of a literary channel for the dissemination of his teaching, which was
of course primarily preaching. This in itself marks a great change.
What was it that led the Prophet to write down the message which he
had delivered? It may have been that there was a tendency towards
literature at that particular period, but even before this the habit
of keeping records must have commenced, while there is evidence of
collections of poems or sagas, such as the Book of Jasher, or the Book
of the Wars of the Lord, being in existence from a very early period.
It is evident therefore that we need some particular occurrence to
account for the adoption of literature as the vehicle of Prophecy. It
has been suggested that the cause is to be sought initially in the
rejection of the message of Amos by those to whom it was delivered:
he was aware of the permanent application of the truths that he had
delivered, and since his own times would not hearken he resolved to
commit them to the verdict of posterity. The example once set, it was
natural for the succeeding Prophets to wish to give something more
than the fleeting character of the spoken word to teaching that was
new and that had been rejected, and therefore to adopt this form (Isa.
viii. 16 f.). Whatever the cause, we are thankful for the results.
The channel chosen for the preservation of their messages was not
purely literary; the form is not that of the essay, or thesis; it has
not the studied elegance of poetry, yet it rises above prose, and
rhythmic verse is found scattered throughout their writings. These
reports of passionate oratory fall naturally into poetic form as the
Prophet is carried away by his message. Especially do we find a very
extensive use of symbolism, which has proved a trap into which the
literalist has hastened to fall.
The relation of the Prophets to the State is difficult for us
accurately to appreciate. Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha headed what were
practically popular revolutions; in them nationalism overshadows the
universally religious, or the purely moral ideal. To appreciate the
contrast that the literary Prophets present to this, a careful study
should be made of 2 Kings ix. 7-10; x. 30, and this compared with the
verdict of Hosea, which rises above the standard of State interest to
a judgment of universal morals (Hosea i. 4). The literary Prophets
have no office at court and receive no fee (Micah iii. 2); but they
have an official connection with the nation, which they regard as the
chosen instrument for the establishment of God's reign; they have
no conception of a secular state for Israel. It became therefore a
tragedy for Jeremiah to be so completely rejected by the nation, for
then he felt his prophetic office really ceased. It was this that
drove him into a personal relationship with God that is not reached by
any other of the Prophets. It is not correct to say that the Prophets
were social reformers or practical politicians. Their sole concern is
with religion, but it is a religion that goes very deep, and that must
express itself in social and national ethics.
It is however upon their distinctive message that the chief interest
centres, not only for the understanding of their age, but for their
permanent contribution to religion.
It is a declaration of pure ethical Monotheism. Jehovah is not simply
the tutelary deity of Israel; He is the Only God. The gods of the
other nations are not real beings; this truth is vividly expressed in
the scorn which is poured on idols and their worship. Jehovah is a
spiritual Being; therefore the crusade against the idols that had been
used in the worship of Jehovah is an outcome of prophetic teaching.
This condemnation of idols in the worship of Jehovah is not actually
met with until Hosea (xiii. 2), but that any visible form of Jehovah is
derogatory to the true conception of His glory is the only possible
deduction from prophetic teaching. We still get the naïve terms that
refer to Jehovah as if He had bodily parts; but this is nothing more
than the necessary imagery which all spiritual conceptions have to
employ, and which are not mistaken by any save the most ignorant. This
purely spiritual Being fills the whole universe (Deut. x. 14; 1 Kings
viii. 27; Jer. xxiii. 24; esp. Isa. xxxi. 3, which implies more clearly
than any other statement in the Old Testament the spirituality of God,
and thus anticipates the declaration of Jesus to the woman of Samaria).
But it is with the _ethical_ character of Jehovah that they are mostly
concerned. He is righteous; which means more than the early conception
that He simply defends Israel's right. They insist on His complete
impartiality, which no choice of Israel for His own can turn aside:
"You only have I known of all the families of the earth, _therefore_
will I visit upon you all your iniquities." They fall back again
and again on His absolute fidelity and truthfulness. The arbitrary
character which is ascribed to Jehovah in the Books of Samuel has
completely disappeared; the Prophet can say: "Come and let us reason
together, saith Jehovah."
