{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39956/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39956","id":"gutenberg_39956","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39956","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Historical Books -- Commentaries","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Marcia Brooks, Colin Bell, Julia Neufeld and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian\nLibraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE\n\n  EDITED BY THE REV.\n\n  W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\n  _Editor of \"The Expositor\"_\n\n\n  AUTHORIZED EDITION, COMPLETE\n  AND UNABRIDGED\n  BOUND IN TWENTY-FIVE VOLUMES\n\n  NEW YORK\n  FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY\n  LAFAYETTE PLACE\n  1900\n\n  EZRA, NEHEMIAH,\n  AND\n  ESTHER\n\n  BY\n  WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A.\n  PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND CHURCH HISTORY,\n  NEW COLLEGE, LONDON\n\n  NEW YORK\n  FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY\n  LAFAYETTE PLACE\n  1900\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n                                              PAGE\n\n  INTRODUCTORY: EZRA AND NEHEMIAH                1\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  CYRUS                                         12\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  THE ROYAL EDICT                               24\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  THE SECOND EXODUS                             36\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  THE NEW TEMPLE                                48\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  THE LIMITS OF COMPREHENSION                   60\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  THE MISSION OF PROPHECY                       72\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  NEW DIFFICULTIES MET IN A NEW SPIRIT          83\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n\n  THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE                  95\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n\n  EZRA THE SCRIBE                              107\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n\n  EZRA'S EXPEDITION                            119\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n\n  FOREIGN MARRIAGES                            131\n\n  CHAPTER XIII.\n\n  THE HOME SACRIFICED TO THE CHURCH            142\n\n  CHAPTER XIV.\n\n  THE COST OF AN IDEALIST'S SUCCESS            153\n\n  CHAPTER XV.\n\n  NEHEMIAH THE PATRIOT                         163\n\n  CHAPTER XVI.\n\n  NEHEMIAH'S PRAYER                            174\n\n  CHAPTER XVII.\n\n  THE PRAYER ANSWERED                          186\n\n  CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n  THE MIDNIGHT RIDE                            198\n\n  CHAPTER XIX.\n\n  BUILDING THE WALLS                           210\n\n  CHAPTER XX.\n\n  \"MARK YE WELL HER BULWARKS\"                  223\n\n  CHAPTER XXI.\n\n  ON GUARD                                     235\n\n  CHAPTER XXII.\n\n  USURY                                        247\n\n  CHAPTER XXIII.\n\n  WISE AS SERPENTS                             259\n\n  CHAPTER XXIV.\n\n  THE LAW                                      271\n\n  CHAPTER XXV.\n\n  THE JOY OF THE LORD                          284\n\n  CHAPTER XXVI.\n\n  THE RELIGION OF HISTORY                      295\n\n  CHAPTER XXVII.\n\n  THE COVENANT                                 307\n\n  CHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n  THE HOLY CITY                                317\n\n  CHAPTER XXIX.\n\n  BEGINNINGS                                   328\n\n  CHAPTER XXX.\n\n  THE RIGOUR OF THE REFORMER                   339\n\n  CHAPTER XXXI.\n\n  THE BOOK OF ESTHER: INTRODUCTORY             351\n\n  CHAPTER XXXII.\n\n  AHASUERUS AND VASHTI                         361\n\n  CHAPTER XXXIII.\n\n  HAMAN                                        371\n\n  CHAPTER XXXIV.\n\n  QUEEN ESTHER                                 382\n\n  CHAPTER XXXV.\n\n  MORDECAI                                     392\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_INTRODUCTORY: EZRA AND NEHEMIAH._\n\n\nThough in close contact with the most perplexing problems of Old\nTestament literature, the main history recorded in the books of 'Ezra'\nand 'Nehemiah' is fixed securely above the reach of adverse criticism.\nHere the most cautious reader may take his stand with the utmost\nconfidence, knowing that his feet rest on a solid rock. The curiously\ninartistic process adopted by the writer is in itself some guarantee\nof authenticity. Ambitious authors who set out with the design of\ncreating literature--and perhaps building up a reputation for\nthemselves by the way--may be very conscientious in their search for\ntruth; but we cannot help suspecting that the method of melting down\ntheir materials and recasting them in the mould of their own style\nwhich they usually adopt must gravely endanger their accuracy. Nothing\nof the kind is attempted in this narrative. In considerable portions\nof it the primitive records are simply copied word for word, without\nthe least pretence at original writing on the part of the historian.\nElsewhere he has evidently kept as near as possible to the form of his\nmaterials, even when the plan of his work has necessitated some\ncondensation or readjustment. The crudity of this procedure must be\nannoying to literary epicures who prefer flavour to substance, but it\nshould be an occasion of thankfulness on the part of those of us who\nwish to trace the revelation of God in the life of Israel, because it\nshows that we are brought as nearly as possible face to face with the\nfacts in which that revelation was clothed.\n\nIn the first place, we have some of the very writings of Ezra and\nNehemiah, the leading actors in the great drama of real life that is\nhere set forth. We cannot doubt the genuineness of these writings.\nThey are each of them composed in the first person singular, and they\nmay be sharply distinguished from the remainder of the narrative,\ninasmuch as that is in the third person--not to mention other and\nfiner marks of difference. Of course this implies that the whole of\nEzra and Nehemiah should not be ascribed to the two men whose names\nthe books bear in our English Bibles. The books themselves do not make\nany claim to be written throughout by these great men. On the\ncontrary, they clearly hint the opposite, by the transition to the\nthird person in those sections which are not extracted verbatim from\none or other of the two authorities.\n\nIt is most probable that the Scripture books now known as Ezra and\nNehemiah were compiled by one and the same person, that, in fact, they\noriginally constituted a single work. This view was held by the\nscribes who arranged the Hebrew Canon, for there they appear as one\nbook. In the Talmud they are treated as one. So they are among the\nearly Christian writers. As late as the fifth century of our era\nJerome gives the name of \"Esdras\" to both, describing \"Nehemiah\" as\n\"The Second Book of Esdras.\"\n\nFurther, there seem to be good reasons for believing that the compiler\nof our Ezra-Nehemiah was no other than the author of Chronicles. The\nrepetition of the concluding passage of 2 Chronicles as the\nintroduction to Ezra is an indication that the latter was intended to\nbe a continuation of the Chronicler's version of the History of\nIsrael. When we compare the two works together, we come across many\nindications of their agreement in spirit and style. In both we\ndiscover a disposition to hurry over secular affairs in order to\ndilate on the religious aspects of history. In both we meet with the\nsame exalted estimation of The Law, the same unwearied interest in the\ndetails of temple ritual and especially in the musical arrangements of\nthe Levites, and the same singular fascination for long lists of\nnames, which are inserted wherever an opportunity for letting them in\ncan be found.\n\nNow, there are several things in our narrative that tend to show that\nthe Chronicler belongs to a comparatively late period. Thus in\nNehemiah xii. 22 he mentions the succession of priests down \"to the\nreign of Darius the Persian.