite tendency to bring the deity back into theworld, a tendency born out of the longing for nearness and

for a responsiveness to our cries in distress. Otherwise, of


5/16


what benefit is He to the world and of what use to man?And here we note a strange and striking phenomenon. Notonly does man crave for the nearness of God, but also Godcraves for the nearness of man. In no other religious workof antiquity does one find God calling incessantly to manas 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 makingof the golden calf, He changes his plan of complete destruc-tion as soon as Moses advances the argument that theEgyptians will misunderstand. Why is He so concernedin man's knowledge? Why does He seem to be knockingon all the windows of the universe and of the human soulin order to be admitted? The answer seems to be that justbecause He is so transcendent, He longs for the concrete.The great Nought - to use a cabbalistic term - craves tobe real, and the key to His reality lies in the soul and in theunderstanding of man. One is tempted to say that Godneeds man even more - because He is so much more-

than man needs God.

Thus the Hidden God becomes a Revealed God. Theformer concept is born out of the infinite negative of holi-ness, out of an intellectual process always denying and

transcending the Here; the latter - out of the longing forcontact and the faith that in some mystic way the Highestcan also be the nearest and dwell among us. Thus the

Revealed God comes out of the hidden man, and theHidden God - from the revealed man.

For this self-manifestation of divinity, we have theBiblical term kavod, which medieval Jewish philosophyidentifies with mnl and nr'lW.3 Spinoza too recognizes the

3 See my study "Some Aspects of Yehudah Halevi's Mysticism," inthe Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. XI

(1941), pp. 39-40.


6/16


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 some-what differently the anthropomorphic statements in theBible. The Talmud and the Jewish medieval philosophersapply to them the dictum "the Torah speaks in thelanguage of man," and Bible-critics discern in them an

earlier stratum. We may say that they represent thekavod-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 divinityrests, like the Ark; (2) signs and miracles, like thoseshown in Egypt and in the wilderness; and (3) the ethicalnature of God, His thirteen attributes.5 The prophets, as

we shall see, added (4) His self-manifestation in history,6and (5) a nogah,7 or radiance, which was enlarged by P

into (6) a variety of physical phenomena accompanyinga theophany, such as fire and cloud.8 This physical mani-

festation, medieval Jewish philosophers sought to refine,to apply the process of kedushah to the notion of a physicalkavod, so that Saadia produced his theory of a "createdlight" and a "second air."9 The Psalms added still another

4 See H. A. Wolfson, Spinoza, II, 311.5 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. withEzek. 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

Ye,virah, d. Lambert, p. 94; and also Maimonides, Moreh Nebukim,

I 5, 10, 18, 19, 21.


7/16


meaning, namely (7) His self-revelation in the beauty andharmony of the Cosmos: "The heavens declare the gloryof 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 chiefattribute of God, the existence of angels, and the selectionof Israel.

1. The thirteen attributes (Ex. 34.6-7) really resolvethemselves into two: mercy and justice (nvi m'i:nnirT -rri",,). It is obvious however that justice flows more directly

from kedushah, and mercy -from kavod. For justice isobjective. It is a law of moral causality: sin inevitablyleads to suffering as any physical cause leads to a physicaleffect. It was on this law that the prophets based all theirpredictions concerning the destiny of nations. Later onthey were sometimes shaken in their trust and cried outagainst the defying facts of life (see e. g. Jer. 12.1), and

the whole book of Job was devoted to this problem; butthey could not relinquish it, because all their faith andunderstanding of history were involved in this law. Justicethen works automatically like any law in nature and needsno divine interference. Mercy on the other hand is sub-jective. Here the judge appears on the scene and momen-

tarilyhalts the wheel of

justiceand reveals himself in

pityand atonement. This quality then is related to kavod;and Spinoza saw clearly when he said: "this love or blessed-ness is called Glory." It is God and man in miraculousnearness.

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


8/16


the plea of Moses: My Face shall go with thee (Ex. 33.15).

Whatever is meant by "Face," it is undoubtedly a higherdegree of divine intimacy than an angel and represents the

deepest longing of kavod. This is echoed in Deutero-

Isaiah 63.9, where the LXX has the more correct reading:

"No messenger nor angel, His Face saved them."", Butangels too, though intermediaries, would be favored by

kavod in 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 appear-

ance 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 Seraphimand the host of heaven. The former are sent down on earthand therefore are anthropomorphic; while the latter, the

Qedoshim, the transcendent one, even Qedusha would

accept.

3. Universalism harmonizes more with the idea of holi-

ness, whereas the doctrine of the covenant and the selectionof 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 thethoughts 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 nrOlyTrl.

12 See Kifib ma'ani al-nafs, ed. I. Goldziher, p. 37*, and my "Some

Aspects of Yehudah Halevi's Mysticism,"pp. 38-39.


9/16


positive and negative poles, some of them nearer to theopposite camp and some of them occupying the extremes.

1. Amos and Hosea may be said to have started the twoschools of thought: holiness and glory, respectively. Theydo not yet use these terms. Indeed, once Hosea uses theterm qadosh, but in a sense which converts it to the ideaof kavod: wirp Inpn, within thee is the Holy One (Hos.

