reduced to a state of the most deplorable bondage, but what would be its
effect upon the other nations of the world? It would, in the first
place, deprive all other nations of a Sabbath; for we have already
quoted the law (No. 3, p. 22), which decides, “That a Gentile who keeps
a Sabbath, though it be on one of the week-days is guilty of death,” and
though not to be executed, is yet to be flogged. This would be a very
serious diminution from the happiness of millions of human beings. The
Gentile—who, like the Jew, must earn his bread by the sweat of his brow,
and devote six days to the concerns of the world—requires a day of rest
from secular labours, and cares, and thoughts, to relieve his body and
to refresh his soul, and hold communion with his God. Of this the oral
law would deprive him, or, if his conscience compelled him to sanctify
one day in seven, he would have to purchase his spiritual enjoyment by
corporeal suffering. Many would, no doubt, be terrified at the thought
of the punishment, and all trace of a Sabbath would in time cease
amongst the Gentiles. The multitude would soon be left destitute of
religious instruction, and general vice and misery be the consequence.
This religion, then, of the oral law, would certainly not promote the
happiness of the Gentiles, and they are the overwhelming majority of
mankind: it therefore cannot be of God. But the violent deprivation of a
holy day of rest would be far from producing kindly feelings towards the
Jews. Mankind would rebel against such oppression; and the religion
which commanded it instead of obtaining their reverence, as it ought to
do if true, would become their detestation. This unhappy feeling would
be increased by other similar laws, equally wanting in charity. For
instance—
אין מילדין את הגויה בשבת ואפילו בשכר ואין חוששין לאיבה ואע׳׳פ שאין שם
חילול השם אבל מילדין את בת גר תושב מפני שאנו מצווין להחיותו ואין מחללין
עליה את השבת ׃
“A Gentile woman is not to be delivered upon the Sabbath, not even for
payment, neither is the enmity to be regarded. It is not to be done,
even though no profanation of the Sabbath should be implied. But the
daughter of a sojourning proselyte may be delivered, for we are
commanded to preserve the life of such, but the Sabbath is not to be
profaned on her account.” (Ibid. chap. ii. 12.) We ask every Jew who has
got the heart of a man, whether such a law can be from God? or whether
the religion of which it forms a part can be true? A poor woman, in the
hour of her extremity, is to be left to her fate, simply because she is
an idolatress. The mother and the child are both to be left to perish,
because, either through her own fault, or through the circumstances of
her birth, she has remained ignorant of the true God. But grant, for the
sake of argument, that the mother is so hardened a sinner as to be
beyond the mercies of sinful men, what has the child done, that its life
is to be given as a sport to chance? Is that the way to convert a sinner
from the error of her ways, or to recommend the true religion? The most
besotted of idolaters, who believes at all in a Divine and merciful
being, would pronounce such religion false. A few such cases would soon
spread through the world, and Judaism become the aversion of every heart
that can sympathize with suffering. And thus, if true, it would confirm
all mankind in error. But it cannot be: the religion that comes from God
bears the impress of its author, and teaches such love and kindness that
the practice of it softens, where it does not convert. Its bitterest
enemies must confess that its practical principles are worthy of all
admiration. But there is here a second case, the daughter of a
sojourning proselyte, towards whom the oral law is a little more
lenient, it allows such an one to be delivered, but does not permit the
Sabbath to be profaned on her account. Suppose then that such an one
found herself in the midst of Jews, and after her delivery required the
comfort of a fire or warm food for herself or her infant, or any other
assistance that would imply a breach of the Sabbath, it could not be
done, but for an Israelitess it may be done; can this proceed from Him
who seeks the happiness of all his creatures? It cannot be said that
this is a rare case, for it is easy to show that this is the general
spirit of the oral law:—
היתה חצר שיש בה גוים וישראלים אפילו ישראל אחד ואלף גוים ונפלה עליהם
מפולת מפקחין על הכל מפני ישראל , פירש אחד מהם לחצר אחרת ונפלה אליו אותו
חצר מפקהין עליו שמא זה שפירש היה ישראל והנשארים גוים , נעקרו כולן מחצר
זו לילך לחצר אחרת ובעת עקירתן פירש אחד מהם ונכנס לחצר אחרת ונפלה עליו
מפולת ואין ידוע מי הוא אין מפקחין עליו , שכיון שנעקרו כולם אין כאן ישראל
, וכל הפורש מהן כשהן מהלכין הרי הוא בחזקת שפירש מן הרוב ׃
“If Gentiles and Israelites live together in one court, even if there be
only one Israelite and a thousand Gentiles, and a ruin fall on one of
them, the rubbish is to be cleared away, on account of the Israelite. If
one of them had gone by himself to another court, and that court fell
upon him, the rubbish is also to be cleared away, for perhaps this one
was the Israelite, and the rest were Gentiles. But if they all set out
to go from this court to another court, and during the time of their
moving, one of them separated and went to another court, and a ruin fell
upon him, and it is not known who he is, the rubbish is not to be
cleared away. For as they all moved together, it is certain that the
Israelite was not amongst them; and every one who separated from them,
whilst going, is to be reckoned as belonging to the majority.” (Ibid.