\" The position of this phrase in\nconnection with the previous lists of names makes it clear that the\nsovereign here referred to must be Darius III., surnamed Codommanus,\nthe last king of Persia, who reigned from B.C. 336 to B.C. 332. Then\nthe title \"the Persian\" suggests the conclusion that the dynasty of\nPersia had passed away; so does the phrase \"king of Persia,\" which we\nmeet with in the Chronicler's portion of the narrative. The simple\nexpression \"the king,\" without any descriptive addition, would be\nsufficient on the lips of a contemporary. Accordingly we find that it\nis used in the first-person sections of Ezra-Nehemiah, and in those\nroyal edicts that are cited in full. Again, Nehemiah xii. 11 and 22\ngive us the name of Jaddua in the series of high-priests. But Jaddua\nlived as late as the time of Alexander; his date must be about B.C.\n331.[1] This lands us in the Grecian period. Lastly, the references to\n\"the days of Nehemiah\"[2] clearly point to a writer in some subsequent\nage. Though it is justly urged that it was quite in accordance with\ncustom for later scribes to work over an old book, inserting a phrase\nhere and there to bring it up to date, the indications of the later\ndate are too closely interwoven with the main structure of the\ncomposition to admit this hypothesis here.\n\n  [1] Josephus, _Ant._, XI. viii. 7.\n\n  [2] Neh. xii. 26 and 47.\n\nNevertheless, though we seem to be shut up to the view that the\nGrecian era had been reached before our book was put together, this is\nreally only a matter of literary interest, seeing that it is agreed on\nall sides that the history is authentic, and that the constituent\nparts of it are contemporary with the events they record. The function\nof the compiler of such a book as this is not much more than that of\nan editor. It must be admitted that the date of the final editor is as\nlate as the Macedonian Empire. The only question is whether this man\nwas the sole editor and compiler of the narrative. We may let that\npoint of purely literary criticism be settled in favour of the later\ndate for the original compilation, and yet rest satisfied that we have\nall we want--a thoroughly genuine history in which to study the ways\nof God with man during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.\n\nThis narrative is occupied with the Persian period of the History of\nIsrael. It shows us points of contact between the Jews and a great\nOriental Empire; but, unlike the history in the dismal Babylonian age,\nthe course of events now moves forward among scenes of hopeful\nprogress. The new dominion is of an Aryan stock--intelligent,\nappreciative, generous. Like the Christians in the time of the\nApostles, the Jews now find the supreme government friendly to them,\neven ready to protect them from the assaults of their hostile\nneighbours. It is in this political relationship, and scarcely, if at\nall, by means of the intercommunication of ideas affecting religion,\nthat the Persians take an important place in the story of Ezra and\nNehemiah. We shall see much of their official action; we can but grope\nabout vaguely in search of the few hints of their influence on the\ntheology of Israel that may be looked for on the pages of the sacred\nnarrative. Still a remarkable characteristic of the leading religious\nmovement of this time is the Oriental and foreign locality of its\nsource. It springs up in the breasts of Jews who are most stern in\ntheir racial exclusiveness, most relentless in their scornful\nrejection of any Gentile alliance. But this is on a foreign soil. It\ncomes from Babylon, not Jerusalem. Again and again fresh impulses and\nnew resources are brought up to the sacred city, and always from the\nfar-off colony in the land of exile. Here the money for the cost of\nthe rebuilding of the temple was collected; here The Law was studied\nand edited; here means were found for restoring the fortifications of\nJerusalem. Not only did the first company of pilgrims go up from\nBabylon to begin a new life among the tombs of their fathers; but one\nafter another fresh bands of emigrants, borne on new waves of\nenthusiasm, swept up from the apparently inexhaustible centres of\nJudaism in the East to rally the flagging energies of the citizens of\nJerusalem. For a long while this city was only maintained with the\ngreatest difficulty as a sort of outpost from Babylon: it was little\nbetter than a pilgrim's camp; often it was in danger of destruction\nfrom the uncongenial character of its surroundings. Therefore it is\nBabylonian Judaism that here claims our attention. The mission of this\ngreat religious movement is to found and cultivate an offshoot of\nitself in the old country. Its beginning is at Babylon; its end is to\nshape the destinies of Jerusalem.\n\nThree successive embassies from the living heart of Judaism in Babylon\ngo up to Jerusalem, each with its own distinctive function in the\npromotion of the purposes of the mission. The first is led by\nZerubbabel and Jeshua in the year B.C. 537.[3] The second is conducted\nby Ezra eighty years later. The third follows shortly after this with\nNehemiah as its central figure. Each of the two first-named\nexpeditions is a great popular migration of men, women, and children\nreturning home from exile; Nehemiah's journey is more personal--the\ntravelling of an officer of state with his escort. The principal\nevents of the history spring out of these three expeditions.\nZerubbabel and Jeshua are commissioned to restore the sacrifices and\nrebuild the temple at Jerusalem. Ezra sets forth with the visible\nobject of further ministering to the resources of the sacred shrine;\nbut the real end that he is inwardly aiming at is the introduction of\nThe Law to the people of Jerusalem. Nehemiah's main purpose is to\nrebuild the city walls, and so restore the civic character of\nJerusalem and enable her to maintain her independence in spite of the\nopposition of neighbouring foes. In all three cases a strong religious\nmotive lies at the root of the public action. To Ezra the priest and\nscribe religion was everything. He might almost have taken as his\nmotto, \"Perish the State, if the Church may be saved.\" He desired to\nabsorb the State into the Church: he would permit the former to exist,\nindeed, as the visible vehicle of the religious life of the community;\nbut to sacrifice the religious ideal in deference to political\nexigencies was a policy against which he set his face like flint when\nit was advocated by a latitudinarian party among the priests. The\nconflict which was brought about by this clash of opposing principles\nwas the great battle of his life. Nehemiah was a statesman, a\npractical man, a courtier who knew the world. Outwardly his aims and\nmethods were very different from those of the unpractical scholar. Yet\nthe two men thoroughly understood one another. Nehemiah caught the\nspirit of Ezra's ideas; and Ezra, whose work came to a standstill\nwhile he was left to his own resources, was afterwards able to carry\nthrough his great religious reformation on the basis of the younger\nman's military and political renovation of Jerusalem.\n\n  [3] Allowing some months for the preparation of the expedition--and\n  this we must do--we may safely say that it started in the year after\n  the decree of Cyrus, which was issued in B.C. 538.\n\nIn all this the central figure is Ezra. We are able to see the most\nmarked results in the improved condition of the city after his capable\nand vigorous colleague has taken up the reins of government. But\nthough the hand is then the hand of Nehemiah, the voice is still the\nvoice of Ezra. Later times have exalted the figure of the famous\nscribe into gigantic proportions. Even as he appears on the page of\nhistory he is sufficiently great to stand out as the maker of his age.\n\nFor the Jews in all ages, and for the world at large, the great event\nof this period is the adoption of The Law by the citizens of\nJerusalem. Recent investigations and discussions have directed renewed\nattention to the publication of The Law by Ezra, and the acceptance of\nit on the part of Israel. It will be especially important, therefore,\nfor us to study these things in the calm and ingenuous record of the\nancient historian, where they are treated without the slightest\nanticipation of modern controversies. We shall have to see what hints\nthis record affords concerning the history of The Law in the days of\nEzra and Nehemiah.\n\nOne broad fact will grow upon us with increasing clearness as we\nproceed. Evidently we have here come to the watershed of Hebrew\nHistory. Up to this point all the better teachers of Israel had been\ntoiling painfully in their almost hopeless efforts to induce the Jews\nto accept the unique faith of Jehovah, with its lofty claims and its\nrigorous restraints. That faith itself however had appeared in three\nforms,--as a popular cult, often degraded to the level of the local\nreligion of heathen neighbours; as a priestly tradition, exact and\nminute in its performances, but the secret of a caste; and as a\nsubject of prophetic instruction, instinct with moral principles of\nrighteousness and spiritual conceptions of God, but too large and free\nto be reached by a people of narrow views and low attainments. With\nthe publication of The Law by Ezra the threefold condition ceased, and\nhenceforth there was but one type of religion for the Jews.