Universalism is the necessary corollary to Monotheism, but the strong
sense of Israel as His chosen instrument hinders the clear statement
of this truth by the Prophets. A particular regard for Israel still
colours their vision; but they are altogether against the popular
estimate in maintaining that this choice was made solely as a means
for reaching the whole world. Universalism is seen forming in the idea
that Jehovah is concerned with the punishment of other nations, since
He it is who will punish them for their sins; not only for their hatred
of His chosen, but for their cruelty to other nations: He will punish
Moab for his inhumanity to Edom (Amos ii. 1). This is a great advance.
Even when the surrounding nations afflict Israel it is not because the
Lord has no control over them, but it is He that raises up the hostile
powers as instruments of His chastisement. Even kinder views are to be
found in Amos, in whose tiny book we find nearly all the characteristic
ideas of the Prophets; for Jehovah is said to have been concerned in
the early migratory movements not only of the Hebrews, but of the
hated Philistines and Assyrians (Amos ix. 7). The grand universalism
of Isaiah xix. 19-25 only needs us to recall the part that Egypt and
Assyria played in the history of Israel, in order to appreciate its
magnanimity. Yet in spite of these passages, the outlook as a whole
is centred on Israel, and works of a definitely universalistic nature
could hardly have found a place in the canon. This spirit probably made
it necessary for the writer of "Jonah" to embody his universalistic
doctrines in the form of an obscure parable about a Prophet and a
whale. It was the same national bigotry that led to the rejection of
the Son of man.
It is in the idea of the conditions of the covenant between Jehovah
and Israel that the teaching of the Prophets stands in such contrast
to the conceptions of the people. That relation was conceived of, as
we have seen, as tribal; the Prophets declare it to rest on a covenant
of choice, which is to be maintained by the adherence of the parties
to the original terms. They love to place in contrast the unwearied
faithfulness of Jehovah and the fickleness of the people; while they
alternate between threats of Jehovah's complete rejection and the
recurring thought that despite all He can never change, and against
all known custom will even welcome back the harlot nation. Jehovah's
requirements from Israel, for the proper maintenance of the covenant,
are simply the full allegiance of the people; but how this is to be
displayed is not so definitely described. There must be a pure worship
of Jehovah, but this is not to find expression in accurate ritual or
great sacrifices. Indeed it cannot be claimed that the Prophets are
at all concerned about ritual. The Book of Deuteronomy distinctly
lays down that the true worship of Jehovah is to be performed at one
chosen central spot, while Leviticus provides an elaborate method of
approach, which can only be neglected at the peril of the worshipper.
On the other hand, it is certain that the Prophets found the people
worshipping at the "high places," the old Canaanitish shrines, with
many customs which would be a direct infringement of the Code of
Leviticus, yet they are entirely unconcerned with these faults. The
principle of sacrifice as a means of worship had existed from ancient
times, and is to be found in nearly all religions; yet there is an
overwhelming verdict from the pre-exilic Prophets that shows that they
are doubtful of its Divine appointment or of its necessity. (These
passages should be carefully examined:--Amos v. 25; Hosea vi. 6; Isa.
i. 11-17; Micah vi. 6-8; 1 Sam. xv. 22; Jer. vi. 20; vii. 21-23;
and Jeremiah may have been a priest!) There is only one conclusion
possible; these Prophets had never seen the Book of Leviticus.
The ritual which the Prophets seek is that of an upright life. They
base all their morality on religious ideas. The great incentive to
moral conduct is the recognition that the whole nation and land is
the property of Jehovah; any social wrong is wrong against Him. So we
find that the earliest attempt to formulate this teaching in a code
contains many regulations which are purely humanitarian (Deut. xiv. 29;
xix. 2 ff.; xxi. 10-17; xxii. 1-3; xxiv. 6, 10-15). Ritual is turned
into ethics. Against the inequalities and injustices of their day the
Prophets set their faces, with an utter disregard for consequences:
they hurled their accusations at the nation with tremendous energy, in
public, before kings, as men went up to worship; fiery denunciation
mingling with a patriot's tears; for the time, all unavailing. Yet they
have had their harvest, and to-day they are among the voices that call
men to social reform.