20, 21.) Here the same utter recklessness of Gentile life or comfort is
displayed, and no one will pretend that such laws, if carried into
effect, would promote the happiness of mankind. Accidents, like births,
happen on the Jewish Sabbath as well as on the other days, but if the
oral law had power, the Gentiles to whom any accident happened, might
wait until the Sabbath was over, and must thus lose the only comfort
which is possible on such an occasion. When a man is suffering from
severe bodily injury, there are but two sources of consolation; the one
is the kind and benevolent attentions of man, the other the remembrance
of God’s mercy and goodness, but the oral law cuts off both from the
suffering Gentile. It forbids its disciples to help him, and says at the
same time that this is the law of God. But could the Jews themselves be
happy on that Sabbath, where such an accident occurred, and where they
had left a poor Gentile buried under the ruins of a building? Could they
enjoy peace in the bosom of their family, or could they find holy
pleasure in the prayers of the synagogue when they had left one of God’s
creatures, a fellow-man, to perish in his misery? But this law would
affect more than the individual sufferer, and the few surrounding
spectators. It would prevent all brotherly love between Jews and
Gentiles, and until all men learn the reality of charity, the world
cannot be happy. If it be true that the religion given by God, wherever
it is carried into practice, makes men happy, then the religion of the
oral law cannot be true, for, if practised, it would make, all men
miserable.
Footnote 27:
Hilchoth Shabbath and Hilchoth Eruvin extend from fol. 140 to fol.
226.
No. XXVIII.
FAST FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.
All who believe the Bible look forward, in full assurance of hope, to
that happy period, when Israel shall be gathered from the four corners
of the earth, and restored to the land of their forefathers and the
favour of their God. The days of their mourning shall then be ended, and
their fasts, now observed on account of the misfortunes of the nation,
shall be turned into joy and gladness:—
כה אמר ה׳ צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמיש וצום השביעי וצום העשירי רהרה לבית
יהודה לששו ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים והאמת והשלום אהבו ׃
“Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the fast of the fourth month, and the
fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the
tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful
feasts: therefore love the truth and peace.” (Zech. viii. 19.) At that
time, the prophet goes on to tell us, Jerusalem shall be the metropolis
of the world, and the common centre to which all the nations of the
earth shall flow “to seek the Lord of hosts and to pray before him.” We
Christians believe this as fully, and long for the happy accomplishment
as ardently as the Jews. It would give us unspeakable pleasure to behold
the Jews on that height of moral dignity and glory for which God
destined them, from the first hour that he chose their father Abraham to
be His friend. We desire the arrival of this happy period, for the sake
of the Jews themselves, but surely no Jew will feel offended with us if
we say that we desire it also for our own sakes and for the sake of all
the families of men. We should wish to see Divine truth triumphant, sin
and misery banished, and brotherly love universal, but we see all these
things connected with the restoration of Israel, and the establishment
of the kingdom of God upon earth, and therefore we join with all our
heart in the the most ardent aspirations of the Jewish people, and say,
“Amen” to every prayer that God “would remember his covenant with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that he would also remember the land.”