\n\nThe question when The Law was moulded into its present shape\nintroduces a delicate point of criticism. But the consideration of its\npopular reception is more within the reach of observation. In the\nsolemn sealing of the covenant the citizens of Jerusalem--laity as\nwell as priests--men, women, and children--all deliberately pledged\nthemselves to worship Jehovah according to The Law. There is no\nevidence to show that they had ever done so before. The narrative\nbears every indication of novelty. The Law is received with curiosity;\nit is only understood after being carefully explained by experts; when\nits meaning is taken in, the effect is a shock of amazement bordering\non despair. Clearly this is no collection of trite precepts known and\npractised by the people from antiquity.\n\nIt must be remembered, on the other hand, that an analogous effect was\nproduced by the spread of the Scriptures at the Reformation. It does\nnot fall within the scope of our present task to pursue the inquiry\nwhether, like the Bible in Christendom, the entire law had been in\nexistence in an earlier age, though then neglected and forgotten. Yet\neven our limited period contains evidence that The Law had its roots\nin the past. The venerated name of Moses is repeatedly appealed to\nwhen The Law is to be enforced. Ezra never appears as a Solon\nlegislating for his people. Still neither is he a Justinian codifying\na system of legislation already recognised and adopted. He stands\nbetween the two, as the introducer of a law hitherto unpractised and\neven unknown. These facts will come before us more in detail as we\nproceed.\n\nThe period now brought before our notice is to some extent one of\nnational revival; but it is much more important as an age of religious\nconstruction. The Jews now constitute themselves into a Church; the\nchief concern of their leaders is to develop their religious life and\ncharacter. The charm of these times is to be found in the great\nspiritual awakening that inspires and shapes their history. Here we\napproach very near to the Holy Presence of the Spirit of God in His\nglorious activity as the Lord and Giver of Life. This epoch was to\nIsrael what Pentecost became to the Christians. Pentecost!--We have\nonly to face the comparison to see how far the later covenant exceeded\nthe earlier covenant in glory. To us Christians there is a hardness, a\nnarrowness, a painful externalism in the whole of this religious\nmovement. We cannot say that it lacks soul; but we feel that it has\nnot the liberty of the highest spiritual vitality. It is cramped in\nthe fetters of legal ordinances. We shall come across evidences of the\nexistence of a liberal party that shrank from the rigour of The Law.\nBut this party gave no signs of religious life; the freedom it claimed\nwas not the glorious liberty of the sons of God. There is no reason to\nbelieve that the more devout people anticipated the standpoint of St.\nPaul and saw any imperfection in their law. To them it presented a\nlofty scheme of life, worthy of the highest aspiration. And there is\nmuch in their spirit that commands our admiration and even our\nemulation. The most obnoxious feature of their zeal is its pitiless\nexclusiveness. But without this quality Judaism would have been lost\nin the cross currents of life among the mixed populations of\nPalestine.\n\nThe policy of exclusiveness saved Judaism. At heart this is just an\napplication--though a very harsh and formal application--of the\nprinciple of separation from the world which Christ and His Apostles\nenjoined on the Church, and the neglect of which has sometimes nearly\nresulted in the disappearance of any distinctive Christian truth and\nlife, like the disappearance of a river that breaking through its\nbanks spreads itself out in lagoons and morasses, and ends by being\nswallowed up in the sands of the desert.\n\nThe exterior aspect of the stern, strict Judaism of these days is by\nno means attractive. But the interior life of it is simply superb. It\nrecognises the absolute supremacy of God. In the will of God it\nacknowledges the one unquestionable authority before which all who\naccept His covenant must bow; in the revealed truth of God it\nperceives an inflexible rule for the conduct of His people. To be\npledged to allegiance to the will and law of God is to be truly\nconsecrated to God. That is the condition voluntarily entered into by\nthe citizens of Jerusalem in this epoch of religious awakening. A few\ncenturies later their example was followed by the primitive\nChristians, who, according to the testimony of the two Bithynian\nhandmaidens tortured by Pliny, solemnly pledged themselves to lives of\npurity and righteousness; again, it was imitated, though in strangely\nperverted guise, by anchorites and monks, by the great founders of\nmonastic orders and their loyal disciples, and by mediaeval reformers\nof Church discipline such as St. Bernard; still later it was followed\nmore closely by the Protestant inhabitants of Swiss cities at the\nReformation, by the early Independents at home and the Pilgrim Fathers\nin New England, by the Covenanters in Scotland, by the first\nMethodists. It is the model of Church order, and the ideal of the\nreligious organisation of civic life. But it awaits the adequate\nfulfilment of its promise in the establishment of the Heavenly City,\nthe New Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_CYRUS._\n\nEZRA i. I.\n\n\nThe remarkable words with which the Second Book of Chronicles closes,\nand which are repeated in the opening verses of the Book of Ezra,\nafford the most striking instance on record of that peculiar\nconnection between the destinies of the little Hebrew nation and the\nmovements of great World Empires which frequently emerges in history.\nWe cannot altogether set it down to the vanity of their writers, or to\nthe lack of perspective accompanying a contracted, provincial\neducation, that the Jews are represented in the Old Testament as\nplaying a more prominent part on the world's stage than one to which\nthe size of their territory--little bigger than Wales--or their\nmilitary prowess would entitle them. The fact is indisputable. No\ndoubt it is to be attributed in part to the geographical position of\nPalestine on the highway of the march of armies to and fro between\nAsia and Africa; but it must spring also in some measure from the\nunique qualities of the strange people who have given their religion\nto the most civilised societies of mankind.\n\nIn the case before us the greatest man of his age, one of the\nhalf-dozen Founders of Empires, who constitute a lofty aristocracy\neven among sovereigns, is manifestly concerning himself very specially\nwith the restoration of one of the smallest of the many subject races\nthat fell into his hands when he seized the garnered spoils of\nprevious conquerors. Whatever we may think of the precise words of his\ndecree as this is now reported to us by a Hebrew scribe, it is\nunquestionable that he issued some such orders as are contained in it.\nCyrus, as it now appears, was originally king of Elam, the modern\nKhuzistan, not of Persia, although the royal family from which he\nsprang was of Persian extraction. After making himself master of\nPersia and building up an empire in Asia Minor and the north, he swept\ndown on to the plains of Chaldaea and captured Babylon in the year B.C.\n538. To the Jews this would be the first year of his reign, because it\nwas the first year of his rule over them, just as the year A.D. 1603\nis reckoned by Englishmen as the first year of James I., because the\nking of Scotland then inherited the English throne. In this year the\nnew sovereign, of his own initiative, released the Hebrew exiles, and\neven assisted them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their ruined\ntemple. Such an astounding act of generosity was contrary to the\nprecedent of other conquerors, who accepted as a matter of course the\narrangement of subject races left by their predecessors; and we are\nnaturally curious to discover the motives that prompted it.\n\nLike our mythical King Arthur, the Cyrus of legend is credited with a\nsingularly attractive disposition. Herodotus says the Persians\nregarded him as their \"father\" and their \"shepherd.