It will be well to endeavour to show, in the briefest possible outline,
the historic setting of this mighty message.
It was shortly after the opening of the Eighth Century that threatening
indications began to gather on the horizon of Northern Israel. The
situation called for a Prophet's message. Amos, the herdman of Tekoa,
comes like a whirlwind from Judah, utters his message at Bethel and
returns. He is the first and in many respects the greatest of that
meteoric band who illumine the dark night of Israel's history; later
Prophets repeat his words and share his ideas. Hosea, from the Northern
Kingdom, follows in his steps, but with a message made the more tender
from the fact that the whole drama of Israel's unfaithfulness to her
husband Jehovah had been brought home to him in a personal domestic
tragedy. The tender heart which led him to forgive his unfaithful wife,
wondered if Jehovah would not be equally forgiving, and through this
experience he almost penetrates to the thought of God as Love. A few
years later, a voice is heard in the villages of Judah proclaiming the
message of Amos with the same call to simple reality: Micah pleads for
simple life, simple worship, simple justice. With this transference
of the prophetic voice to the Southern Kingdom there falls an awful
silence on the North. In 722 B.C., Samaria fell before the arms of
Assyria, and Israel ceased to exist. For centuries that land was to
remain silent and despised, until there should come from Galilee of the
Gentiles He of whom all the Prophets spake. One would expect that the
awful doom which had overtaken the Northern Kingdom would not have been
without effect on Judah. Its only visible effect was the strengthening
of her belief in her own inviolability, and the acceptance of the idea
that Israel's fall was due to her separation from Judah. If a Prophet
could have turned the people's thought in a saner direction, then it
would have been accomplished by Isaiah, the most princely and the most
literary of all the Prophets. His work was not indeed without effect.
He was the means of lifting prophecy into popular favour, and a revival
followed his teaching. The chief cause of this favour was the events
of the memorable year, 701 B.C. In face of the demands of Assyria,
Isaiah had all along counselled submission and the avoidance of all
intrigues with Egypt. But the violation of the treaty by Sennacherib,
who demanded the surrender of the city after he had been bought off,
roused the anger of Isaiah. In answer to the insulting message of the
Rabshakeh, while the army lay round the city, in obedience to the word
of Jehovah he counsels resistance. Nothing seemed more improbable than
that there could be any escape for Jerusalem; nevertheless he declared
that the holy city should be inviolable. The great host with their
insolent captain lay before the gates, but in the morning
"The Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Had melted like snow in the glance of the Lord."
Whatever the actual cause of the raising of the siege may have been,
there can be no doubt that something did happen to the Assyrian army
which Isaiah was able to attribute to the intervention of Jehovah,
for from this time Isaiah became famous. To those who see in the
fulfilment of prediction the chief end of prophecy this event will
naturally seem of profound importance. To another view of the function
of prophecy this is the least thing that Isaiah did, for while it
lifted his name into popular favour, that same deliverance proved a
snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. For his declaration of the
city's inviolability was remembered long after, and quoted as if it had
been of universal, instead of temporary application, while his moral
teaching was forgotten. To that trick of national memory the exile was
largely due.
From this time the sacrosanct character of the city obsessed the
popular mind, and in consequence the Temple became, for the first time
since its erection, of supreme significance in Jewish eyes. Following
Isaiah, there was a movement, commenced probably by his disciples, that
strove to bring the Temple into prominence as the one authorised place
of worship. Possibly during the reactionary reign of Manasseh, when
their master is said to have been martyred, they worked at this idea,
and driven into silence by the persecutions of the king they employed
their pens in producing a code of laws, which undoubtedly gathered into
legal form many of the customs which had existed for centuries, and
endeavoured to give them the religious interpretation of the prophetic
teaching. Its chief injunction was the suppression of the high places
as no longer authorised for the worship of Jehovah, hoping to centre
thereby the whole of the nation's worship at the Temple. This code was
probably laid up for publication in brighter days, and was discovered
in the reign of Josiah, in the year 621 B.C. There can be but little
doubt, from the reforms instituted, and from the total disregard of
them until this time, that this code was our Book of Deuteronomy. Since
it was published under the name of Moses, many moderns have looked upon
its compilation as a pious forgery. This is to read into a past age
the legal conceptions of Western civilisation. It must be remembered
that many of these laws could be legitimately traced back to Moses or
to his influence, and there was no idea of deception in using his name.