But, alas! these prayers and wishes and anticipations all remind us that
that happy day is still future. Israel is still scattered among the
nations, and instead of having days of joy and gladness, is about to
observe another solemn day of mourning in remembrance of the desolation
of their city and temple. The ninth of the month of Av is still a fast,
and Rambam thus describes the causes of mourning on that day:—
וט׳ באב ה׳ דברים אירעוּ בו , נגזר על ישראל במדבר שלא יכנסו לארץ , וחרב
הבית בראשונה ובשניה , ונלכדה עיר גדולה וביתר שמה , והיו בה אלפים ורבבות
מישראל , והיה להם מלך גדול רדמו כל ישראל וגדולי החכמים שהוא מלך המשיח ,
ונפל ביד הגוים ונהרגו כולם והיתה צרה גדולה כמו חורבן בית המקדש את ההיכל
ואת סביביו לקיים מה שנאמר ציון שדה תחרש ׃
“On the ninth of Av five things happened. It was decreed in the
wilderness that Israel should not enter into the land. The temple was
destroyed, both the first and second time. The great city named Bither
was taken, and there were in it thousands and tens of thousands of
Israel, and they had a great king, whom all Israel and the greatest of
the wise men imagined to be the King Messiah. But he fell into the hands
of the Gentiles, and the Israelites were all slain, and there was a
great affliction similar to the desolation of the temple. On this same
day, destined for punishment, the wicked Turnus Rufus ploughed up the
sanctuary and the adjacent parts, to fulfil that which is said, ‘Zion
shall be ploughed as a field.’ (Mich. iii. 12.)” (Hilchoth Taanioth, c.
v.) The mere enumeration of all these dreadful inflictions of the
Almighty suggest many and grave topics for reflection, but the most
important of all is, the cause of the last desolation of the temple, and
the present long captivity. To mourn over past misfortunes and to humble
ourselves for past sins, is indeed good and wholesome; but if it does
not teach us how to remedy the one and to avoid the other, it can only
terminate in despair. Every Israelite, therefore, who weeps for the
desolation of the holy and beautiful house where his fathers worshipped,
should also set himself earnestly to inquire into the cause and remedy
of this great calamity. Why was it that the God of mercy desolated his
own house, the only temple that He had in the world built by his own
express command? The idolatry of the nation was the cause of the
destruction of the first temple.
גם כל שרי הכהנים והצם הרבו למעול מעל ככל תועבות הגוים ויטמאו את ה׳ אשר
הקדיש בירושלים , וישלח ה׳ אלהי אבותיהם עליהם ביד מלאכיו השכם ושלוח כי
חמל על עמו ועל מעונו , ויהיו מלעיבים במלאכי האלהם ובוזים דבריו ומתעתעים
בנביאיו עד עלות חמת ה׳ בעמו עד לאין מרפא , ויעל עליהם את מלך כשדים
ויהרוג בחוריהם בחרב בבית מקרשם , ולא חמל על בחור ובתולה זקן וישש הכל נתן
בידו ... וישרפו את בית האלהים וינתצו את חומת ירושלים וכל ארמנותיה שרפו
באש וכל כלי מחמדים להשחים ׃
“Moreover, all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed
very much, after _all the abominations of the heathen_, and polluted the
house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. And the Lord God
of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes and
sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his
dwelling-place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his
words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose
against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon
them the King of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword
in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or
maiden, old man or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his
hand—and they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of
Jerusalem, and burned all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed
all the goodly vessels thereof.” (2 Chron. XXXVI. 14-19.) Here, then,
obstinate idolatry is represented as the cause of the first desolation.
Israel learned and practised the abominations of the heathen, and thus
polluted the temple, and therefore God destroyed the temple and sent
them into captivity. There were no doubt many and other great sins in
Israel, but they are not mentioned, as if to show that nothing short of
wilful and obstinate departure from God could have led him to adopt so
severe a measure. As long as they retained their allegiance to God and
rejected the abominations of the heathen, there was a hope and a
possibility that they might repent of other sins, but when men
obstinately turn away from God, and will not hearken to his warnings,
all hope of repentance is at an end, and there is no alternative but
just judgment. But was this the case in the second temple? Were the Jews
then obstinate idolaters? Had they images amongst them, and did they
pollute the second temple with such abominations of the heathen? No,
rather than bow down to images, they willingly endured every torture,
and offered up even their lives as a sacrifice to the truth, and when
the second temple was destroyed, there was not amongst Israel a single
vestige of idolatry. Never, in the whole course of their history, from
the going forth out of Egypt to that day, was there such an apparently
scrupulous observation of the letter of the law, and never had Israel
had so many learned men devoted to the study of the commandments. What
then could be the cause of the second desolation? It was not idolatry,
but it must have been something equally odious in the sight of God, and
it must have been a sin committed equally by the priests and the people.