\" In Xenophon's\nromance he appears as a very kindly character. Cicero calls him the\nmost just, wise, and amiable of rulers. Although it cannot be\ndignified with the name of history, this universally accepted\ntradition seems to point to some foundation in fact. It is entirely in\naccord with the Jewish picture of the Great King. There is some reason\nfor believing that the privilege Cyrus offered to the Jews was one in\nwhich other nations shared. On a small, broken, clay cylinder, some\nfour inches in diameter, discovered quite recently and now deposited\nin the British Museum, Cyrus is represented as saying, \"I assembled\nall those nations, and I caused them to go back to their countries.\"\nThus the return of the Jews may be regarded as a part of a general\ncentrifugal movement in the new Empire.\n\nNevertheless, the peculiar favour indicated by the decree issued to\nthe Jews suggests something special in their case, and this must be\naccounted for before the action of Cyrus can be well understood.\n\nLittle or no weight can be attached to the statement of Josephus, who\ninserts in the very language of the decree a reference to the\nforetelling of the name of Cyrus by \"the prophets,\" as a prime motive\nfor issuing it, and adds that this was known to Cyrus by his reading\nthe book of Isaiah.[4] Always more or less untrustworthy whenever he\ntouches the relations between his people and foreigners, the Jewish\nhistorian is even exceptionally unsatisfactory in his treatment of the\nPersian Period. It may be, as Ewald asserts, that Josephus is here\nfollowing some Hellenistic writer; but we know nothing of his\nauthority. There is no reference to this in our one authority, the\nBook of Ezra; and if it had been true there would have been every\nreason to publish it. Some Jews at court may have shown Cyrus the\nprophecies in question indeed it is most probable that men who wished\nto please him would have done so. Plato in the \"Laws\" represents Cyrus\nas honouring those who knew how to give good advice. But it is\nscarcely reasonable to suppose, without a particle of evidence, that a\ngreat monarch flushed with victory would set himself to carry out a\nprediction purporting to emanate from the Deity of one of the\nconquered peoples, when that prediction was distinctly in their\ninterest, unless he was first actuated by some other considerations.\n\n  [4] _Ant._, XI. i. 1, 2.\n\nUntil a few years ago it was commonly supposed that Cyrus was a\nZoroastrian, who was disgusted at the cruel and lustful idolatry of\nthe Babylonians, and that when he discovered a monotheistic people\noppressed by vicious heathen polytheists, he claimed religious\nbrotherhood with them, and so came to show them singular favour.\nUnfortunately for his fame, this fascinating theory has been recently\nshattered by the discovery of the little cylinder already referred to.\nHere Cyrus is represented as saying that \"the gods\" have deserted\nNabonidas--the last king of Babylon--because he has neglected their\nservice; and that Merodach, the national divinity of Babylon, has\ntransferred his favour to Cyrus; who now honours him with many\npraises. An attempt has been made to refute the evidence of this\nancient record by attributing the cylinder to some priest of Bel, who,\nit is said, may have drawn up the inscription without the knowledge of\nthe king, and even in direct opposition to his religious views. A most\nimprobable hypothesis! especially as we have absolutely no grounds for\nthe opinion that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian. The Avesta, the sacred\ncollection of hymns which forms the basis of the Parsee scriptures,\ncame from the far East, close to India, and it was written in a\nlanguage almost identical with Sanscrit and quite different from the\nOld Persian of Western Persia. We have no ground for supposing that as\nyet it had been adopted in the remote south-western region of Elam,\nwhere Cyrus was brought up. That monarch, it would seem, was a\nliberal-minded syncretist, as ready to make himself at home with the\ngods of the peoples he conquered as with their territories. Such a man\nwould be astute enough to represent the indigenous divinities as\ndiverting their favour from the fallen and therefore discredited kings\nhe had overthrown, and transferring it to the new victor. We must\ntherefore descend from the highlands of theology in our search for an\nexplanation of the conduct of Cyrus. Can we find this in some\ndepartment of state policy?\n\nWe learn from the latter portion of our Book of Isaiah that the Jewish\ncaptives suffered persecution under Nabonidas. It is not difficult to\nguess the cause of the embitterment of this king against them after\nthey had been allowed to live in peace and prosperity under his\npredecessors. Evidently the policy of Nebuchadnezzar, which may have\nsucceeded with some other races, had broken down in its application to\na people with such tough national vitality as that of the Jews. It was\nfound to be impossible to eradicate their patriotism--or rather the\npatriotism of the faithful nucleus of the nation, impossible to make\nJerusalem forgotten by the waters of Babylon. This ancient \"Semitic\nquestion\" was the very reverse of that which now vexes Eastern Europe,\nbecause in the case of the Jews at Babylon the troublesome aliens were\nonly desirous of liberty to depart; but it sprang from the same\nessential cause--the separateness of the Hebrew race.\n\nNow things often present themselves in a true light to a new-comer\nwho approaches them with a certain mental detachment, although they\nmay have been grievously misapprehended by those people among whom\nthey have slowly shaped themselves. Cyrus was a man of real genius;\nand immediately he came upon the scene he must have perceived the\nmistake of retaining a restless, disaffected population, like a\nforeign body rankling in the very heart of his empire. Moreover, to\nallow the Jews to return home would serve a double purpose. While it\nwould free the Euphrates Valley from a constant source of distress, it\nwould plant a grateful, and therefore loyal, people on the western\nconfines of the empire--perhaps, as some have thought, to be used as\noutworks and a basis of operations in a projected campaign against\nEgypt. Thus a far-sighted statesman might regard the liberation of the\nJews as a stroke of wise policy. But we must not make too much of\nthis. The restored Jews were a mere handful of religious devotees,\nscarcely able to hold their own against the attacks of neighbouring\nvillages; and while they were permitted to build their temple, nothing\nwas said in the royal rescript about fortifying their city. So feeble\na colony could not have been accounted of much strategic importance by\nsuch a master of armies as Cyrus. Again, we know from the \"Second\nIsaiah\" that, when the Persian war-cloud was hovering on the horizon,\nthe Jewish exiles hailed it as the sign of deliverance from\npersecution. The invader who brought destruction to Babylon promised\nrelief to her victims; and the lofty strains of the prophet bespeak an\ninspired perception of the situation which encouraged higher hopes. A\nsecond discovery in the buried library of bricks is that of a small\nflat tablet, also recently unearthed like the cylinder of Cyrus,\nwhich records this very section of the history of Babylon. Here it is\nstated that Cyrus intrigued with a disaffected party within the city.\nWho would be so likely as the persecuted Jews to play this part?\nFurther, the newly found Babylonian record makes it clear that\nHerodotus was mistaken in his famous account of the siege of Babylon\nwhere he connected it with the coming of Cyrus. He must have\nmisapprehended a report of one of the two sieges under Darius, when\nthe city had revolted and was recaptured by force, for we now know\nthat after a battle fought in the open country Cyrus was received into\nthe city without striking another blow. He would be likely to be in a\ngracious mood then, and if he knew there were exiles, languishing in\ncaptivity, who hailed his advent as that of a deliverer, even apart\nfrom the question whether they had previously opened up negotiations\nwith him, he could not but look favourably upon them; so that\ngenerosity and perhaps gratitude combined with good policy to govern\nhis conduct. Lastly, although he was not a theological reformer, he\nseems to have been of a religious character, according to his light,\nand therefore it is not unnatural to suppose that he may have heartily\nthrown himself into a movement of which his wisdom approved, and with\nwhich all his generous instincts sympathised. Thus, after all, there\nmay be something in the old view, if only we combine it with our newer\ninformation. Under the peculiar political circumstances of his day,\nCyrus may have been prepared to welcome the prophetic assurance that\nhe was a heaven-sent shepherd, if some of the Jews had shown it him.