which are actually dated from this time are scanty. Literary criticism
however throws great light on this period because it believes that
it is from the Exile that we are to date many institutions and
writings that have been referred to a previous age. This may seem
at first sight a desperate device, since so little is known of the
actual conditions; and yet unfettered investigation can arrive at no
other conclusion, the exilic stamp being often unmistakable and even
showing itself in geographical outlook (1 Kings iv. 24). If we take
the Bible as it stands, it presents us with the story of an early
legislation given by Moses, neglected however by the entire people,
including the Reformers and Prophets, until it suddenly appears after
the Exile as the acknowledged code for the regulation of religion and
common life. It would be quite possible to conceive that the shock
of the Exile drove the Jews to examine the details of the neglected
covenant of Jehovah and to restore the authority of the Law of Moses.
Such however is impossible, not only from that fact that there is no
mention of the Law of Moses in the records that can be dated between
the Conquest of Canaan and the Exile, but that in this period we can
discern customs and ideas _gradually_ growing up that find their full
and final embodiment in the Pentateuch as we now possess it. From the
lawless condition of the Judges and the early monarchy, we advance to
the teaching of the Prophets. It is Isaiah who contributes the ideas
which lie at the basis of the Deuteronomic Code, and the time of Josiah
is the first to show the influence of that code. Ezekiel is the first
to show any trace of the ideas which we find embodied in Leviticus,
but these, as we shall see, have to be explained as anticipations of,
rather than as an acquaintance with, the finished Levitical Code.
When we consider what effect the Exile would have upon the more
thoughtful of the Jews, we can imagine that conscience would be
shocked into activity, and a new interest would be taken in their
strange history, especially in its prophetic interpretation. It is
common in history to find that repentance rarely goes so deep as to
grasp the inner meaning of its discovered sin, but is apt to content
itself with somewhat superficial methods of showing its sincerity and
securing future compliance with religion. So at least, the records
of Israel's history assure us, happened in this instance, and one of
the resolutions of their penitence took concrete form in the writing
or editing of their history so that it should be a warning to the
future, and in codifying customs and drawing up regulations which
should make apostasy for ever impossible. Many references in the
ancient records or in the oral tradition which savoured of idolatry or
of a too anthropomorphic conception of God were corrected, as those
references, the tendency of which was not detected, have remained to
bear witness; and the whole history was fitted somewhat clumsily into
a mechanical scheme, which was rather what they thought ought to have
happened than what really did happen. One example of this may be seen
in the condemnation which is naïvely passed on king after king because
he had allowed sacrifice to be made at the high places; the fact being
that this was not made illegitimate until the reign of Josiah. In
this way external offences were marked and abandoned, while the deeper
incongruity between the national religion and the teaching of the
Prophets was missed.
If we seek in this period for the rise of ideas which shall bridge over
the change from the popular religion on the one hand, and the religion
of Jeremiah on the other, to the complete unity of the national
religion under Nehemiah and Ezra, we shall find a most important link
in the Book of Ezekiel.
The Book of Ezekiel is said to be the least read book in the Bible,
yet its author plays a most important part in the history of Israel's
religion, and to grasp the position which he occupies is to have a
focus point from which the whole development may be conveniently
grasped. The Prophet probably got a better hearing from his
contemporaries than any of his predecessors. He accompanied the body
of captives who left Jerusalem for Babylon in the year 597, and his
works date from soon after that year and go down to about 570. The men
to whom he was called to speak were therefore his fellow captives, and
he had not to look far for a text for his sermons. His hearers were in
Babylon for their sins, and they knew it. His style of preaching is
difficult, and his method of embodying his message in visions marks
a new phenomenon in Israel's religion. He states truth in strange
and fanciful figures, a method which was to form an example for the
later works of Judaism, and if we detect in Ezekiel a return to the
extravagance of the earlier prophecy, we must make allowance for the
tragic times in which he lived; especially must we do this where we
trace a falling off from his predecessors in moral insight and in the
ritualistic influence which his work undoubtedly left behind him.
