_AN APPEAL FOR GOD'S COMPASSION_
v. 1-10
Unlike its predecessors, the fifth and last elegy is not an acrostic.
There is little to be gained by a discussion of the various
conjectures that have been put forth to account for this change of
style: as that the _crescendo_ movement which reached its climax in
the third elegy was followed by a _decrescendo_ movement, the
conclusion of which became more prosaic; that the feelings of the poet
having been calmed down during the composition of the main part of his
work, he did not require the restraints of an exceptionally artificial
method any longer; that such a method was not so becoming in a prayer
to God as it had been in the utterance of a lament. In answer to these
suggestions, it may be remarked that some of the choicest poetry in
the book occurs at the close of this last chapter, that the acrostic
was taken before as a sign that the writer had his feelings well under
command, and that prayers appear repeatedly in the alphabetical poems.
Is it not enough to say that in all probability the elegies were
composed on different occasions, and that when they were put together
it was natural that one in which the author had not chosen to bind
himself down to the peculiarly rigorous method employed in the rest
of the book should have been placed at the end? Even here we have a
reminiscence of the acrostic; for the poem consists of twenty-two
verses--the number of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet.
It is to be observed, further, as regards the form of this elegy, that
the author now adopts the parallelism which is the characteristic note
of most Hebrew poetry. The Revisers break up the poem into two-line
verses. But, more strictly considered, each verse consists of one long
line divided into two mutually balancing parts. Thus, while the third
elegy consists of triplets, and the fourth of couplets, the fifth is
still more brief, with its single line verses. In fact, while the
ideas and sentiments are still elegiac and very like those found in
the rest of the book, in structure this poem is more assimilated to
the poetry contained in other parts of the Bible.
From beginning to end the fifth elegy is directly addressed to God.
Brief ejaculatory prayers are frequent in the earlier poems, and the
third elegy contains two longer appeals to God; but this last poem
differs from the others in being entirely a prayer. And yet it does
not consist of a string of petitions. It is a meditation in the
presence of God, or, more accurately described, an account of the
condition of the Jews spread out before God in order to secure His
compassion. In the freedom and fulness of his utterance the poet
reveals himself as a man who is not unfamiliar with the habit of
prayer. It is of course only the delusion of the Pharisees to suppose
that a prayer is valuable in proportion to its length. But on the
other hand, it is clear that a person who is unaccustomed to prayer
halts and stumbles because he does not feel at home in addressing
God. It is only with a friend that we can converse in perfect freedom.
One who has treated God as a stranger will be necessarily stiff and
constrained in the Divine presence. It is not enough to assure such a
person that God is His Father. A son may feel peculiarly uncomfortable
with his own father if he has lived long in separation and alienation
from his home. Freedom in the expression of confidences is a sure
measure of the extent to which friendship is carried. Of course some
people are more reserved than others; but still as in the same person
his different degrees of openness or reserve with different people
will mark his relative intimacy of friendship with them, so when a man
has long accustomed himself to believe in the presence and sympathy of
God, and has cultivated the habit of communing with his Father in
heaven, his prayers will not be confined to set petitions; he will
tell his Father whatever is in his heart. This we have already seen
was what the elegist had learnt to do. But in the last of his poems he
expresses more explicit and continuous confidences. He will have God
know everything.
The prayer opens with a striking phrase--"Remember, O Lord," etc. The
miserable condition of the Jews suggests to the imagination, if not to
the reason, that God must have forgotten His people. It cannot be
supposed that the elegist conceived of his God as Elijah mockingly
described their silent, unresponsive divinity to the frantic priests
of Baal, or that he imagined that Jehovah was really indifferent,
after the manner of the denizens of the Epicurean Olympus.
Nevertheless, neither philosophy nor even theology wholly determines
the form of an earnest man's prayers. In practice it is impossible not
to speak according to appearances. The aspect of affairs is sometimes
such as to force home the feeling that God must have deserted the
sufferer, or how could He have permitted the misery to continue
unchecked? A dogmatic statement of the Divine omniscience, although it
may not be disputed, will not remove the painful impression, nor will
the most absolute demonstration of the goodness of God, of His love
and faithfulness; because the overwhelming influence of things visible
and tangible so fully occupies the mind that it has not room to
receive unseen, spiritual realities. Therefore, though not to the
reason still to the feelings, it is as though God had indeed forgotten
His children in their deep distress.