11.9)- a watchword which, as we shall soon see, wastaken up both by people and prophet and had varied impli-cations. Amos speaks in the spirit of stern justice; Hoseain 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 aschildren of the Ethiopians unto me, 0 children of Israel?saith the Lord" (Amos 9.7). He does not deny the electionof 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. Hoseaon the other hand speaks of a covenant of complete secur-

ity. Heaven and earth will combine for greater fertility,

and there will be a personal, intimate relationship, abetrothal in lovingkindness and in mercy, which, from the

human end, Hosea (4.1, 6; 6.6) sometimes terms t'Ur%i nyrnot in the sense of philosophical knowledge but, as parallelto 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 orrp and

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


10/16


echoed in Num. 14.21 (JE). But this is the only time heuses 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 t3inr1'5 but ratherLDswt. "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, towhich, as already stated, in so far as they are not sent downon earth 'to appear in human flesh, the concept of Holinessdoes not object. As for universalism, his vision is theuniversal recognition of God and a spiritual alliance "whomthe Lord shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people,and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inherit-ance" (Isa. 19.24-25). Perhaps no sharper implication ofthe equality of all mankind can be found anywhere else.And he does not even mention the covenant, except in ageneral sense of law (Isa. 24.5; 33.8).

Thus Isaiah may be taken as the great exponent of theqedushah-school.

3. Prima facie Jeremiah derives from Isaiah and Amos.He uses the term %rnwv zrp. There is also an opinion thathe may have had a part in the "hiding" of the Ark of theCovenant,'6 which was called Glory.'7 Indeed he makessome disparaging remarks about the Ark and the Temple.'8But all this was an attempt to eliminate a false sense of

I3 The expression 'n nm.z rr ;n;n (Isa. 35.2) is generally regardedtogether with its entire section as belonging to Deutero-Isaiah.

I4 See Isa. 5.16, rTp-mm i-p wri-prnw tommm nnwmx n nmn', whereWi-p 11 rmr'l, and wri7- ~iR 11 ninx 'n.

I5 In Isa. 30.18, the idea is that He will hold back His mercy. Isa. 14.1is 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 inwm n'-up,y nr,iln, p. 49.

I7 See I Sam. 4.21-22, wn;m Irimp'i r zbv ivnmz rr).I8

Jer. 3.16-17; 7.14.


11/16


security pinned to something which was in danger ofbecoming a fetish. The idea of kavod he does not deny.The whole of Jerusalem becomes the Throne of Glory.'9And together with the Deuteronomic school he reechoesHosea's watchword in the outcry: "And Thou art in ourmidst, 0 Lord," i. e. the in-dwelling of God.20 It is importantto compare Micah with Zephaniah with reference to this

clause in order to understand the atmospheric change fromthe times of Isaiah to the times of Jeremiah. Micah (3.11)complains of the moral chaos of the people who at the sametime are sure that no retribution will come, and refersprobably to the Ark or to the Temple, in the challenge

sy:1 13by 14inn t6 m-ipn 'n t6n. In Zephaniah, after morethan a century, we find the people in a different mood. TheArk is gone, and the people begin to think that God is tooqadosh, too transcendent to care, that "the Lord will notdo good, neither will he do evil" (Zeph. 1.12). This is notatheism but too much transcendentism. Similarly Jer. 5.12;Ezek. 8.12; 9.9; Mal. 2.17; and Ps. 10.4; 14.1. And there-fore Zephaniah (1.5) refers to them as rymmmi Ci, oby

t3zinz, that is, those who resort for their material benefitsto the local deities as a sort of vice-regents or the Lord's

representatives on earth. Now was the time for a newemphasis on the in-dwelling Lord, and this is what Ze-phaniah (3.5, 15, 17), Jeremiah, and the Deuteronomistseffected, and this is kavod. It is noteworthy in this connec-tion that Deuteronomy never speaks of God as holy butonly of the people as holy to God.

Jeremiah never refers to angels; but in the light ofZephaniah's reference to those "who swear by the Lordand swear by Milcom," we may have an explanation for

'9 I-mmz mDz i::n im (Jer. 14.21). See also Jer. 3.16, 17 m'mm y:N 1D: riW.np' and Jer. 17.12: lpWmDnn iin mnzmm.

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


12/16


this too. For these be'alim, these local deities, performedthe functions of angels, so that a belief in angels wouldprovide the ideological basis for their faith in these deities.Thus Gressman2l drives ni-nn jn in Mal. 3.1, from theBa'al-Berith of the Shechemites (Judg. 8.33; 9.4, 46). Atany rate the elimination of angels only makes for thatmore intimate contact craved by Moses in Ex. 33.14-15.

The clause D by yzr occurs in the inaugural visions of bothIsaiah and Jeremiah, but in the latter it is a touch by thevery hand of God.