Ezekiel continues the work of the pre-exilic Prophets in that he
proclaims their characteristic doctrines, and naturally he shows
distinct traces of the influence of Jeremiah. What is new, is that
he gives to those doctrines a more fixed and somewhat pedantic form,
and a greater self-consciousness is discernible; the prophecies are
accurately arranged, and the language is marked by precision; rhetoric
is less frequent, and the prophecies look more fit for reading than for
delivery. The idea of God is the same as in the earlier Prophets, but
in Ezekiel it is elevated and rarified; especially is great emphasis
laid upon the attribute of holiness, which is however a ceremonial
rather than a purely ethical conception. The characteristic idea of the
Prophets, that Jehovah chose Israel not for their own sakes, becomes
the idea that Jehovah did this for His own sake alone, and this is
so often repeated that it almost looks like arbitrariness. The cause
of Judah's punishment is still traced to the sin of the people, but
that sin is now definitely determined to be idolatry; and this is
insisted on almost to the exclusion of the social and ethical wrongs
assailed by the earlier Prophets. While, however, Ezekiel enforces
the bitter lessons of the Exile, he carefully distinguishes the true
interpretation of that disaster from that which rose readily to the
popular mind. He disposes of the conception that the Captivity was due
to the inability of Jehovah to defend His own land (xxxvi. 20); it was
a punishment for sin (xxxix. 23), and in His own time He will prove
this by restoring them to their land again (xxxix. 25). Neither will
he allow them to rest in the flattering thought that they were only
suffering for the unvisited sins of a former generation; he insists,
probably with greater rigour than experience would sanction, that each
man bears his own sin, and never suffers for the sins of others. But to
those who admit the justice of his charges, and who therefore regard
the future as hopeless, he preaches a tender doctrine of forgiveness
and the possibility of cleansing from sin. From the events of his
times, he seeks to draw lessons which should redeem the mistakes that
had been made in the past: the teaching of the Prophets must be kept
before the people in definite rules and religious ceremonies. Old
customs, whose original significance had long been forgotten, were
invested with new interpretations worthy of the true religion of
Jehovah, and were made not only customs, but religious commands. In the
book which bears his name, and especially in chapters xl.-xlviii., he
outlines a policy in which the whole of national life is comprehended
in its religious significance, and thus the calamity of future apostasy
prevented. The new State is to centre round the idea of worship: the
Temple with its services and appointments is to be the expression of
the national life. Now in this scheme there is little doubt that we
have the beginning of the Levitical system, for Ezekiel is related to
Leviticus as the rough sketch to the finished plan. If Leviticus in its
present form existed in Ezekiel's time, then the work of the Prophet
was not only entirely unnecessary, but careless and presumptuous. Some
of the facts which point to the priority of Ezekiel to the Levitical
Code may be noticed. In the Levitical Code we find that a distinction
is made between priests and Levites. This is not found in Deuteronomy
(xvii. 9, 18; xviii. 1) but is first found in Ezekiel (xliv. 10-15),
where it is explained to be due to the degradation of the Levites
as a punishment for leading the people into idolatry; in Leviticus
we reach the final stage, where the distinction is accepted without
explanation. In Ezekiel we have no mention of the high-priest or of
the Day of Atonement, both of which figure so largely in the Priest's
Code, although we can find _foreshadowings_ of the Day of Atonement
(Ezek. xlv. 18-20). Indeed we meet with no mention of the Day of
Atonement, apart from the Priestly Code, until Zechariah (vii. 5; viii.
19). The general conclusion may be safely drawn, that during and after
the Exile, Ezekiel's ideas were stiffened and developed into the full
legislation now preserved for us in Leviticus.