Under such circumstances the first requisite is the assurance that God
should remember the sufferers whom He appears to be neglecting. He
never really neglects any of His creatures, and His attention is the
all-sufficient security that deliverance must be at hand. But this is
a truth that does not satisfy us in the bare statement of it. It must
be absorbed, and permitted to permeate wide regions of consciousness,
in order that it may be an actual power in the life. That, however, is
only the subjective effect of the thought of the Divine remembrance.
The poet is thinking of external actions. Evidently the aim of his
prayer is to secure the attention of God as a sure preliminary to a
Divine interposition. But even with this end in view the fact that God
remembers is enough.
In appealing for God's attention the elegist first makes mention of
the _reproach_ that has come upon Israel. This reference to
humiliation rather than to suffering as the primary ground of
complaint may be accounted for by the fact that the glory of God is
frequently taken as a reason for the blessing of His people. That is
done for His "name's sake."[270] Then the ruin of the Jews is
derogatory to the honour of their Divine Protector. The peculiar
relation of Israel to God also underlies the complaint of the second
verse, in which the land is described as "our inheritance," with an
evident allusion to the idea that it was received as a donation from
God, not acquired in any ordinary human fashion. A great wrong has
been done, apparently in contravention of the ordinance of Heaven. The
Divine inheritance has been turned over to strangers. The very homes
of the Jews are in the hands of aliens. From their property the poet
passes on to the condition of the persons of the sufferers. The Jews
are orphans; they have lost their fathers, and their mothers are
widows. This seems to indicate that the writer considered himself to
belong to the younger generation of the Jews,--that, at an events, he
was not an elderly man. But it is not easy to determine how far his
words are to be read literally. No doubt the slaughter of the war had
carried off many heads of families, and left a number of women and
children in the condition here described. But the language of poetry
would allow of a more general interpretation. All the Jews felt
desolate as orphans and widows. Perhaps there is some thought of the
loss of God, the supreme Father of Israel. Whether this was in the
mind of the poet or not, the cry to God to remember His people plainly
implies that His sheltering presence was not now consciously
experienced. Our Lord foresaw that His departure would smite His
disciples with orphanage if He did not return to them.[271] Men who
have hardened themselves in a state of separation from God fail to
recognise their forlorn condition; but that is no occasion for
congratulation, for the family that never misses its father can never
have known the joys of true home life. Children of God's house can
have no greater sorrow than to lose their heavenly Father's presence.
[270] For example, Jer. xiv. 7.
[271] John xiv. 18.
A peculiarly annoying injustice to which the Jews were subjected by
their harsh masters consisted in the fact that they were compelled to
buy permission to collect firewood from their own land and to draw
water from their own wells.[272] The elegist deplores this grievance
as part of the reproach of his people. The mere pecuniary fine of a
series of petty exactions is not the chief part of the evil. It is not
the pain of flesh that rouses a man's indignation on receiving a slap
in the face; it is the insult that stings. There was more than insult
in this grinding down of the conquered nation; and the indignities to
which the Jews were subjected were only too much in accord with the
facts of their fallen state. This particular exaction was an
unmistakable symptom of the abject servitude into which they had been
reduced.
[272] v. 4.
The series of illustrations of the degradation of Israel seems to be
arranged somewhat in the order of time and in accordance with the
movements of the people. Thus, after describing the state of the Jews
in their own land, the poet next follows the fortunes of his people
in exile. There is no mercy for them in their flight. The words in
which the miseries of this time are referred to are somewhat obscure.
The phrase in the Authorised Version, "Our necks are under
persecution,"[273] is rendered by the Revisers, "Our pursuers are
upon our necks." It would seem to mean that the hunt is so close that
fugitives are on the point of being captured; or perhaps that they are
made to bow their heads in defeat as their captors seize them. But a
proposed emendation substitutes the word "yoke" for "pursuers." If we
may venture to accept this as a conjectural improvement--and later
critics indulge themselves in more freedom in the handling of the text
than was formerly permitted--the line points to the burden of
captivity. The next line favours this idea, since it dwells on the
utter weariness of the miserable fugitives. There is no rest for them.
