What do you think?
Faith of Israel
This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
- GenresTheology
222 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1994
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 9, 2013
The late Dr. H. H. Rowley delivered a series of lectures on “The Faith of Israel” at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia in 1955. Although the lectures were, according to the author, assembled at a rather compressed pace, these explorations toward an Old Testament Theology still hold up very well today. A particularly strong introduction compares a doctor taking a blood sample in order to gain conclusions about one’s current general health, but warns that this is impossible to do with regard to the Old Testament. Rowley suggests that the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) is comprised of so many different sections from so many different eras that it is impossible to take one small section and get a complete picture. In much the same way, the afore-mentioned doctor could not take a blood sample of a child and know exactly what that child would become in the future. So, according to Rowley, the Old Testament has the unity of “growth” rather than “static unity and, to understand the Old Testament, one must consider each section both in relation to the whole and in its uniqueness (p. 14). In this way, Rowley’s introduction immediately refused to oversimplify the task of Old Testament Theology.
Further, while Rowley identified himself as a critical scholar, he refused to close his mind with regard to how God could work in the world. He noted that many critical scholars refuse to believe in the idea of miracle, but “If miracle be defined as divine activity within the world, a belief in its possibility would seem to be fundamental to a belief in God.” (p. 58) By definition, miracles are such an intervention by God that they are neither measurable nor repeatable upon the timetable of humanity—both elements necessary for empirical testing. Of course, Rowley isn’t merely speaking of the theory of “miracle,” he’s noting what Old Testament believers thought of miracle. To him (and I definitely agree), “What is distinctive of Israel’s faith is the belief that God revealed his character in his activity, and that there was a moral purpose governing it.” (p. 59) Unlike many “thrill-seekers” in religion, those looking for the biblical idea of miracle recognize that it occurs when God chooses to get involved for God’s own purpose—not some believer’s or group of believer’s whim.
Another problem people often have with the God revealed in the Old Testament is that God’s “wrath” is regularly portrayed. Rowley shows that there has to be potential wrath in order to conform to the idea of a Holy God who is involved with humanity: “If God were indifferent to the lives of men he would not be a moral being; and if he were indifferent to their well-being he would not be a God of love.” (p. 63)
On the basis of well-being for those God loves, it is clear that “wrath” and “punishment” go hand-in-hand with the idea of discipline. “His disciplineof Israel was not simply the expression of God’s justice, overcoming and setting aside his love for the time being. It was as much the expression of his love as of his justice.” (pp. 64-65) Again, “It is more characteristic of the thought of the Old Testament to regard punishment of sin as disciplinary than as penal, though both figure in its pages.” (p. 90)
Another necessary discussion was the idea of monotheism. There is so much idol worship in the history of Israel that many scholars doubt that teaching on monotheism goes back to Moses. Rowley is convinced that Moses, indeed, planted the seeds of monotheism, but points out that temptations to adopt local and neighboring gods caused ebbs and flows in various eras (p. 71) and that these lapses forced the pre-exilic prophets to repeatedly set forth that Yahweh alone was God and that “…all other gods are non-existent and their idols symbols of unreality.” (p. 72) He cites Isaiah 44:6, 8, 45:5, 18 as representative of this style of teaching. Another footnote quotes J. Lindblom (Werden und Wesen des Alten Testament) in a German statement about the theology of the prophets which I translate as: “God is one, a God not only of Creation, but of all of history, whose sovereign, saving, and personal will directs the run of history to its massive world history target/goal.” (p. 73, n. 1) Rowley also notes the rather uncomfortable existence of images in the sacred precincts—even when the “chosen” protagonist of the narrative is supposed to be teaching against false gods (e.g. Gideon breaking down false altar, but making his own ephod (p. 78) and the bronze serpent (attributed to Moses in Numbers 21) wrongly worshiped in the temple prior to Hezekiah’s destruction of it (2 Kings 18:4—p. 77). This is a troubling tension, but it demonstrates emphatically how easily Canaanite worship could insinuate itself into Israel’s worship.