We may rightly claim Ezekiel to be the founder of Judaism, with
its transcendent conception of Jehovah and its great attention to
ceremonial detail, and we are bound therefore to recognise in Ezekiel a
falling off from the ideals of the pre-exilic Prophets; he is a prophet
in priest's clothing. Yet it may be questioned whether the idealistic
teaching of the Prophets could have been preserved through the periods
of the Exile and the Restoration, without this formal process. An outer
husk of formality had to develop in order that the living kernel might
be protected during the critical years when Persia, Greece, and Rome
were to press their alien ideas upon this people. It has been well for
the world that Ezekiel clothed the Prophets' teaching in the resisting
garments of Judaism.
The Exile could not fail to leave upon the Jewish nation an
imperishable mark, and they emerged from that trial a different
people. It was a shock that brought a repentance the Prophets had
often laboured for in vain, and this repentance was marked by the
initiation of many new movements in thought, and by a more stringent
and solemn observance of their peculiar institutions. Probably in that
alien land many of the Jews adopted the customs of their conquerors,
since it is estimated that not more than a small fraction returned
to Palestine. This defection would impress upon those who remained
faithful the necessity for a strict policy of separation, and from this
time certain institutions which had been inherited from ancient Semitic
practice received a new meaning. Chief among these may be noticed the
observance of the Sabbath, and the rite of circumcision. The observance
of a certain day as sacred to the gods is a custom that is found in
nearly all early religions, and there are traces of such an observance
in the Babylonian religion. We do not find however in the historical
books of the Bible that mention of the Sabbath which would be expected,
if it was observed with the strictness common after the Exile. There
are traces of an observance, not strictly defined, save that it is
in association with the new moon feasts, and is combined with social
relaxation (2 Kings iv. 22, 23; Hosea ii. 11; Amos viii. 5; Isa. i.
13). Even before the Exile however a more religious conception had
arisen (Jer. xvii. 19-27), and is even then referred to as an earlier
command. The change after the Exile was towards an ever increasing
strictness (Isa. lvi. 2, 4, 6; lviii. 13; lxvi. 23; Neh. xiii. 15-22).
The rite of circumcision was by no means peculiar to the Jewish
religion (Jer. ix. 25, 26), except perhaps in so far as it was
performed in infancy: its origin and growth are very obscure. Its
original significance was early lost and its interpretation was
probably due to the Prophets themselves, who often referred to a
spiritual circumcision, and thus made possible the full ceremonial
interpretation which became so important a feature in later Judaism.
We have seen that there is evidence to prove that the religion of
Israel had not always been averse to the use of idols as part of the
legitimate worship of Jehovah. The Prophets began the protest against
this, not so much because of its principles, but because of the immoral
practices with which idol worship was connected. But after the Exile,
idolatry was for ever separated from the worship of Jehovah, and in
the later Prophets idolatry becomes the target for their most scornful
invective. It has been suggested that this new abhorrence accounts for
the non-return of the Ark, which in this period disappears from history.
Among the most important of the new institutions that can be traced
back to the period of the Exile is the founding of the Synagogue.
In the land of Exile, away from the one spot where sacrifice was
permitted, worship had to be carried on without the aid of sacrificial
or ceremonial rites, but there was nothing to prevent the people from
gathering together for prayer or to hear read their newly reverenced
prophetic books. It is quite possible that this led to a collection of
the Prophets' writings being made, and perhaps to some editing to meet
their present needs. This movement was of profound importance for the
future development of religion, for it was in the Synagogue rather than
in the Temple that Christianity was to find the readiest medium for its
dissemination and the earliest model for its worship. The Synagogue
itself prepared the way for the more spiritual developments within
Judaism, for away from the Temple sacrifices and their always dangerous
suggestions men learned that the sacrifice of the broken heart was more
acceptable to Jehovah; and so the way was prepared for that magnificent
collection of prayers and songs which we call the Psalms, which were
afterwards to be used as an accompaniment to a form of worship that
they frequently condemn. The external and legal conceptions were,
however, to be the most visible results gained from the Exile, and they
were to mould religion for many a year.