\nEven without any such assurance, other conquerors have been only too\nready to flatter themselves that they were executing a sacred\nmission.\n\nThese considerations do not in the least degree limit the Divine\nelement of the narrative as that is brought forward by the Hebrew\nhistorian. On the contrary, they give additional importance to it. The\nchronicler sees in the decree of Cyrus and its issues an\naccomplishment of the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah.\nLiterally he says that what happens is in order that the word of the\nLord may _be brought to an end_. It is in the \"_fulness_ of the time,\"\nas the advent of Christ was later in another relation.[5] The writer\nseems to have in mind the passage--\"And this whole land shall be a\ndesolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the\nking of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy\nyears are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and\nthat nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the\nChaldeans; and I will make it desolate for ever\";[6] as well as\nanother prophecy--\"For thus saith the Lord, After seventy years be\naccomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform My good word\ntoward you, in causing you to return to this place.\"[7] Now if we do\nnot accept the notion of Josephus that Cyrus was consciously and\npurposely fulfilling these predictions, we do not in any way diminish\nthe fact that the deliverance came from God. If we are driven to the\nconclusion that Cyrus was not solely or chiefly actuated by religious\nmotives, or even if we take his action to be _purely_ one of state\npolicy, the ascription of this inferior position to Cyrus only\nheightens the wonderful glory of God's overruling providence.\nNebuchadnezzar was described as God's \"servant\"[8] because, although\nhe was a bad man, only pursuing his own wicked way, yet, all unknown\nto him, that way was made to serve God's purposes. Similarly Cyrus,\nwho is not a bad man, is God's \"Shepherd,\" when he delivers the\nsuffering flock from the wolf and sends it back to the fold, whether\nhe aims at obeying the will of God or not. It is part of the great\nrevelation of God in history, that He is seen working out His supreme\npurposes in spite of the ignorance and sometimes even by means of the\nmalice of men. Was not this the case in the supreme event of history,\nthe crucifixion of our Lord? If the cruelty of Nebuchadnezzar and the\nfeebleness of Pilate could serve God, so could the generosity of\nCyrus.\n\n  [5] Gal. iv. 4.\n\n  [6] Jer. xxv. 11, 12.\n\n  [7] Jer. xxix. 10.\n\n  [8] Jer. xxvii. 6.\n\nThe question of the chronological exactness of this fulfilment of\nprophecy troubles some minds that are anxious about Biblical\narithmetic. The difficulty is to arrive at the period of seventy\nyears. It would seem that this could only be done by some stretching\nat both ends of the exile. We must begin with Nebuchadnezzar's first\ncapture of Jerusalem and the first carrying away of a small body of\nroyal hostages to Babylon in the year B.C. 606. Even then we have only\nsixty-eight years to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, which happened\nin B.C. 538. Therefore to get the full seventy years it is proposed to\nextend the exile till the year B.C. 536, which is the date of the\ncommencement of Cyrus's sole rule. But there are serious difficulties\nin these suggestions. In his prediction of the seventy years Jeremiah\nplainly refers to the complete overthrow of the nation with the strong\nwords, \"This whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment.\" As\na matter of fact, the exile only began in earnest with the final\nsiege of Jerusalem, which took place in B.C. 588. Then Cyrus actually\nbegan his reign over the Jews in B.C. 538, when he took Babylon, and\nhe issued his edict in his first year. Thus the real exile as a\nnational trouble seems to have occupied fifty years, or, reckoning a\nyear for the issuing and execution of the edict, fifty-one years.\nInstead of straining at dates, is it not more simple and natural to\nsuppose that Jeremiah gave a round figure to signify a period which\nwould cover the lifetime of his contemporaries, at all events? However\nthis may be, nobody can make a grievance out of the fact that the\ncaptivity may not have been quite so lengthy as the previous warnings\nof it foreshadowed. Tillotson wisely remarked that there is this\ndifference between the Divine promises and the Divine threatenings,\nthat while God pledges His faithfulness to the full extent of the\nformer, He is not equally bound to the perfect accomplishment of the\nlatter. If the question of dates shows a little discrepancy, what does\nthis mean but that God is so merciful as not always to exact the last\nfarthing? Moreover it should be remarked that the point of Jeremiah's\nprophecy is not the exact length of the captivity, but the certain\ntermination of it after a long while. The time is fulfilled when the\nend has come.\n\nBut the action of Cyrus is not only regarded as the accomplishment of\nprophecy; it is also attributed to the direct influence of God\nexercised on the Great King, for we read \"the Lord stirred up the\nspirit of Cyrus king of Persia,\" etc. It would indicate the radical\nscepticism which is too often hidden under the guise of a rigorous\nregard for correct belief, to maintain that because we now know Cyrus\nto have been a polytheist his spirit could not have been stirred up\nby the true God. It is not the teaching of the Bible that God confines\nHis influence on the hearts of men to Jews and Christians. Surely we\ncannot suppose that the Father of all mankind rigidly refuses to hold\nany intercourse with the great majority of His children--never\nwhispers them a guiding word in their anxiety and perplexity, never\nbreathes into them a helpful impulse, even in their best moments, when\nthey are earnestly striving to do right. In writing to the Romans St.\nPaul distinctly argues on the ground that God has revealed Himself to\nthe heathen world,[9] and in the presence of Cornelius St. Peter as\ndistinctly asserts that God accepts the devout and upright of all\nnations.[10] Here even in the Old Testament it is recognised that God\nmoves the king of Persia. This affords a singular encouragement for\nprayer, because it suggests that God has access to those who are far\nout of our reach; that He quite sets aside the obstruction of\nintermediaries--secretaries, chamberlains, grand-viziers, and all the\n_entourage_ of a court; that He goes straight into the audience\nchamber, making direct for the inmost thoughts and feelings of the man\nwhom He would influence. The wonder of it is that God condescends to\ndo this even with men who know little of Him; but it should be\nremembered that though He is strange to many men, none of them are\nstrange to Him. The Father knows the children who do not know Him. It\nmay be remarked, finally, on this point, that the special Divine\ninfluence now referred to is dynamic rather than illuminating. To stir\nup the spirit is to move to activity. God not only teaches; He\nquickens. In the case of Cyrus, the king used his own judgment and\nacted on his own opinions; yet the impulse which drove him was from\nGod. That was everything. We live in a God-haunted world: why then are\nwe slow to take the first article of our creed in its full meaning? Is\nit so difficult to believe in God when all history is alive with His\npresence?\n\n  [9] Rom. i. 19.\n\n  [10] Acts x. 34, 35.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_THE ROYAL EDICT._\n\nEZRA i. 2-4, 7-11.