Naturally, anthropology (study of humanity) is an important part of Old Testament Theology and Rowley doesn’t play around with ideas that “image of God” refers to physical appearance. He places said “image” squarely in terms of functionality: “That he was created in the image of God is the mark of his spiritual exaltation in the purpose of God, and of the honour that God conferred upon him.” (p. 79) He mentions the idea of angels and evil spirits, noting the idea that their function is service or non-service taking place in a different arena (I would say “dimension”—pp. 80-81). The key point is that humanity’s obedience and service to God is entirely for the benefit of fellowship. “Without fellowship there can be no obedience; without the obedience there can be no fellowship. Yet, this is no deadlock from which there can be no release. This fellowship with the God in whose image he was created is open to the man of submissive spirit, the desire of whose heart is to obey.” (p. 83)
After a brief discourse on “spirit” as being tied to both personality and God’s presence, Rowley comes to that which separates humanity and the divine—sin. The Old Testament teaches two basic principles about sin, the first obvious and the second often forgotten. First, “All sin is sin against God.” Second, “All sin is sin against oneself. ‘He who sins against me injures himself.’” (p. 89—the inner quotation is from Proverbs 8:36) With regard to sacrifice as the means of getting rid of sin, Rowley warns against accepting too facile an answer because the origin and meaning of sacrifice cannot be reduced to one simple idea/symbol (pp. 92, 94). But he does clarify the meaning of sacrifice in the context of Israelite religion. I offer this long quotation because it is an outstanding summary.
It was not merely that the animal was a substitute for him [the worshipper], dying in his stead. In its death he was conceived of as dying—not physically, indeed, but spiritually. The death of the animal vividly symbolized his death to whatever stood between him and God, in the case of a sacrifice for sin, or his surrender of himself to God in thankfulness and humility in other cases. …the medium of cleansing for him, or of the fellowship with God which was opened up to him, or the assurance of blessing with which he went away. Sacrifice thus both expressed the spirit of the worshipper and did something for him; it bore his spirit to God and bore to him from God that which he sought and needed. (p. 96)
Rowley goes on to state that salvation and forgiveness were not always associated with sacrifice, giving the example of King David whose murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba could only be cleansed by God’s action (“Yahweh also hath put away thy sin.”—2 Samuel 12:13). As a result, we see that salvation may include sacrifice, but even without sacrifice is “…always the act of God, and it restores the relation between man and God which the sin has broken.” (p. 97)
In the next discussion, Rowley takes on the idea that an Israelite’s piety and sin was completely tied to the corporate identity of Israel prior to the days of Ezekiel and Jeremiah where one had an internalization of the faith (pp. 99-100). He states unequivocally that there was individual accountability prior to these great prophets, identifying Hannah, Isaiah, and Amos in particular (p. 101). Israelites were neither “doctrinaire individualists” nor “doctrinaire collectivists” (pp. 102, 106) in their relationship to God. Obviously, the sins of leaders impact the fate of the entire community, as well (pp. 107-8). He also illustrates the relationship of individual to community in his discussion of the “Suffering Servant,” noting that one cannot accept the either/or of the Servant as either all of Israel or as an individual. The problem with the former is that one passage has the servant on a mission TO Israel and the problem with the latter is that one passage has the servant specifically called Israel. Rowley writes that we must understand the fluid nature of community and individual in the ancient world in that the individual can stand for the whole community as well as pointing to the calling of that community to engage in God’s broader mission (pp. 121-122).
I appreciated the correction of the misnomer that the Old Testament teaches the so-called “prosperity gospel” without any corrective. To be sure, there are numerous proverbs and psalms that suggest that doing the will of God will make one the equivalent of healthy, wealthy, and wise, but even Proverbs 16:8 and 28:6 make it clear that things don’t always work out for those who walk with God (p. 111). On the flip side, Rowley uses Job to make it clear that “suffering cannot prove the sin of the sufferer” but “suffering may be the fruit of his sin. Hence, there may be innocent suffering, though not all suffering is innocent.” (p. 114) In summary of the “suffering” problem, he rightly asserts: “The explanation of Job’s troubles was not given in the divine speech from the whirlwind, and if it had been the book would have lost its message for men who have to suffer in the dark.” (p. 115)
I liked the way Rowley described “The Good Life” (Chapter V) as fellowship with God. He dealt with the sacrificial system and clearly delineated the end of the sacrificial system in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple for Jews and the crucifixion of Christ for Christians (p. 139). He followed up this discussion, however, with a warning that there are considerably more elements to worship than sacrifice. Of those, one could certainly note: experiencing a sense of awe, admitting unworthiness and sin, confession, a cry for cleansing/forgiveness, and a response of praise (pp. 145-6).