You observe that in the above description of the first destruction, it
is said, “All the chief of the priests, and the people transgressed very
much.” If the priests had remained faithful to their God, He would not
have destroyed their temple, for there would have been hope, that, by
their exertions and teaching, the people might be brought to a better
mind. Or, if the people had remained faithful, God would not have
punished the people for the sins of the priests; he would have cut off
the wicked priests and raised up others according to his own heart.
Nothing short of the unanimous wickedness of priests and people could
have brought on so great a calamity. In like manner we infer that the
cause of the second destruction was not any partial wickedness, but some
sin, of which both priests and people were guilty, that drew down that
calamity. And, further, it must have been a sin against which they were
warned by special messengers of God. When the priests and the people
fell into idolatry, God did not immediately destroy the first temple. He
first tried whether they would listen to his warnings and repent, and
therefore “he sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and
sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his
dwelling-place.” Now, surely, when we see that God showed such
compassion, when He was about to send so small a calamity as the seventy
years’ captivity, we may safely infer that he would not bring the more
tremendous judgment of eighteen hundred years’ desolation, without
exhibiting a compassion proportionate to the coming infliction. In the
former case he sent special messengers and prophets to warn them, he
must also have acted similarly before the second destruction. Who, then,
were the messengers and the prophets that warned the Jews of their sin?
The Jews say, that during the second temple there was no prophecy; but
is it possible to imagine that the God of Israel would shut up his
bowels of compassion, and pity neither his people nor his
dwelling-place, but give them both over to the most dreadful visitation
that ever descended on a nation without one word of warning? When he was
about to destroy Nineveh he first sent Jonah to call them to repentance,
and when his judgments were about to descend upon Babylon, the words of
warning were miraculously written on the wall; can we suppose, then,
that God would not have as much mercy on Jerusalem and the Jews as on
Babylon and Nineveh? The supposition is utterly inconsistent with God’s
character and dealings. There must have been prophets who announced the
coming judgment and warned the people of their sin. Who were they, then,
and what was that sin equal to idolatry which priests and people
committed and obstinately persevered in, despite of all warning, and in
which their descendants still persevere? Idolatry is a departure from
the true God, and the setting up a false system of religious worship.
Now it is granted that the Jews did not make images, but did they set up
a false system of worship and religion contrary to the religion of Moses
and the prophets? Let the oral law and the Jewish Prayer-books answer
that question. We have shown in these papers that the oral law,
sanctioned by the Jewish Prayer-books, is directly at variance with the
written Word of God. It teaches the Jews to put trust in amulets,
charms, and magic, which are mere heathenism. It teaches a cruel and
unmerciful system for the Jews, gives false ideas of the character of
God, and actually forbids the Jews to love their Gentile brethren as
themselves. The setting up of this system was the great sin which
priests and people all joined in committing, and in which their
posterity still continue. They were warned against this sin: God sent
them extraordinary messengers, He sent them Jesus of Nazareth, the
prophet like unto Moses, and the Messiah. The great burden of his
preaching was against this false religion, the oral law, but they would
not hearken to his words. Priests and people conspired together to
reject and crucify him. Here, then, was the result of the false system
which they adopted. The oral law was the tree, the rejection of the
Messiah the fruits. But still the Lord had compassion upon his people,
and upon his dwelling-place, he spared them yet for forty years, and in
the meanwhile sent his apostles to warn them and testify against their
iniquity; “but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his
words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose
against his people, till there was no remedy,” and he gave them into the
hands of the Romans. Because they rejected Jesus of Nazareth and his
disciples, the temple and city were desolated. The Jews have been taught
to think that Jesus and his disciples were deceivers, but let them
consider this fact, that, if they were, God himself has sealed the truth
of their assertions by the acts of His Providence. The preservation of
the temple and city to this day would have been incontestable evidence
that they were deceivers. Had no judgments followed upon the crucifixion
of Jesus, it would have been evident to all mankind, that he was not
what he pretended to be. But if he was indeed the Messiah, the strongest
possible attestation that God could give, was the exemplary punishment
of those who crucified him, and this God has given. They crucified
Jesus, and God destroyed the temple and scattered the people. Without
this, the religion of Jesus never could have triumphed as it has done.