\n\n\nIt has been asserted that the Scripture version of the edict of Cyrus\ncannot be an exact rendering of the original, because it ascribes to\nthe Great King some knowledge of the God of the Jews, and even some\nfaith in Him. For this reason it has been suggested that either the\nchronicler or some previous writer who translated the decree out of\nthe Persian language, in which of course it must have been first\nissued, inserted the word Jehovah in place of the name of Ormazd or\nsome other god worshipped by Cyrus, and shaped the phrases generally\nso as to commend them to Jewish sympathies. Are we driven to this\nposition? We have seen that when Cyrus got possession of Babylon he\nhad no scruple in claiming the indigenous divinity Merodach as his\ngod. Is it not then entirely in accordance with his eclectic habit of\nmind--not to mention his diplomatic art in humouring the prejudices of\nhis subjects--that he should draw up a decree in which he designed to\nshow favour to an exceptionally religious people in language that\nwould be congenial to them? Like most men of higher intelligence even\namong polytheistic races, Cyrus may have believed in one supreme\nDeity, who, he may have supposed, was worshipped under different\nnames by different nations. The final clause of Ezra i. 3 is\nmisleading, as it stands in the Authorised Version; and the Revisers,\nwith their habitual caution, have only so far improved upon it as to\npermit the preferable rendering to appear in the margin, where we have\ngenerally to look for the opinions of the more scholarly as well as\nthe more courageous critics. Yet even the Authorised Version renders\nthe same words correctly in the very next verse. There is no occasion\nto print the clause, \"He is the God,\" as a parenthesis, so as to make\nCyrus inform the world that Jehovah is the one real divinity. The more\nprobable rendering in idea is also the more simple one in\nconstruction. Removing the superfluous brackets, we read right on: \"He\nis the God which is in Jerusalem\"--_i.e._, we have an indication who\n\"Jehovah\" is for the information of strangers to the Jews who may read\nthe edict. With this understanding let us examine the leading items of\nthe decree. It was proclaimed by the mouth of king's messengers, and\nit was also preserved in writing, so that possibly the original\ninscription may be recovered from among the burnt clay records that\nlie buried in the ruins of Persian cities. The edict is addressed to\nthe whole empire. Cyrus announces to all his subjects his intention to\nrebuild the temple at Jerusalem. Then he specialises the aim of the\ndecree by granting a licence to the Jews to go up to Jerusalem and\nundertake this work. It is a perfectly free offer to all Jews in exile\nwithout exception. \"Who is there among you\"--_i.e._, among all the\nsubjects of the empire--\"of all His\" (Jehovah's) \"people, his God be\nwith him, and let him go up to Jerusalem,\" etc. In particular we may\nobserve the following points:--\n\nFirst, Cyrus begins by acknowledging that \"the God of Heaven\"--whom he\nidentifies with the Hebrew \"Jehovah,\" in our version of the edict--has\ngiven him his dominions. It is possible to treat this introductory\nsentence as a superficial formula; but there is no reason for so\nungenerous an estimate of it. If we accept the words in their honest\nintention, we must see in them a recognition of the hand of God in the\nsetting up of kingdoms. Two opposite kinds of experience awaken in men\na conviction of God's presence in their lives--great calamities and\ngreat successes. The influence of the latter experience is not so\noften acknowledged as that of the former, but probably it is equally\neffective, at least in extreme instances. There is something awful in\nthe success of a world-conqueror. When the man is a destroyer,\nspreading havoc and misery, like Attila, he regards himself as a\n\"Scourge of God\"; and when he is a vulgar impersonation of selfish\ngreed like Napoleon, he thinks he is swept on by a mighty tide of\ndestiny. In both instances the results are too stupendous to be\nattributed to purely human energy. But in the case of Cyrus, an\nenlightened and noble-minded hero is bringing liberty and favour to\nthe victims of a degraded tyranny, so that he is hailed by some of\nthem as the Anointed King raised up by their God, and therefore it is\nnot unnatural that he should ascribe his brilliant destiny to a Divine\ninfluence.\n\nSecondly, Cyrus actually asserts that God has charged him to build Him\na temple at Jerusalem. Again, this may be the language of princely\ncourtesy; but the noble spirit which breathes through the decree\nencourages us to take a higher view of it, and to refrain from reading\nminimising comments between the lines. It is probable that those\neager, patriotic Jews who had got the ear of Cyrus--or he would never\nhave issued such a decree as this--may have urged their suit by\nshowing him predictions like that of Isaiah xliv. 28, in which God\ndescribes Himself as One \"that saith of Cyrus, He is My shepherd, and\nshall perform all my pleasure: even saying of Jerusalem, Let her be\nbuilt; and, Let the foundations of the temple be laid.\" Possibly Cyrus\nis here alluding to that very utterance, although, as we have seen,\nJosephus is incorrect in inserting a reference to Hebrew prophecy in\nthe very words of the decree, and in suggesting that the fulfilment of\nprophecy was the chief end Cyrus had in view.\n\nIt is a historical fact that Cyrus did help to build the temple; he\nsupplied funds from the public treasury for that object. We can\nunderstand his motives for doing so. If he desired the favour of the\nGod of the Jews, he would naturally aid in restoring His shrine.\nNabonidas had fallen, it was thought, through neglecting the worship\nof the gods. Cyrus seems to have been anxious to avoid this mistake,\nand to have given attention to the cultivation of their favour. If, as\nseems likely, some of the Jews had impressed his mind with the\ngreatness of Jehovah, he might have desired to promote the building of\nthe temple at Jerusalem with exceptional assiduity.\n\nIn the next place, Cyrus gives the captive Jews leave to go up to\nJerusalem. The edict is purely permissive. There is to be no expulsion\nof Jews from Babylon. Those exiles who did not choose to avail\nthemselves of the boon so eagerly coveted by the patriotic few were\nallowed to remain unmolested in peace and prosperity. The restoration\nwas voluntary. This free character of the movement would give it a\nvigour quite out of proportion to the numbers of those who took part\nin it, and would, at the same time, ensure a certain elevation of tone\nand spirit. It is an image of the Divine restoration of souls, which\nis confined to those who accept it of their own free will.\n\nFurther, the object of the return, as it is distinctly specified, is\nsimply to rebuild the temple, not--at all events in the first\ninstance--to build up and fortify a city on the ruins of Jerusalem;\nmuch less does it imply a complete restoration of Palestine to the\nJews, with a wholesale expulsion of its present inhabitants from their\nfarms and vineyards. Cyrus does not seem to have contemplated any such\nrevolution. The end in view was neither social nor political, but\npurely religious. That more would come out of it, that the returning\nexiles must have houses to live in and must protect those houses from\nthe brigandage of the Bedouin, and that they must have fields\nproducing food to support them and their families, are inevitable\nconsequences. Here is the germ and nucleus of a national restoration.\nStill it remains true that the immediate object--the only object named\nin the decree--is the rebuilding of the temple. Thus we see from the\nfirst that the idea which characterises the restoration is religious.\nThe exiles return as a Church. The goal of their pilgrimage is a holy\nsite. The one work they are to aim at achieving is to further the\nworship of their God.\n\nLastly, the inhabitants of the towns in which the Jews have been\nsettled are directed to make contributions towards the work. It is not\nquite clear whether these \"Benevolences\" are to be entirely voluntary.\nA royal exhortation generally assumes something of the character of a\ncommand. Probably rich men were requisitioned to assist in providing\nthe gold and silver and other stores, together with the beasts of\nburden which would be needed for the great expedition. This was to\nsupplement what Cyrus calls \"the free-will offering for the house of\nGod that is in Jerusalem\"--_i.e._, either the gifts of the Jews who\nremained in Babylon, or possibly his own contribution from the funds\nof the state. We are reminded of the Hebrews spoiling the Egyptians at\nthe Exodus. The prophet Haggai saw in this a promise of further\nsupplies, when the wealth of foreign nations would be poured into the\ntemple treasury in donations of larger dimensions from the heathen.\n\"For thus saith the Lord of hosts,\" he writes, \"Yet once, it is a\nlittle while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the\nsea, and the dry land; ... and the desirable things of all nations\nshall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of\nhosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of\nhosts.\"[11]\n\n  [11] Hag. ii. 6-8.\n\nThe assumed willingness of their neighbours to contribute at a hint\nfrom the king suggests that the exiles were not altogether unpopular.\nOn the other hand, it is quite possible that, under the oppression of\nNabonidas, they had suffered much wrong from these neighbours. A\npublic persecution always entails a large amount of private cruelty,\nbecause the victims are not protected by the law from the greed and\npetty spite of those who are mean enough to take advantage of their\nhelpless condition. Thus it may be that Cyrus was aiming at a just\nreturn in his recommendation to his subjects to aid the Jews.\n\nSuch was the decree. Now let us look at the execution of it.\n\nIn the first place, there was a ready response on the part of some of\nthe Jews, seen especially in the conduct of their leaders, who \"rose\nup,\" bestirring themselves to prepare for the expedition, like\nexpectant watchers released from their weary waiting and set free for\naction. The social leaders are mentioned first, which is a clear\nindication that the theocracy, so characteristic of the coming age,\nwas not yet the recognised order. A little later the clergy will be\nplaced before the laity, but at present the laity are still named\nbefore the clergy. The order is domestic. The leaders are the heads of\ngreat families--\"the chief of the fathers.\" For such people to be\nnamed first is also an indication that the movement did not originate\nin the humbler classes. Evidently a certain aristocratic spirit\npermeated it. The wealthy merchants may have been loath to leave their\ncentres of commerce, but the nobility of blood and family were at the\nhead of the crusade. We have not yet reached the age of the democracy.\nIt is clear, further, that there was some organisation among the\nexiles. They were not a mere crowd of refugees. The leaders were of\nthe tribes of Judah and Benjamin. We shall have to consider the\nrelation of the Ten Tribes to the restoration later on; here it may be\nenough to observe in passing that representatives of the Southern\nKingdom take the lead in a return to Jerusalem, the capital of that\nkingdom. Next come the ecclesiastical leaders, the priests and\nLevites. Already we find these two orders named separately--an\nimportant fact in relation to the development of Judaism that will\nmeet us again, with some hints here and there to throw light upon the\nmeaning of it.\n\nThere is another side to this response. It was by no means the case\nthat the whole of the exiles rose up in answer to the edict of Cyrus;\nonly those leaders and only those people responded \"whose spirit God\nhad raised.\" The privilege was offered to all the Jews, but it was not\naccepted by all. We cannot but be impressed by the religious faith and\nthe inspired insight of our historian in this matter. He saw that\nCyrus issued his edict because the Lord had stirred up his spirit; now\nhe attributes the prompting to make use of the proffered liberty to a\nsimilar Divine influence. Thus the return was a movement of\nheaven-sent impulses throughout. Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones\nshowed the deplorable condition of the Northern Kingdom in his\nday--stripped bare, shattered to fragments, scattered abroad. The\ncondition of Judah was only second to this ghastly national ruin. But\nnow to Judah there had come the breath of the Divine Spirit which\nEzekiel saw promised for Israel, and a living army was rising up in\nnew energy. Here we may discover the deeper, the more vital source of\nthe return. Without this the edict of Cyrus would have perished as a\ndead letter. Even as it was, only those people who felt the breath of\nthe Divine afflatus rose up for the arduous undertaking. So to-day\nthere is no return to the heavenly Jerusalem and no rebuilding the\nfallen temple of human nature except in the power of the Spirit of\nGod. Regeneration always goes hand in hand with redemption--the work\nof the Spirit with the work of the Christ. In the particular case\nbefore us, the special effect of the Divine influence is \"to raise the\nspirit\"--_i.e._, to infuse life, to rouse to activity and hope and\nhigh endeavour. A people thus equipped is fit for any expedition of\ntoil or peril. Like Gideon's little, sifted army, the small band of\ninspired men who rose up to accept the decree of Cyrus carried within\ntheir breasts a superhuman power, and therefore a promise of ultimate\nsuccess. The aim with which they set out confirmed the religious\ncharacter of the whole enterprise. They accepted the limitations and\nthey gladly adopted the one definite purpose suggested in the edict of\nCyrus. They proceeded \"to build the house of the Lord which is in\nJerusalem.\" This was their only confessed aim. It would have been\nimpossible for patriots such as these Jews were not to feel some\nnational hopes and dreams stirring within them; still we have no\nreason to believe that the returning exiles were not loyal to the\nspirit of the decree of the Great King. The religious aim was the real\noccasion of the expedition. So much the more need was there to go in\nthe Spirit and strength of God. Only they whose spirit God has raised\nare fit to build God's temple, because work for God must be done in\nthe Spirit of God.\n\nSecondly, the resident neighbours fell in with the recommendation of\nthe king ungrudgingly, and gave rich contributions for the expedition.\nThey could not go themselves, but they could have a share in the work\nby means of their gifts--as the home Church can share in the foreign\nmission she supports. The acceptance of these bounties by the Jews\ndoes not well accord with their subsequent conduct when they refused\nthe aid of their Samaritan neighbours in the actual work of building\nthe temple. It has an ugly look, as though they were willing to take\nhelp from all sources excepting where any concessions in return would\nbe expected on the part of those who were befriending them. However,\nit is just to remember that the aid was invited and offered by Cyrus,\nnot solicited by the Jews.\n\nThirdly, the execution of the decree appears to have been honestly\nand effectively promoted by its author. In accordance with his\ngenerous encouragement of the Jews to rebuild their temple, Cyrus\nrestored the sacred vessels that had been carried off by\nNebuchadnezzar on the occasion of the first Chaldaean raid on\nJerusalem, and deposited in a temple at Babylon nearly seventy years\nbefore the time of the return. No doubt these things were regarded as\nof more importance than other spoils of war. It would be supposed that\nthe patron god of the conquered people was humiliated when the\ninstruments of his worship were offered to Bel or Nebo. Perhaps it was\nthought that some charm attaching to them would bring luck to the city\nin which they were guarded. When Nabonidas was seized with frantic\nterror at the approach of the Persian hosts, he brought the idols of\nthe surrounding nations to Babylon for his protection. The reference\nto the temple vessels, and the careful and detailed enumeration of\nthem, without the mention of any image, is a clear proof that,\nalthough before the captivity the majority of the Jews may have\nconsisted of idolaters, there was no idol in the temple at Jerusalem.\nHad there been one there Nebuchadnezzar would most certainly have\ncarried it off as the greatest trophy of victory. In default of\nimages, he had to make the most of the gold and silver plate used in\nthe sacrificial ceremonies.\n\nViewed in this connection, the restitution of the stolen vessels by\nCyrus appears to be more than an act of generosity or justice. A\ncertain religious import belongs to it. It put an end to an ancient\ninsult offered by Babylon to the God of Israel; and it might be taken\nas an act of homage offered to Jehovah by Cyrus. Yet it was only a\nrestitution, a return of what was God's before, and so a type of every\ngift man makes to God.\n\nIt has been noticed that the total number of the vessels restored does\nnot agree with the sum of the numbers of the several kinds of vessels.\nThe total is 5400; but an addition of the list of the vessels only\namounts to 2499. Perhaps the less valuable articles are omitted from\nthe detailed account; or possibly there is some error of\ntranscription, and if so the question is, in which direction shall we\nfind it? It may be that the total was too large. On the other hand, in\n1 Esdras nearly the same high total is given--viz., 5469--and there\nthe details are made to agree with it by an evidently artificial\nmanipulation of the numbers.[12] This gives some probability to the\nview that the total is correct, and that the error must be in the\nnumbers of the several items. The practical importance of these\nconsiderations is that they lead us to a high estimate of the immense\nwealth of the Old Temple treasures. Thus they suggest the reflection\nthat much devotion and generosity had been shown in collecting such\nstores of gold and silver in previous ages. They help us to picture\nthe sumptuous ritual of the first temple, with the \"barbaric\nsplendour\" of a rich display of the precious metals. Therefore they\nshow that the generosity of Cyrus in restoring so great a hoard was\ngenuine and considerable. It might have been urged that after the\ntreasures had been lying for two generations in a heathen temple the\noriginal owners had lost all claim upon them. It might have been said\nthat they had been contaminated by this long residence among the\nabominations of Babylonian idolatry. The restoration of them swept\naway all such ideas. What was once God's belongs to Him by right for\never. His property is inalienable; His claims never lapse with time,\nnever fail through change.