Although Rowley noted that Israelite ideas of death differed from the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible and the late traditions, he insisted that life after death is not incompatible with the earlier texts. As he states, “There is no evidence that it was ever part of the faith of Israel that a man wholly ceased to be when his body was laid in the grave. Had it been so there would not have been the concern as to the fate of the body after death which we find in many passages.” (p. 155) Naturally, he cited the passage about King Saul’s body and those of his sons being dishonored upon the wall of Gilboa and Amos’ condemnation of the Moabites burning the bones of the King of Edom to lime. Further, how could they not have believed in a life after death with the experience of Saul at the necromancer who “called up” the ghost of Samuel after his death? In addition, the idea of Sheol is significant because it cannot be equivalent to grave since the dead often stand together (p. 158). Continuing the discussion, Rowley recognizes the ambiguity with regard to personal resurrection in many Old Testament passages (because they could refer to a “national”resurrection), but notes that Daniel’s passage on the resurrection is a paradigm shift (p. 168). Further, there is certainly no ambiguity in Psalm 49:14-15 (p. 171) or the idea of God taking Enoch (p. 173).
Finally, as Rowley rallied for his conclusion, he noted that the Old Testament is always a forward-looking book such that the climax and crown of history would be in the future (p. 177). In general, this expectation was captured in the “Day of the Lord” theology. “While God was believed to be always active on the plane of history, using Nature and men to fulfill his ends, the Day of the Lord was thought of as a day of more direct and clearly manifest action.” (p. 179) And, in case one has a predominantly Zionist perspective, note Rowley’s caution: “It is to be observed that the pictures of the Golden Age are always of a universal character. It was tacitly recognized that there could be no Golden Age for Israel until all men shared it.” (p. 180) Rather than focusing on differences between the “messianic” themes in the Old Testament, he concludes: “All of these approaches to the thought of the Day of the Lord belong together in that they are associated with the establishment of the coming kingdom. The Davidic leader, the Son of Man, the Suffering Servant, all in different ways are linked with the coming of the day when men’s hearts shall be changed and brought into harmony with God’s will, and universal peace and righteousness come amongst men.” (p. 199)
Although The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought is not a complete work of Old Testament Theology, it is a classic work and a significant prolegomena for such an effort. It is critically informed (for its era), but not critically "bound" to the exclusion of common sense. It is an honest and intriguing work by a respected scholar.
Further, while Rowley identified himself as a critical scholar, he refused to close his mind with regard to how God could work in the world. He noted that many critical scholars refuse to believe in the idea of miracle, but “If miracle be defined as divine activity within the world, a belief in its possibility would seem to be fundamental to a belief in God.” (p. 58) By definition, miracles are such an intervention by God that they are neither measurable nor repeatable upon the timetable of humanity—both elements necessary for empirical testing. Of course, Rowley isn’t merely speaking of the theory of “miracle,” he’s noting what Old Testament believers thought of miracle. To him (and I definitely agree), “What is distinctive of Israel’s faith is the belief that God revealed his character in his activity, and that there was a moral purpose governing it.” (p. 59) Unlike many “thrill-seekers” in religion, those looking for the biblical idea of miracle recognize that it occurs when God chooses to get involved for God’s own purpose—not some believer’s or group of believer’s whim.
Another problem people often have with the God revealed in the Old Testament is that God’s “wrath” is regularly portrayed. Rowley shows that there has to be potential wrath in order to conform to the idea of a Holy God who is involved with humanity: “If God were indifferent to the lives of men he would not be a moral being; and if he were indifferent to their well-being he would not be a God of love.” (p. 63)
On the basis of well-being for those God loves, it is clear that “wrath” and “punishment” go hand-in-hand with the idea of discipline. “His disciplineof Israel was not simply the expression of God’s justice, overcoming and setting aside his love for the time being. It was as much the expression of his love as of his justice.” (pp. 64-65) Again, “It is more characteristic of the thought of the Old Testament to regard punishment of sin as disciplinary than as penal, though both figure in its pages.” (p. 90)
Another necessary discussion was the idea of monotheism. There is so much idol worship in the history of Israel that many scholars doubt that teaching on monotheism goes back to Moses. Rowley is convinced that Moses, indeed, planted the seeds of monotheism, but points out that temptations to adopt local and neighboring gods caused ebbs and flows in various eras (p. 71) and that these lapses forced the pre-exilic prophets to repeatedly set forth that Yahweh alone was God and that “…all other gods are non-existent and their idols symbols of unreality.” (p. 72) He cites Isaiah 44:6, 8, 45:5, 18 as representative of this style of teaching. Another footnote quotes J. Lindblom (Werden und Wesen des Alten Testament) in a German statement about the theology of the prophets which I translate as: “God is one, a God not only of Creation, but of all of history, whose sovereign, saving, and personal will directs the run of history to its massive world history target/goal.” (p. 73, n. 1) Rowley also notes the rather uncomfortable existence of images in the sacred precincts—even when the “chosen” protagonist of the narrative is supposed to be teaching against false gods (e.g. Gideon breaking down false altar, but making his own ephod (p. 78) and the bronze serpent (attributed to Moses in Numbers 21) wrongly worshiped in the temple prior to Hezekiah’s destruction of it (2 Kings 18:4—p. 77). This is a troubling tension, but it demonstrates emphatically how easily Canaanite worship could insinuate itself into Israel’s worship.