The materials for an exact history of the return from Exile do not
exist in our Bibles; the accounts found in Ezra and Nehemiah raise
questions which have not yet been satisfactorily answered. The Prophets
who had foretold the destruction of the kingdom of Judah had never
been able to rest in the thought that this was the final chapter in
Jehovah's dealings with His people, and their faith forced them to peer
through this impending disaster and dimly discern a purpose yet to
be disclosed. This is often pictured in merely general terms, but in
Jeremiah and Ezekiel these hopes issued in the definite prophecy of the
restoration of the Jews to their own land within a certain period. When
political changes brought this on the horizon of possibility, the times
wakened the "voice of one crying in the wilderness," in some respects
the most wonderful of all that noble band we have been studying.
The name of this herald has not been preserved, but he is known to
criticism as the Second Isaiah. This does not of course mean that he
bore that name, but it is a convenient designation for the writings
that occupy the second half of the work included under the name of
Isaiah. The separation of chapters xl.-lxvi. from those which precede,
as from different hands, is one of the most universally accepted
results of criticism. The preceding chapters end with a historic
survey of events that happened in the lifetime of the great Isaiah of
Jerusalem, and then suddenly the whole outlook and atmosphere change.
Critics claim that the test of language and style is itself decisive,
but while this must remain a question on which only Hebrew experts are
qualified to pronounce, the difference of theological ideas, and the
change of situation cannot be missed by any attentive English reader.
Indeed that the situation has changed is a fact which has never been
challenged. From chapter xl., the audience addressed consists no longer
of the proud and scornful peoples of the time of Hezekiah, but of
penitent captives far from their native land some 150 years later; the
accepted explanation used to be that Isaiah transported himself to this
later time by a miracle of prophetic inspiration. But there is really
only one adducible reason for attributing this prophecy to Isaiah:
it is bound up with the book that bears his name as the title. This
reason is of little value when we admit our ignorance of the method
by which the Old Testament was finally edited, and when the internal
evidence entirely contradicts the traditional theory. For it must be
borne in mind that the explanation that this is due to a prophetic
transportation is only a hypothesis framed to fit the conditions, and
has no claim to acceptance if there can be found one that does equal
justice to the facts without appealing to such an unusual method.
Moreover, the hypothesis of prediction does not fit the facts, for
while some parts of the prophecy have predictive form, others have not.
For instance, the picture of Cyrus and his conquests, complete even
to the name of the hero, is not only presented as if he were on the
stage of actual history, but his appearance is adduced as a convincing
evidence of the fulfilment of prophecy. What fulfilment would it be
if Cyrus was yet a figure of the unknown future? If it is claimed
that this presentation is due to what is known to Hebrew grammarians
as a use of the _prophetic present tense_, in which things future in
fact, are stated as present, owing to the vividness of the prophetic
consciousness, then we must ask why it is that Cyrus is presented as
a figure of contemporary history, while the fall of Babylon is still
spoken of as future. This distinction would be meaningless if the whole
of this period was seen from some anterior time.
The "settled results" of criticism were greatly ridiculed when further
investigation pronounced that only chapters xl.-lv. can have come
from this great Prophet, and that the remainder of the book is of a
composite character, extending at least to the time of the Second
Temple. To have to bring in a third author, or even more, to explain
this book is quoted as an example of the foolishness of criticism. Now
the critics _may_ be wrong, but their theories are simply endeavours to
understand these prophecies by setting them in their exact historical
surroundings. Surely this is a task worthy of any reverent student of
the Old Testament, and if it brings, as many believe, wonderful light
on these messages, and thus sets free their eternal significance,
then these men should earn gratitude rather than ridicule, when the
difficulty of their task calls for a continual rearrangement and a
finer adjustment.
The critical reconstruction of this prophecy therefore places chapters
xl.-lv. among the scenes it depicts, and in the very history whose
movements called it forth. The exact conditions can be discerned. After
the death of Nebuchadrezzar the kingdom of the Chaldæans began to
decline, and when Cyrus succeeded to the throne of Persia its fate was
determined. His victorious campaigns, culminating in the fall of Sardis
in B.C. 547, could not fail to reach the ears of the exiles in Babylon,
and many a whisper of hope must have been exchanged, and many a
prophecy handed on. Babylon itself fell before the conqueror in 538 and
between these two dates, and perhaps nearer to the latter, the internal
witness of the prophecy demands that it should be placed.
When we turn to examine the work of this unknown messenger we cannot
help noticing the difference in style, which even the translation
cannot obscure. The great Isaiah writes in terse, closely-packed
sentences, with all the authoritative manner customary with the
Prophets. This writer, on the other hand, is rhetorical, and loves
to dwell on his favourite ideas. The sharp word of the prophetic
deliverance here gives way to a reasoning exposition and a pleading
tenderness that makes this prophecy a Gospel before the Gospels. The
distinctive religious ideas can be easily marked. Absolute Monotheism
is insisted on with a fulness and repetition which shows that it is in
some degree a new truth. There is none beside Jehovah; He is alone,
unique; and description is exhausted in the endeavour to picture His
glory and power. He is now constantly referred to as the Creator of the
world, the framer of the stars on high, the maker of both darkness and
light, both good and evil; so that no room is left for the dualism that
the Prophet may have learned to despise in the Babylonian religion. His
finest scorn is reserved for the conception that an idol can have any
claim to divinity. He depicts the process of their manufacture, their
utter helplessness; it may be that he had seen them borne in to the
capital as the suburbs fell before the invader.
Universalism struggles for expression in this writer, but it is not
always so clear and definite as in the writings of the great Isaiah.
This arises however, not so much from the racial prejudices that have
so clogged the Hebrew mind, as from a reading of Israel's history which
the prophet was well entitled to make, namely, that she was to be the
premier nation in the instruction of the world in righteousness and
the knowledge of God, the priest-nation of humanity. This conception
of the nation's history and destiny is embodied in a personification
known as the Servant of Jehovah. Israel has been chosen as the Servant
so that the light may be brought to the nations. In this mission the
Servant meets with persecution, yet turns not back from those who
pluck off the hair nor hides his face from shame and spitting. The
slightest retrospect of Israel's history shows that the Servant of
Jehovah was trained for his task only through suffering. Israel had
suffered for her sins of presumption and disobedience; but were the
nations who punished her any more righteous? Moreover, many of those
who sat down by the waters of Babylon and wept when they remembered
Zion must have been pious and righteous, and innocent of the causes
of their nation's calamities. As the prophet broods over the meaning
of the Exile, as it affected the godly remnant, he begins to see that
this suffering, undeserved though it might be in particular cases,
would become a supreme lesson in righteousness to the world. This
assumption is embodied in the astonishing drama of the suffering
Servant; one who suffers from a disfiguring disease, which marks him
out to all beholders as the afflicted of Jehovah, and who is therefore
despised and rejected of men. But the day comes when the idea slowly
dawns upon men that this servant-nation suffered for the sake of the
world, bore the consciousness of sin when other nations lived in
carelessness and flourished on cruelty. The Prophet believed that
this patient suffering would be an awakening force and would be the
means of bringing the world to the knowledge of God. It is a marvellous
reading of Israel's history; but it is true, for that little nation
despised and rejected by Empires, battered by the armed forces which
surrounded her, has made the whole world her debtor. But indirectly
this interpretation is a revelation of the meaning of all history, and
especially of that strange law of vicarious suffering which binds all
the world one and makes every new age in debt to the past. This unknown
writer has contributed one of the most fruitful ideas to the philosophy
of history.