Palestine is a difficult country to travel in, and the wilderness
south and east of Jerusalem is especially trying. The hills are steep
and the roads rocky; for a multitude of famine-stricken men, women,
and children, driven out over this homeless waste, a country that
taxes the strength of the traveller for pleasure could not but be most
exhausting. But the worst weariness is not muscular. Tired souls are
more weary than tired bodies. The yoke of shame and servitude is more
crushing than any amount of physical labour. On the other hand the
yoke of Jesus is easy not because little work is expected of
Christians, but for the more satisfactory reason that, being given in
exchange for the fearful burden of sin, it is borne willingly and even
joyously as a badge of honour.
[273] v. 5.
Finally, in their exile the Jews are not free from molestation. In
order to obtain bread they must abase themselves before the people of
the land. The fugitives in the south must do homage to the Egyptians;
the captives in the east to me Assyrians.[274] Here, then, at the
very last stage of the series of miseries, shame and humiliation are
the principal grievances deplored. At every point there is a reproach,
and to this feature of the whole situation God's attention is
especially directed.
[274] v. 6.
Now the elegist turns aside to a reflection on the cause of all this
evil. It is attributed to the sins of previous generations. The
present sufferers are bearing the iniquities of their fathers. Here
several points call for a brief notice. In the first place, the very
form of the language is significant. What is meant by the phrase to
_bear iniquity_? Strange mystical meanings are sometimes imported into
it, such as an actual transference of sin, or at least a taking over
of guilt. This is asserted of the sin-offering in the law, and then of
the sin-bearing of Jesus Christ on the cross. It would indicate
shallow ways of thinking to say that the simple and obvious meaning of
an expression in one place is the only signification it is ever
capable of conveying. A common process in the development of language
is for words and phrases that originally contained only plain physical
meanings to acquire in course of time deeper and more spiritual
associations. We can never fathom all that is meant by the statement
that Christ "His own self bare our sins in His body upon the
tree."[275] Still it is well to observe that there is a plain sense in
which the Hebrew phrase was used. It is clear in the case now before
us, at all events, that the poet had no mystical ideas in mind. When
he said that the children bore the sins of their fathers he simply
meant that they reaped the consequences of those sins. The expression
can mean nothing else here. It would be well, then, to remember this
very simple explanation of it when we are engaged with the discussion
of other and more difficult passages in which it occurs.
[275] 1 Peter ii. 24.
But if the language is perfectly unambiguous the doctrine it implies
is far from being easy to accept. On the face of it, it seems to be
glaringly unjust. And yet whether we can reconcile it with our ideas
of what is equitable or not there can be no doubt that it states a
terrible truth; we gain nothing by blinking the fact. It was perfectly
clear to people of the time of the captivity that they were suffering
for the persistent misconduct of their ancestors during a succession
of generations. Long before this the Jews had been warned of the
danger of continued rebellion against the will of God. Thus the nation
had been treasuring up wrath for the day of wrath. The forbearance
which permitted the first offenders to die in peace before the day of
reckoning would assume another character for the unhappy generation on
whose head the long-pent-up flood at length descended. It is not
enough to urge in reply that the threat of the second commandment to
visit the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and
fourth generation was for _them that hate God_; because it is not
primarily their own conduct, but the sins of their ancestors, in which
the reason for punishing the later generations is found. If these sins
were exactly repeated the influence of their parents would make the
personal guilt of the later offenders less, not more, than that of the
originators of the evil line. Besides, in the case of the Jews there
had been some amendment. Josiah's reformation had been very
disappointing; and yet the awful wickedness of the reign of Manasseh
had not been repeated. The gross idolatry of the earlier times and the
cruelties of Moloch worship had disappeared. At least, it must be
admitted, they were no longer common practices of court and people.
The publication of so great an inspired work as the Book of
Deuteronomy had wrought a marked effect on the religion and morals of
the Jews. The age which was called upon to receive the payment for the
national sins was not really so wicked as some of the ages that had
earned it. The same thing is seen in private life. There is nothing
that more distresses the author of these poems than the sufferings of
innocent children in the siege of Jerusalem. We are frequently
confronted with evidences of the fact that the vices of parents
inflict poverty, dishonour, and disease on their families. This is
just what the elegist means when he writes of children bearing the
iniquities of their fathers. The fact cannot be disputed.