The hand of the School which produced this work can also be traced in
the compilation and redaction of other historical works, which were
undertaken with this idea of making the past history teach the value of
the reforms they wished the people to adopt. This was not only regarded
as legitimate, but as a sacred duty imposed upon them. The modern
historical ideal, which instigates research with the sole intention
of discovering the facts, is only the product of our own age, and is
still unsuccessfully striven after. The reformation under Josiah is
therefore known as the Deuteronomic reformation. From this time the
Temple becomes the only spot where God can be publicly worshipped, and
the local shrines are forbidden. This may seem an arbitrary action, and
it is possible that for some time it called forth loud complaints; but
it was certainly for the benefit of religion. It had been proved to be
impossible to dissociate the local shrines from the customs and ideas
which had descended from the original Canaanitish worship carried on
there. With a central worship it was found possible to check practices
that were not in accordance with the religion of Jehovah. The teaching
of the Prophets finds then in the Book of Deuteronomy its first-fruits
of reform.
The relation of one young man to this new movement is full of peculiar
interest and difficulty. It was at this very time that Jeremiah began
his ministry, and it is possible that he took some part in the movement
(Jer. xi. 8). He also lived to see the reaction and to prove that the
reform was only superficial. There is one passage which seems to point
to a change of view and even to the suspicion that the new code was
not authoritative (Jer. vii. 8). When Jeremiah attacked the sin of the
people, and warned them that the presence of Jehovah's Temple would
not suffice to protect them if they persisted in their iniquity, his
message was rejected and eventually he was imprisoned and silenced by a
coalition of the priests and prophets. Jeremiah ceased therefore to be
the Prophet of that nation. In his loneliness and sorrow, his thoughts
turned in an hitherto unexplored direction. He complains to God in
words which sound almost blasphemous, and pours forth expostulations
that are the reverse of the submissive spirit usually thought proper
to religion; but it is through this agony that Jeremiah discovers that
God can be something to him, not only as the Prophet of the nation,
but for himself. He discovers personal religion. His next discovery is
equally momentous; for he is led to see that no promulgation of laws
can save the nation: ordinances do not change the heart. He sorrowfully
pronounces the doom of the nation, but as he stands by its open grave
he sings of its resurrection. When purged by trial the nation shall
return, and the New Covenant shall be set up, in which Jehovah shall
write His laws in their hearts. It is a long far-off look that he
gives, and the picture is not complete until One sits at a last supper
and says: This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.
THE EFFECT OF THE EXILE
Dates for reference:--
B.C. 597. Jehoiachin and 10,000 captives deported to Babylon,
and Zedekiah made king in his stead. FIRST
CAPTIVITY.
587-6. Jerusalem besieged, Zedekiah taken to Babylon, Jerusalem
and the Temple destroyed, and the whole
population, save the very poorest, deported to Babylon.
SECOND CAPTIVITY.
538. Cyrus issues edict for Return.
Return under Sheshbazzar (?) (Ezra i.).
537. Return under Zerubbabel (Ezra ii.).
458. Arrival of Ezra.
445. First Mission of Nehemiah.
433. Second Mission of Nehemiah.
There is a good deal of uncertainty about the above dates, and the
condition of the documents in Ezra-Nehemiah offers difficulties which
have not, so far, found acceptable solutions. Some have sought to
identify Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, and to bring down the date of
the Return to 522-21.
It will be seen from the above Table that Jeremiah's prophecy of
Seventy Years was not literally fulfilled.
* * * * *
The student would receive a clear idea of the growth of Israel's
institutions and the way in which they have been incorporated in the
successive documents, by tracing the development of the Sabbath in
the following passages.