Otherwise Jeremiah entirely follows Hosea. Tried as hewas in the crucible of suffering at the hands of the aristoc-racy, it was not justice that he pursued but mercy. HisGod Himself proclaims UK 'vIon ' (3.12), and many are thepassages that sing in the very tone and with the tendernessof Hosea. His breaking with the old belief that God visitsthe sins of fathers upon the children was also inspired bylovingkindness (31.26-29). And he also follows Hosea inhis promise of a new, intimate, and eternal covenantbetween 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 implica-

tions is Ezekiel. He never uses qadosh except once in the

phrase wir W'rnp (39.7) which echoes the above-mentionedHoseanic watchword and which converts it to mean imma-nence.22 He also uses the expression 7rrp w23 to indicateGod's concern that His Holy Name be known or be notprofaned, but here too the word ow gives it the sense of themanifestation of holiness, i. e. the sense of glory. He never

21 Gressman, Eschatologie, 202; "Malachi," Int. Crit. Com., p. 63.22 The expression in Isa. 12.6 Riv" Vrrp lxInpm 1vT3 z is generally

regarded as 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 parallelism of ov with rnn, see Isa. 43.7;59.19.


13/16


uses the term n51MX -I used by all the prophets, but also

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 manifestationis more intimate, more personal. God Himself is halfway

indwelling and halfway transcendent. This seems to bethe meaning of Ezekiel's division of the Man on the Throneinto 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 beexperienced by a prophet in a physical sensation. But the

term Glory also denotes something that all people can see-

God 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 repeatedrefrain "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 exist-

ence of angels into his faith. Perhaps his Cherubim need

not be classed together with Isaiah's Seraphim. Note-

worthy 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 there-fore be only symbols of the orders of life on earth, even as

24 See Isa. 59.19 where oWparallels rnnz.25 Ezek. 1.26-28. The usual interpretation s that the mn encompasses

the whole appearance of the Man on the Throne, but the Targum'srendering seems to be correct.

26 See Ezek. 39.21, and comp. Isa. 66.19. See also Ps. 97.6; I Chron.16.24.


14/16


the ofannim with their many-eyed rims were not meant tobe the angels of a later age but only symbolic of matterwhich supports life but is in itself also alive. One cannothelp being impressed with the symbolic character of thewhole vision of the Chariot. But the six men with thedestroying 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, thekind which, as said above, kavod would favor and kedushah- reject.

Ezekiel is an angry prophet, and many are the harshwords expressed against "the house of rebellion," but theattribute of lovingkindness and mercy enters also into hisphilosophy, if not for the sake of Israel, then for the sakeof the Holy Name that it be not profaned and that it beknown in the world. It is this spirit which permeatesparticularly chapters 36 and 37, the latter with its visionof the dry bones. And like Jeremiah he speaks of theeternal 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 thepersonal relationship between Israel and God (Ezek. 37.24-28). Thus Ezekiel on all these questions takes a standopposite to that of Isaiah.

5. In Deutero-Isaiah however we find the refiner andharmonizer-of the two schools. His favorite term is, likethat of Isaiah, twir' wrip, and he stresses the transcendenceand incomparability of God. "To whom will ye liken Meor shall I be equal? saith the Holy One" (Isa. 40.25). Healso reverts to the term nlKNs 'i. But he avails himself ofEzekiel's term 'i -nin, dwelling to a greater extent than hasbeen done before on the Glory unfolding itself in history.27

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


15/16


He does not refer to angels,28 n the usual sense of the term,

but elevates the prophets to angelhood.29As 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 isp'rix,30 whereas Jeremiah's God was -r'n. The terms 9wo

and ion of Amos and Hosea respectively carry a limitedimmediacy, and -ron seems an interference with the free

course of moral causality, God as it were interfering withHimself. 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 speaksof 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, whichsee n. 11.

29 See Isa. 42.19; 44.26.30 For the term p"r, see Isa. 41.26; 45.21, 49.24. As for p'ri and rrp'i,

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.


16/16


y nrin, a covenant of mankind,33 so that the very termwhich has heretofore implied Election achieves the meaningof universalism. Israel is to be the bearer of the covenantof mankind, and "a light for Gentiles."34 It is this combina-tion of a belief in Israel's uniqueness and a concern for allmankind which inspired his theory of 'nrnny,35 which takesover the thought of Amos 3.2, that there is a special con-

nection between the election of Israel and the punishmentof its sins36 and he develops it into the doctrine that theServant "shall be exalted and extolled and be very high"through vicarious suffering, through being the sacrifice forthe world's iniquities. Here the Glory which is in Israelbecomes reconciled with the Holiness which regards equallyall 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 theone hand and in Jeremiah and Ezekiel on the other, andhow they were combined in a lofty harmony by Deutero-Isaiah.

Inthe prophecy

of the second commonwealth the schoolof kavod triumphed, but the conflict between the two basictendencies continues in talmudic literature, in medievalJewish philosophy, and in the two mystic movements:Cabbalah and Hasidism.

33 Isa. 42.6; 49.8. In 42.5, oy =mankind. See Karl Marti, Das BuchJesaja, ad loc.

34 See Isa. 42.6; 49.6.35 Isa. 52.13-53.12.36 Comp. Prov. 3.12.

holiness and glory in the bible- efros, israel

Documents