Often as the problem that here starts up afresh has been discussed, no
really satisfactory solution of it has ever been forthcoming. We must
admit that we are face to face with one of the most profound mysteries
of providence. But we may detect some glints of light in the darkness.
Thus, as we have seen on the occasion of a previous reference to this
question,[276] the fundamental principle in accordance with which
these perplexing results are brought about is clearly one which on the
whole makes for the highest welfare of mankind. That one generation
should hand on the fruit of its activity to another is essential to
the very idea of progress. The law of heredity and the various
influences that go to make up the evil results in the case before us
work powerfully for good under other circumstances; and that the
balance is certainly on the side of good, is proved by the fact that
the world is moving forward, not backward, as would be the case if the
balance of hereditary influence was on the side of evil. Therefore it
would be disastrous in the extreme for the laws that pass on the
punishment of sin to successive generations to be abolished; the
abolition of them would stop the chariot of progress. Then we have
seen that the solidarity of the race necessitates both mutual
influences in the present and the continuance of influence from one
age to another. The great unit _Man_ is far more than the sum of the
little units _men_. We must endure the disadvantages of a system which
is so essential to the good of man. This, however, is but to fall back
on the Leibnitzian theory of the best of all _possible_ worlds. It is
not an absolute vindication of the justice of whatever happens--an
attainment quite beyond our reach.
[276] Page 151.
But another consideration may shed a ray of light on the problem. The
bearing of the sins of others is for the highest advantage of the
sufferers. It is difficult to think of any more truly elevating
sorrows. They resemble our Lord's passion; and of Him it was said that
He was made perfect through suffering.[277] Without doubt Israel
benefited immensely from the discipline of the Captivity, and we may
be sure that the better "remnant" was most blessed by this experience
although it was primarily designed to be the chastisement of the more
guilty. The Jews were regenerated by the baptism of fire. Then they
could not ultimately complain of the ordeal that issued in so much
good.
[277] Heb. ii. 10.
It is to be observed, however, that there were two currents of thought
with regard to this problem. While most men held to the ancient
orthodoxy, some rose in revolt against the dogma expressed in the
proverb, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth
are set on edge." Just at this time the prophet Ezekiel was inspired
to lead the Jews to a more just conception, with the declaration: "As
I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use
this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the
father, so also the soul of the son is mine: _the soul that sinneth,
it shall die_."[278] This was the new doctrine. But how could it be
made to square with the facts? By strong faith in it the disciples of
the advanced school might bring themselves to believe that the course
of events which had given rise to the old idea would be arrested. But
if so they would be disappointed; for the world goes on in its
unvarying way. Happily, as Christians, we may look for the final
solution in a future life, when all wrongs shall be righted. It is
much to know that in the great hereafter each soul will be judged
simply according to its own character.
[278] Ezek. xviii. 3, 4.
In conclusion, as we follow out the course of the elegy, we find the
same views maintained that were presented earlier. The idea of
ignominy is still harped upon. The Jews complain that they are under
the rule of servants.[279] Satraps were really the Great King's
slaves, often simply household favourites promoted to posts of honour.
Possibly the Jews were put in the power of inferior servants. The
petty tyranny of such persons would be all the more persistently
annoying, if, as often happens, servility to superiors had bred
insolence in bullying the weak; and there was no appeal from the
vexatious tyranny. This complaint would seem to apply to the people
left in the land, for it is the method of the elegist to bring
together scenes from different places as well as scenes from different
times in one picture of concentrated misery. The next point is that
food is only procured at the risk of life "because of the sword of the
wilderness;"[280] which seems to mean that the country is so
disorganised that hordes of Bedouins hover about and attack the
peasants when they venture abroad to gather in their harvest. The
fever of famine is seen on these wretched people; their faces burn as
though they had been scorched at an oven.[281] Such is the general
condition of the Jews, Such is the scene on which God is begged to
look down!
[279] v. 8.
[280] v. 9.
[281] v. 10.