If the temple were still standing, and the Jews in their land, they
could point to the temple and say, “See that temple, the monument of
God’s favour and presence, it is still amongst us, and shows that Jesus
could not have been the Messiah. If he had been the Messiah, God would
not have left us this unequivocal testimony of his favour.” But this
proof of their righteousness God has taken away, and that within forty
years after the crucifixion of Jesus; so that God himself has given the
strongest possible attestation to the truth of his claims. Let any
reflective Israelite calmly consider this, that, if Jesus was not what
he claimed to be, his crucifixion was the most meritorious act that the
Jews ever performed. They thereby did what they could to stay the
progress of a false religion that was to overrun the world, and to
uphold the truth; can they, then, suppose that God would punish them for
doing that which was right, and give the sacred sanction of His
providence to him that was doing wrong? When Phinehas, the son of
Eleazar, slew the Israelite and the Midianitish woman with his spear,
the plague was stayed from Israel, and can we imagine that the high
priests who condemned Jesus would have had a less reward if his claims
had been false? If Christianity be not true, then God himself has
interposed to crush the truth, and to build up falsehood. If
Christianity be true, then God could do nothing more to attest its truth
than he has done by the destruction of the temple. There was but one
unanswerable argument against Christianity, and that was the existence
of the temple; but God himself has answered that argument by taking away
the temple, and therefore we infer that as God has done all that he
could to establish the truth of Christianity, it must be true.
The Jews think that if Jesus had been the Messiah, it is impossible that
the priests and learned men of his time could have rejected him. But the
events which they commemorate on the ninth of Av show the untenableness
of this argument. On this day the Jews commemorate, first of all, the
decree that the Israelites should die in the wilderness. And why did
they die in the wilderness? Because they would not believe in Moses.
“And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against
Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had
died in the land of Egypt! or would God that we had died in this
wilderness! And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let
us return into Egypt.” (Numbers XIV. 2.) Yet they had seen the plagues
of Egypt, and they had passed through the Red Sea, and were at that
moment supplied miraculously with food, but for all that they did not
believe, and that “The whole congregation.” Will any Jew say, that this
unbelief proves that Moses was a false prophet? If not, why not? Every
argument, that will prove that the unbelief of that generation is no
argument against the claims of Moses, will equally demonstrate that the
unbelief of the Jews in the time of Jesus is no argument against his
Messiahship. If it was possible for them to disbelieve the word of
Moses, after all that they had seen, it is equally possible that they
should have rejected Christ.
But remark here, it was only the old generation that God sentenced to
die in the wilderness. The children who did not participate in the
unbelief of their fathers entered into the land. Now if anything similar
had happened to the Jews since the destruction of the second temple,
that is, if after a few years’ captivity they had returned to their land
_without becoming Christians_, they might then argue that the rejection
of Jesus was not the sin for which they were exiled. They might say, we
have not become Christians, and yet God has restored us; it is plain
therefore that this was not the cause of the second desolation. But
God’s dealings have been just the reverse. The Jewish nation have gone
on from century to century, fasting and humbling themselves before the
God of their fathers, and yet he does not restore them, a plain token
that they still participate in the sin of their fathers. And a plainer
proof still of the truth of Christianity, for God still continues the
providential act, whereby he originally proved that Christianity was
true. Israel still rejects Christianity, and therefore Israel still
continues in dispersion. The only argument, that could even appear to
prove that the rejection of Jesus was not the cause of the second
desolation, would be the restoration of the Jews in an unconverted
state. But that argument God refuses to grant, and has refused it to his
beloved people for many centuries. If Judaism be true, why should he
thus continue to declare against it? If Christianity be false, why
should he from century to century stamp it with the seal of truth?