Naturally, anthropology (study of humanity) is an important part of Old Testament Theology and Rowley doesn’t play around with ideas that “image of God” refers to physical appearance. He places said “image” squarely in terms of functionality: “That he was created in the image of God is the mark of his spiritual exaltation in the purpose of God, and of the honour that God conferred upon him.” (p. 79) He mentions the idea of angels and evil spirits, noting the idea that their function is service or non-service taking place in a different arena (I would say “dimension”—pp. 80-81). The key point is that humanity’s obedience and service to God is entirely for the benefit of fellowship. “Without fellowship there can be no obedience; without the obedience there can be no fellowship. Yet, this is no deadlock from which there can be no release. This fellowship with the God in whose image he was created is open to the man of submissive spirit, the desire of whose heart is to obey.” (p. 83)
After a brief discourse on “spirit” as being tied to both personality and God’s presence, Rowley comes to that which separates humanity and the divine—sin. The Old Testament teaches two basic principles about sin, the first obvious and the second often forgotten. First, “All sin is sin against God.” Second, “All sin is sin against oneself. ‘He who sins against me injures himself.’” (p. 89—the inner quotation is from Proverbs 8:36) With regard to sacrifice as the means of getting rid of sin, Rowley warns against accepting too facile an answer because the origin and meaning of sacrifice cannot be reduced to one simple idea/symbol (pp. 92, 94). But he does clarify the meaning of sacrifice in the context of Israelite religion. I offer this long quotation because it is an outstanding summary.
It was not merely that the animal was a substitute for him [the worshipper], dying in his stead. In its death he was conceived of as dying—not physically, indeed, but spiritually. The death of the animal vividly symbolized his death to whatever stood between him and God, in the case of a sacrifice for sin, or his surrender of himself to God in thankfulness and humility in other cases. …the medium of cleansing for him, or of the fellowship with God which was opened up to him, or the assurance of blessing with which he went away. Sacrifice thus both expressed the spirit of the worshipper and did something for him; it bore his spirit to God and bore to him from God that which he sought and needed. (p. 96)
Rowley goes on to state that salvation and forgiveness were not always associated with sacrifice, giving the example of King David whose murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba could only be cleansed by God’s action (“Yahweh also hath put away thy sin.”—2 Samuel 12:13). As a result, we see that salvation may include sacrifice, but even without sacrifice is “…always the act of God, and it restores the relation between man and God which the sin has broken.” (p. 97)
In the next discussion, Rowley takes on the idea that an Israelite’s piety and sin was completely tied to the corporate identity of Israel prior to the days of Ezekiel and Jeremiah where one had an internalization of the faith (pp. 99-100). He states unequivocally that there was individual accountability prior to these great prophets, identifying Hannah, Isaiah, and Amos in particular (p. 101). Israelites were neither “doctrinaire individualists” nor “doctrinaire collectivists” (pp. 102, 106) in their relationship to God. Obviously, the sins of leaders impact the fate of the entire community, as well (pp. 107-8). He also illustrates the relationship of individual to community in his discussion of the “Suffering Servant,” noting that one cannot accept the either/or of the Servant as either all of Israel or as an individual. The problem with the former is that one passage has the servant on a mission TO Israel and the problem with the latter is that one passage has the servant specifically called Israel. Rowley writes that we must understand the fluid nature of community and individual in the ancient world in that the individual can stand for the whole community as well as pointing to the calling of that community to engage in God’s broader mission (pp. 121-122).