Some claim that the Records of Babylonia show that the observance
of the seventh day as sacred goes back to the origins of primitive
Semitic religion.
(1) In "J-E" (which may be prior to Amos in oral form, and perhaps
slightly later as documents): Exod. xxiii. 12; xxxiv. 21; xx. 8.
(2) In historical books: 2 Kings iv. 22, 23; Amos viii. 5; Hosea ii.
11; Isa. i. 13.
(3) In "D": Deut. v. 14.
(4) In Jer. xvii. 19-27. (Jeremiah is the first writer to show traces
of the influence of Deuteronomy.)
(5) In "H," The Code of Holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.): Lev. xix. 3, 30;
xxvi. 2.
(6) In Ezek. xx. 12, 13.
(7) In "P": Gen. ii. 1-3; Exod. xx. 10, 11; xxxi. 12-17; xxxv. 1-3;
Lev. xxiii. 3; Num. xv. 32-36; Exod. xvi. 5, 22-30.
(8) In post-exilic observance: Neh. xiii. 15-22; Isa. lvi. 2, 4, 6;
lviii. 13, f.; lxvi. 23.
Lecture VII
THE EFFECT OF THE EXILE
In the year 597 B.C., a catastrophe long foretold befell the Kingdom
of Judah. Nebuchadrezzar invaded the land, took Jerusalem, and robbing
the land of every person of importance or usefulness, transported them
together with King Jehoiachin to Babylon, hoping doubtless to prevent
any further trouble with Judæa. In what a conflict of emotion must the
exiles have left that city which they had fondly imagined inviolable!
for even in Babylon they continued to believe that so long as Jerusalem
stood, Jehovah would have a citadel, and the holy city would remain a
symbolic witness to their unconquered religion. With the captives there
went a young man who was destined to leave a deep impression upon the
future of his nation--the priest Ezekiel. Arrived in Babylon, he felt
himself called to a prophetic ministry to the exiles, and his first
message was directed to the crushing of their remaining hopes; for
with dramatic symbolism he predicted that Jerusalem would be utterly
destroyed. The suicidal policy of Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadrezzar had
left to carry on the government as his vassal, soon fulfilled this
prophecy; for sedition and intrigue soon compelled Nebuchadrezzar to
adopt still stricter measures. He again marched into Judæa and besieged
Jerusalem. This time the Jews expected no mercy, and resisted with
such tenacity that the siege lasted for nearly two years. On the ninth
day of the Fourth month, (our July) 586 B.C., a day still kept with
solemn fasting by the Jews, a breach was made in the walls and the
city capitulated. A month later the entire destruction of the city and
Temple was ruthlessly carried out, and the whole population, with the
exception of a few husbandmen, was deported to swell the company of
exiles now at Babylon.
This was the inevitable culmination of the policy of the Kingdom of
Judah under her latest monarchs. The position of their land laid
them open to conflicts with the powers of Assyria and Babylon. The
wise and peaceful policy of Solomon had been departed from, and
indeed rendered impossible by the disruption of the Tribes. A period
of national decadence seems to have followed, in which luxury and
corruption undermined all political sanity, and both rulers and people
became blind to the dangers that threatened. Such religion as existed,
only expressed itself in bursts of fanaticism, and filled the people
with the fatal idea that Jehovah would never suffer the Temple to be
violated or the holy city to be taken.
The disaster of the Exile is charged by the Prophets to the unrepented
sins of the nation, and while this is a religious interpretation it is
not unsupported by a review of the history. The people had set their
hearts upon a glorious kingdom of material prosperity, presided over
and protected by a mighty national deity; the Prophets wanted a kingdom
of righteousness, which would reflect the character of Jehovah and be
a witness to the nations of His reality and power. While they saw in
the Exile a calamity which meant the destruction of the nation, and an
evidence that Jehovah had broken His covenant because of disobedience,
they clung to the belief that the end for which Jehovah had chosen
Israel might still be attained. That nation might be destroyed, yet
from its ruins there would arise a Kingdom of God; a remnant would
return, weaned from a false religion, to work out a new ideal of
holiness and service.