CHAPTER XIX

_LEPERS_

iv. 13-16

Passing from the fate of the princes to that of the prophets and

priests, we come upon a vividly dramatic scene in the streets of

Jerusalem amid the terror and confusion that precede the final act of

the national tragedy. The doom of the city is attributed to the crimes

of her religious leaders, whose true characters are now laid bare. The

citizens shrink from the guilty men with the loathing felt for lepers,

and shriek to them to depart, calling them unclean, and warning them

not to touch any one by the way, because there is blood upon them.

Dreading the awful treatment measured out to the victims of lynch-law,

they stagger through the streets in a state of bewilderment, and

stumble like blind men. Fugitives and vagabonds, with the mark of Cain

upon them, driven out at the gates by the impatient mob, they can find

no refuge even in foreign lands, for none of the nations will receive

them.

We do not know whether the poet is here describing actual events, or

whether this is an imaginary picture designed to express his own

feelings with regard to the persons concerned. The situation is

perfectly natural, and what is narrated may very well have happened

just as it is described. But if it is not history it is still a

revelation of character, a representation of what the writer knows to

be the conduct of the moral lepers, and their deserts; and as such it

is most suggestive.

In the first place there is much significance in the fact that the

overthrow of Jerusalem is unhesitatingly charged to the account of the

sins of her prophets and priests. These once venerated men are not

merely no longer protected by the sanctity of their offices from the

accusations that are brought against the laity; they are singled out

for a charge of exceptionally heinous wickedness which is regarded as

the root cause of all the troubles that have fallen upon the Jews. The

second elegy had affirmed the failure of the prophets and the vanity

of their visions.[251] This new and stronger accusation reads like a

reminiscence of Jeremiah, who repeatedly speaks of the sins of the

clerical class and the mischief resulting therefrom.[252] Evidently

the terrible truth the prophet dwelt upon so much was felt by a

disciple of his school to be of the most serious consequence.

[251] ii. 9, 14.

[252] Jer. vi. 13; viii. 10; xxiii. 11, 14; xxvi. 7 ff.

The accusation is of the very gravest character. These religious

leaders are charged with murder. If the elegist is recording

historical occurrences he may be alluding to riots in which the feuds

of rival factions had issued in bloodshed; or he may have had

information of private acts of assassination. His language points to a

condition in Jerusalem similar to that which was found in Rome at the

Fifteenth Century, when popes and cardinals were the greatest

criminals. The crimes were aggravated by the fact that the victims

selected were the "righteous," perhaps men of the Jeremiah party, who

had been persecuted by the officials of the State religion. But quite

apart from these dark and tragic events, the record of which has not

been preserved, if the wicked policy of their clergy had brought down

on the heads of the citizens of Jerusalem the mass of calamities that

accompanied the siege of the city by the Babylonians, this policy was

in itself a cause of great bloodshed. The men who invited the ruin of

their city were in reality the murderers of all who perished in that

calamity. We know from Jeremiah's statements on the subject that the

false, time-serving, popular prophets were deceivers of the people,

who allayed alarm by means of lies, saying "peace, peace; when there

was no peace."[253] When the deception was discovered their angry

dupes would naturally hold them responsible for the results of their

wickedness.

[253] Jer. vi. 14; viii. 11.

The sin of these religious leaders of Israel consists essentially in

betraying a sacred trust. The priest is in charge of the

_Torah_--traditional or written; he must have been unfaithful to his

law or he could not have led his people astray. If the prophet's

claims are valid this man is the messenger of Jehovah, and therefore

he must have falsified his message in order to delude his audience;

if, however, he has not himself heard the Divine voice he is no better

than a dervish, and in pretending to speak with the authority of an

ambassador from heaven he is behaving as a miserable charlatan. In the

case now before us the motive for the practice of deceit is very

evident. It is thirst for popularity. Truth, right, God's will--these

imperial authorities count for nothing, because the favour of the

people is reckoned as everything. No doubt there are times when the

temptation to descend to untruthfulness in the discharge of a public

function is peculiarly pressing. When party feeling is roused, or when

a mad panic has taken possession of a community, it is exceedingly

difficult to resist the current and maintain what one knows to be

right in conflict with the popular movement. But in its more common

occurrence this treachery cannot plead any such excuse. That truth

should be trampled under foot and souls endangered merely to enable a

public speaker to refresh his vanity with the music of applause is

about the most despicable exhibition of selfishness imaginable. If a

man who has been set in a place of trust prostitutes his privileges

simply to win admiration for his oratory, or at most in order to avoid

the discomfort of unpopularity or the disappointment of neglect, his

sin is unpardonable.

The one form of unfaithfulness on the part of these religious leaders

of Israel of which we are specially informed is their refusal to warn

their reckless fellow-citizens of the approach of danger, or to bring

home to their hearer's consciences the guilt of the sin for which the

impending doom was the just punishment. They are the prototypes of

those writers and preachers who smooth over the unpleasant facts of

life. It is not easy for any one to wear the mantle of Elijah, or echo

the stern desert voice of John the Baptist. Men who covet popularity

do not care to be reckoned pessimists; and when the gloomy truth is

not flattering to their hearers they are sorely tempted to pass on to

more congenial topics. This was apparent in the Deistic optimism that

almost stifled spiritual life during the Eighteenth Century. Our age

is far from being optimistic; and yet the same temptation threatens to

smother religion to-day. In an aristocratic age the sycophant flatters

the great; in a democratic age he flatters the people--who are then

in fact the great. The peculiar danger of our own day is that the

preacher should simply echo popular cries, and voice the demands of

the majority irrespective of the question of their justice. Thrust

into the position of a social leader with more urgency than his

predecessors of any time since the age of the Hebrew prophets, it is

expected that he will lead whither the people wish to go, and if he

declines to do so he is denounced as retrograde. And yet as the

messenger of Heaven he should consider it his supreme duty to reveal

the whole counsel of God, to speak for truth and righteousness, and

therefore to condemn the sins of the democracy equally with the sins

of the aristocracy. Brave labour-leaders have fallen into disfavour

for telling working-men that their worst enemies were their own

vices--such as intemperance. The wickedness of a responsible teacher

who treasonably neglects thus to warn his brethren of danger is

powerfully expressed by Ezekiel's clear, antithetical statements

concerning the respective guilt of the watchman and his

fellow-citizen, which show conclusively that the greatest burden of

blame must rest on the unfaithful watchman.[254]

[254] Ezek. iii. 16-21.

In the hour of their exposure these wretched prophets and priests lose

all sense of dignity, even lose their self-possession, and stumble

about like blind men, helpless and bewildered. Their behaviour

suggests the idea that they must be drunk with the blood they have

shed, or overcome by the intoxication of their thirst for blood; but

the explanation is that they cannot lift up their heads to look a

neighbour in the face, because all their little devices have been torn

to shreds, all their specious lies detected, all their empty promises

falsified. This shame of dethroned popularity is the greatest

humiliation. The unhappy man who has brought himself to live on the

breath of fame cannot hide his fall in oblivion and obscurity as a

private person may do. Standing in the full blaze of the world's

observation which he has so eagerly focussed on himself, he has no

alternative but to exchange the glory of popularity for the ignominy

of notoriety.

Possibly the confusion consequent on their exposure is all that the

poet is thinking of when he depicts the blind staggering of the

prophets and priests. But it is not unreasonable to take this picture

as an illustration of their moral condition, especially after the

references to the faults of the prophets in the second elegy have

directed our attention to their spiritual darkness and the vanity of

their visions. When the refuge of lies in which they had trusted was

swept away they would necessarily find themselves lost and helpless.

They had so long worshipped falsehood, it had become so much their god

that we might say, in it they had lived, and moved, and had their

being. But now they have lost the very atmosphere of their lives. This

is the penalty of deceit. The man who begins by using it as his tool

becomes in time its victim. At first he lies with his eyes open; but

the sure effect of this conduct is that his sight becomes dim and

blurred, till, if he persist in the fatal course long enough, he is

ultimately reduced to a condition of blindness. Joy continually mixing

truth and falsehood together he loses the power of distinguishing

between them. It may be supposed that at an earlier stage of their

decline, if the religious leaders of Israel had been honest with

regard to their own convictions they must have admitted the possible

genuineness of those prophets of ruin whom they had persecuted in

deference to popular clamour. But they had rejected all such unwelcome

thoughts so persistently that in course of time they had lost the

perception of them. Therefore when the truth was flashed upon their

unwilling minds by the unquestionable revelation of events they were

as helpless as bats and owls suddenly driven out into the daylight by

an earthquake that has flung down the crumbling ruins in which they

had been sheltering themselves.

The discovery of the true character of these men was the signal for a

yell of execration on the part of the people by flattering whom they

had obtained their livelihood, or at least all that they most valued

in life. This too must have been another shock of surprise to them.

Had they believed in the essential fickleness of popular favour, they

would never have built their hopes upon so precarious a foundation,

for they might as well have set up their dwelling on the strand that

would be flooded at the next turn of the tide. History is strewn with

the wreckage of fallen popular reputations of all degrees of merit,

from that of the conscientious martyr who had always looked to higher

ends than the applause which once encircled him, to that of the

frivolous child of fortune who had known of nothing better than the

world's empty admiration. We see this both in Savonarola martyred at

the stake and in Beau Nash starved in a garret. There is no more

pathetic scene to be gathered from the story of religion in the

present century than that of Edward Irving, once the idol of society,

subsequently deserted by fashion, stationing himself at a street

corner to proclaim his message to a chance congregation of idlers; and

his mistake was that of an honest man who had been misled by a

delusion. Incomparably worse is the fate of the fallen favourite who

has no honesty of conviction with which to comfort himself when

frowned at by the heartless world that had recently fawned upon him.

The Jews show their disgust and horror for their former leaders by

pelting them with the leper call. According to the law the leper must

go with rent clothes and flowing hair, and his face partly covered,

crying, "Unclean, unclean."[255] It is evident that the poet has this

familiar mournful cry in his mind when he describes the treatment of

the prophets and priests. And yet there is a difference. The leper is

to utter the humiliating word himself; but in the case now before us

it is flung after the outcast leaders by their pitiless

fellow-citizens. The alteration is not without significance. The

miserable victim of bodily disease could not hope to disguise his

condition. "White as snow," his well-known complaint was patent to

every eye. But it is otherwise with the spiritual leprosy, sin. For a

time it may be disguised, a hidden fire in the breast. When it is

evident to others, too often the last man to perceive it is the

offender himself; and when he himself is inwardly conscious of guilt

he is tempted to wear a cloak of denial before the world. More

especially is this the case with one who has been accustomed to make a

profession of religion, and most of all with a religious leader. While

the publican who has no character to sustain will smite his breast

with self-reproaches and cry for mercy, the professional saint is

blind to his own sins, partly no doubt because to admit their

existence would be to shatter his profession.

[255] Lev. xiii. 45.

But if the religious leader is slow to confess or even perceive his

guilt, the world is keen to detect it and swift to cast it in his

teeth. There is nothing that excites so much loathing; and justly so,

for there is nothing that does so much harm. Such conduct is the chief

provocative of practical scepticism. It matters not that the logic is

unsound; men will draw rough and ready conclusions. If the leaders are

corrupt the hasty inference is that the cause which is identified with

their names must also be corrupt. Religion suffers more from the

hypocrisy of some of her avowed champions than from the attacks of all

the hosts of her pronounced foes. Accordingly a righteous indignation

assails those who work such deadly mischief. But less commendable

motives urge men in the same direction. Evil itself steals a triumph

over good in the downfall of its counterfeit. If they knew themselves

there must have been some hypocrisy on the side of the persecutors in

the demonstrative zeal with which they hounded to death the once

pampered children of fortune the moment they had fallen from the

pedestal of respectability; for could these indignant champions of

virtue deny that they had been willing accomplices in the deeds they

so loudly denounced? or at least that they had not been reluctant to

be pleasantly deceived, had not enquired too nicely into the

credentials of the flatterers who had spoken smooth things to them?

Considering what their own conduct had been, their eagerness in

execrating the wickedness of their leaders was almost indecent. There

is a Pecksniffian air about it. It suggests a sly hope that by thus

placing themselves on the side of outraged virtue they were putting

their own characters beyond the suspicion of criticism. They seem to

have been too eager to make scapegoats of their clergy. Their action

appears to show that they had some idea that even at the eleventh hour

the city might be spared if it were rid of this plague of the

blood-stained prophets and priests. And yet however various and

questionable the motives of the assailants may have been, there is no

escape from the conclusion that the wickedness they denounced so

eagerly richly deserved the most severe condemnation. Wherever we meet

with it, this is the leprosy of society. Disguised for a time, a

secret canker in the breast of unsuspected men, it is certain to break

out at length; and when it is discovered it merits a measure of

indignation proportionate to the previous deception.

Exile is the doom of these guilty prophets and priests. But even in

their banishment they can find no place of rest. They wander from one

foreign nation to another; they are permitted to stay with none of

them. Unlike our English pretenders who were allowed to take up their

abode among the enemies of their country, these Jews were suspected

and disliked wherever they went. They had been unfaithful to Jehovah;

yet they could not proclaim themselves devotees of Baal. The heathen

were not prepared to draw fine distinctions between the various

factions in the Israelite camp. The world only scoffs at the quarrels

of the sects. Moreover, these false, worthless leaders had been the

zealots of national feeling in the old boastful days when Jeremiah had

been denounced by their party as a traitor. Then they had been the

most exclusive of the Jews. As they had made their bed so must they

lie on it. The poet suggests no term to this melancholy fate. Perhaps

while he was writing his elegy the wretched men were to his own

knowledge still journeying wearily from place to place. Thus like the

fratricide Cain, like the wandering Jew of mediæval legend, the

fallen leaders of the religion of Israel find their punishment in a

doom of perpetual homelessness. Is it too severe a penalty for the

fatal deceit that wrought death, and so was equivalent to murder of

the worst sort, cold-blooded, deliberate murder? There is a perfectly

Dantesque appropriateness in it. The Inferno of the popularity-mongers

is a homeless desert of unpopularity. Quiet, retiring souls and dreamy

lovers of nature might derive rest and refreshment from a hermit life

in the wilderness. Not so these slaves of society. Deprived of the

support of their surrounding element--like jelly-fish flung on to the

beach to shrivel up and perish--in banishment from city life such men

must experience a total collapse. Just in proportion to the hollowness

and unreality with which a man has made the pursuit of the world's

applause the chief object of his life, is the dismal fate he will have

to endure when, having sown the wind of vanity, he reaps the whirlwind

of indignation. The ill-will of his fellow-men is hard to bear; but

behind it is the far more terrible wrath of God, whose judgment the

miserable time-server has totally ignored while sedulously cultivating

the favour of the world.

The Expositor's Bible: The Song of Solomon and the Lamentations of Jeremiah · 第 19 / 24 章