I appreciated the correction of the misnomer that the Old Testament teaches the so-called “prosperity gospel” without any corrective. To be sure, there are numerous proverbs and psalms that suggest that doing the will of God will make one the equivalent of healthy, wealthy, and wise, but even Proverbs 16:8 and 28:6 make it clear that things don’t always work out for those who walk with God (p. 111). On the flip side, Rowley uses Job to make it clear that “suffering cannot prove the sin of the sufferer” but “suffering may be the fruit of his sin. Hence, there may be innocent suffering, though not all suffering is innocent.” (p. 114) In summary of the “suffering” problem, he rightly asserts: “The explanation of Job’s troubles was not given in the divine speech from the whirlwind, and if it had been the book would have lost its message for men who have to suffer in the dark.” (p. 115)
I liked the way Rowley described “The Good Life” (Chapter V) as fellowship with God. He dealt with the sacrificial system and clearly delineated the end of the sacrificial system in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple for Jews and the crucifixion of Christ for Christians (p. 139). He followed up this discussion, however, with a warning that there are considerably more elements to worship than sacrifice. Of those, one could certainly note: experiencing a sense of awe, admitting unworthiness and sin, confession, a cry for cleansing/forgiveness, and a response of praise (pp. 145-6).
Although Rowley noted that Israelite ideas of death differed from the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible and the late traditions, he insisted that life after death is not incompatible with the earlier texts. As he states, “There is no evidence that it was ever part of the faith of Israel that a man wholly ceased to be when his body was laid in the grave. Had it been so there would not have been the concern as to the fate of the body after death which we find in many passages.” (p. 155) Naturally, he cited the passage about King Saul’s body and those of his sons being dishonored upon the wall of Gilboa and Amos’ condemnation of the Moabites burning the bones of the King of Edom to lime. Further, how could they not have believed in a life after death with the experience of Saul at the necromancer who “called up” the ghost of Samuel after his death? In addition, the idea of Sheol is significant because it cannot be equivalent to grave since the dead often stand together (p. 158). Continuing the discussion, Rowley recognizes the ambiguity with regard to personal resurrection in many Old Testament passages (because they could refer to a “national”resurrection), but notes that Daniel’s passage on the resurrection is a paradigm shift (p. 168). Further, there is certainly no ambiguity in Psalm 49:14-15 (p. 171) or the idea of God taking Enoch (p. 173).
Finally, as Rowley rallied for his conclusion, he noted that the Old Testament is always a forward-looking book such that the climax and crown of history would be in the future (p. 177). In general, this expectation was captured in the “Day of the Lord” theology. “While God was believed to be always active on the plane of history, using Nature and men to fulfill his ends, the Day of the Lord was thought of as a day of more direct and clearly manifest action.” (p. 179) And, in case one has a predominantly Zionist perspective, note Rowley’s caution: “It is to be observed that the pictures of the Golden Age are always of a universal character. It was tacitly recognized that there could be no Golden Age for Israel until all men shared it.” (p. 180) Rather than focusing on differences between the “messianic” themes in the Old Testament, he concludes: “All of these approaches to the thought of the Day of the Lord belong together in that they are associated with the establishment of the coming kingdom. The Davidic leader, the Son of Man, the Suffering Servant, all in different ways are linked with the coming of the day when men’s hearts shall be changed and brought into harmony with God’s will, and universal peace and righteousness come amongst men.” (p. 199)
Although The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought is not a complete work of Old Testament Theology, it is a classic work and a significant prolegomena for such an effort. It is critically informed (for its era), but not critically "bound" to the exclusion of common sense. It is an honest and intriguing work by a respected scholar.
January 31, 2020
Inside the hard exterior of The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought sit treasures that stimulate the mind and move the heart. It is an exploration of the grand themes of mankind: creation and communication with our Maker, life and afterlife, morality and meaning. What is particularly refreshing is that Rowley doesn’t venture an opinion on the accuracies or inaccuracies of Israel’s theology. He simply provides the facts, stating what it is that they believed, and along the way provides much information about the historical context in which they lived. It’s quite illuminating and it offers a new (and proper) lens through which to understand the Bible.
April 17, 2017
Great into to Old Testament Theology. He has a few unnecessary critical conclusions, but overall very helpful.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews