Joash or Jehoash

Of the author we know only what we can infer from his work. That he was a lover and a keen observer of nature is evident. He was also conversant with the conditions and problems of hu man life, in the desert and in the city, and had either travelled widely or listened attentively to the reports of travellers. What he heard and saw, moreover, entered into his soul ; he thought and felt profoundly. And he had a divine gift of utterance. Beyond this we cannot safely go. Like many others whose work is im mortal, he himself is forgotten.

History of the Problem.

So long as primitive man believed that the beings to whose anger he attributed his misfortunes were capricious and irresponsible, there was no problem of divine jus tice. Even when men worshipped an ethical deity, who dealt with them according to their deeds, they might explain undeserved calamities by the malignity of other gods or spirits. Only when they believed their god to be omnipotent was this impossible. The problem of divine justice therefore presupposes ethical monotheism.

The early Hebrew prophets and historians felt no problem, because they thought in terms of the nation, which had sinned. The problem of individual retribution emerges with Jeremiah. Unable to understand why his fidelity only brought persecution, while sinners were at ease, Jeremiah found strength to endure in consecration to his task and communion with God. Many of the Psalms emphasize the oppression of the righteous by the wicked, though it is not clear whether individuals are meant or Israel and its enemies. The Psalmists complain of God's ap parent indifference, but neither question nor defend His justice. Intermediate between national and individual retribution was the doctrine that men suffered for their fathers sins. This seemed to explain undeserved suffering ; but to meet the objection that it was unfair, Ezekiel unequivocally asserts exact individual retribu tion. Whether the book of Ezekiel belongs to the exile or a later period, this doctrine was an accepted tenet of post-exilic Judaism and as such underlies all the Wisdom literature. It sets the problem for the book of Job.

When experience did not verify the doctrine, most of the Jews found comfort in believing that undeserved affliction and happiness were temporary (Ps. xxxiv., xxxvii., lxxiii.). The pros perity of the wicked was explained as part of God's plan for their destruction (Ps. xcii.) ; no explanation was attempted for the suffering of the faithful. For the nation promises of renewed

glory were made by Ezekiel and Isaiah xl. seq. The latter also had an explanation for Israel's afflictions: as the Servant of the Lord, Israel suffered that the Gentiles might be saved. But appar ently this was not generally accepted. Ps. xxii., though dependent upon Is. xl. seq., has not the doctrine of vicarious suffering, nor is the idea developed in any of the later books of the Old Testa ment.

The period following the exile was one of hope deferred. Hag gai and Zechariah traced the people's misfortunes to failure to rebuild the temple ; when this was done, they repeated the earlier promises. Scepticism was evidently rife when Malachi wrote, but again we have only promises without explanation. Habbakuk complains of Israel's oppression by a wicked nation, and the answer is that deliverance will come at the appointed time. Con tinued frustration forced the Jews to look beyond this life. In Ps. xlix. and lxxiii. the righteous sufferer takes refuge in a rela tionship with God which is apparently regarded as outlasting death. This conception is not found elsewhere in the Old Testa ment. More congenial to Judaism was the idea of resurrection, which played a prominent part in the apocalyptic hopes of the Greek and Roman periods. Only the beginnings of this develop ment are found in the Old Testament (Is. xxvi. 19; Dan. xii. 2). In Daniel Israel is still the primary object of concern, though righteous and wicked within the nation are distinguished and the ideal of martyrdom is introduced. The book of Ecclesiastes shows that there were some who had no satisfying hope for the future. They could meet the problem only by resignation to the inevitable and unquestioning enjoyment of the good things in life, with a reasonable degree of piety and virtue.

While still largely attributing Israel's sufferings to the sins of the people and their fathers, a few books suggest another explana tion. Zechariah represents "the Satan" as a supernatural enemy of God's servants. In the extra-canonical book of Enoch the na tions are governed by angels who are responsible for wrongs done to Israel, and this may be the meaning of the "gods" of Ps. lxxxii. I, 6 seq. (cf. lviii. 1, RV margin), the "high ones" of Is. xxiv. 21, and the "princes" of Dan. x. 13, 20; xii. 1. Doubtless all this reflects popular theology. In effect it is a reversion to prim itive conceptions.