\n\n  [12] 1 Esdras ii. 14.\n\nIt is not without significance that the treasurer who handed over\ntheir temple-property to the Jews was named \"Mithredath\"--a word that\nmeans \"given by Mithra,\" or \"devoted to Mithra.\" This suggests that\nthe Persian sun-god was honoured among the servants of Cyrus, and yet\nthat one who by name at least was especially associated with this\ndivinity was constrained to honour the God of Israel. Next to Judaism\nand Christianity, the worship of Mithra showed the greatest vitality\nof all religions in Western Asia, and later even in Europe. So\nvigorous was it as recently as the commencement of the Christian era,\nthat M. Renan has remarked, that if the Roman world had not become\nChristian it would have become Mithrastic. In those regions where the\ndazzling radiance and burning heat of the sun are felt as they are not\neven imagined in our chill, gloomy climate, it was naturally supposed\nthat if any visible God existed He must be found in the great fiery\ncentre of the world's light and life. Our own day has seen the\nscientific development of the idea that the sun's force is the source\nof all the energy of nature. In the homage paid by one of the ancient\nfollowers of Mithra, the sun-god, to the God of Israel, may we not see\nan image of the recognition of the claims of the Supreme by our\npriests of the sun--Kepler, Newton, Faraday? Men must be more blind\nthan the slaves of Mithra if they cannot recognise an awful, invisible\nenergy behind and above the forces of the solar system--nay more, a\nliving Spirit--God!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_THE SECOND EXODUS._\n\nEzra ii. 1-67.\n\n\nThe journey of the returning exiles from Babylon has some points of\nresemblance to the exodus of their fathers from Egypt. On both\noccasions the Israelites had been suffering oppression in a foreign\nland. Deliverance had come to the ancient Hebrews in so wonderful a\nway that it could only be described as a miracle of God: no material\nmiracle was recorded of the later movement; and yet it was so\nmarvellously providential that the Jews were constrained to\nacknowledge that the hand of God was not less concerned in it.\n\nBut there were great differences between the two events. In the\noriginal _Hegira_ of the Hebrews a horde of slaves was fleeing from\nthe land of their brutal masters; in the solemn pilgrimage of the\nsecond exodus the Jews were able to set out with every encouragement\nfrom the conqueror of their national enemy. On the other hand, while\nthe flight from Egypt led to liberty, the expedition from Babylon did\nnot include an escape from the foreign yoke. The returning exiles were\ndescribed as \"children of the province\"[13]--_i.e._, of the Persian\nprovince of Judaea--and their leader bore the title of a Persian\ngovernor.[14] Zerubbabel was no new Moses. The first exodus witnessed\nthe birth of a nation; the second saw only a migration within the\nboundaries of an empire, sanctioned by the ruler because it did not\ninclude the deliverance of the subject people from servitude.\n\n  [13] Ezra ii. 1.\n\n  [14] Tirshatha. Ezra ii. 63.\n\nIn other respects the condition of the Israelites who took part in the\nlater expedition contrasts favourably with that of their ancestors\nunder Moses. In the arts of civilisation, of course, they were far\nsuperior to the crushed Egyptian bondmen. But the chief distinction\nlay in the matter of religion. At length, in these days of Cyrus, the\npeople were ripe to accept the faith of the great teachers who\nhitherto had been as voices crying in the wilderness. This fact\nsignalises the immense difference between the Jews in every age\nprevious to the exile, and the Jews of the return. In earlier periods\nthey appear as a kingdom, but not as a Church; in the later age they\nare no longer a kingdom, but they have become a Church. The kingdom\nhad been mainly heathenish and idolatrous in its religion, and most\nabominably corrupt in its morals, with only a thin streak of purer\nfaith and conduct running through the course of its history. But the\nnew Church, formed out of captives purified in the fires of\npersecution, consisted of a body of men and women who heartily\nembraced the religion to which but few of their forefathers had\nattained, and who were even ready to welcome a more rigorous\ndevelopment of its cult. Thus they became a highly developed Church.\nThey were consolidated into a Puritan Church in discipline, and a High\nChurch in ritual.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that only a fraction of the Jews in the East\nwent back to Palestine. Nor were they who tarried, in all cases, the\nmore worldly, enamoured of the fleshpots. In the Talmud it is said\nthat only the chaff returned, while the wheat remained behind. Both\nEzra and Nehemiah sprang from families still residing in the East long\nafter the return under Zerubbabel.\n\nIt is in accordance with these conditions that we come across one of\nthe most curious characteristics of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah--a\ncharacteristic which they share with Chronicles, viz., the frequent\ninsertion of long lists of names.\n\nThus the second chapter of Ezra contains a list of the families who\nwent up to Jerusalem in response to the edict of Cyrus. One or two\ngeneral considerations arise here.\n\nSince it was not a whole nation that migrated from the plains of\nBabylon across the great Syrian desert, but only some fragments of a\nnation, we shall not have to consider the fortunes and destinies of a\ncomposite unity, such as is represented by a kingdom. The people of\nGod must now be regarded disjunctively. It is not the blessing of\nIsrael, or the blessing of Judah, that faith now anticipates; but the\nblessing of those men, women, and children who fear God and walk in\nHis ways, though, of course, for the present they are all confined to\nthe limits of the Jewish race.\n\nOn the other hand, it is to be observed that this individualism was\nnot absolute. The people were arranged according to their families,\nand the names that distinguished the families were not those of the\npresent heads of houses, but the names of ancestors, possibly of\ncaptives taken down to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. As some of these\nnames occur in later expeditions, it is plain that the whole of the\nfamilies they represented were not found in the first body of\npilgrims. Still the people were grouped in family order. The Jews\nanticipated the modern verdict of sociology, that the social unit is\nthe family, not the individual. Judaism was, through and through, a\ndomestic religion.\n\nFurther, it is to be noted that a sort of caste feeling was engendered\nin the midst of the domestic arrangement of the people. It emerges\nalready in the second chapter of Ezra in the cases of families that\ncould not trace their genealogy, and it bears bitter fruit in some\npitiable scenes in the later history of the returned people. Not only\nnational rights, but also religious privileges, come more and more to\ndepend on purity of birth and descent. Religion is viewed as a\nquestion of blood relationship. Thus even with the very appearance of\nthat new-born individualism which might be expected to counteract it,\neven when the recovered people is composed entirely of volunteers, a\nstrong racial current sets in, which grows in volume until in the days\nof our Lord the fact of a man's being a Jew is thought a sufficient\nguarantee of his enjoying the favour of Heaven, until in our own day\nsuch a book as \"Daniel Deronda\" portrays the race-enthusiasm of the\nIsraelite as the very heart and essence of his religion.\n\nWe have three copies of the list of the returning exiles--one in Ezra\nii., the second in Nehemiah vii., and the third in 1 Esdras v. They\nare evidently all of them transcripts of the same original register;\nbut though they agree in the main, they differ in details, giving some\nvariation in the names and considerable diversity in the\nnumbers--Esdras coming nearer to Ezra than to Nehemiah, as we might\nexpect. The total, however, is the same in every case, viz., 42,360\n(besides 7337 servants)--a large number, which shows how important the\nexpedition was considered to be.\n\nThe name of Zerubbabel appears first. He was the lineal descendant of\nthe royal house, the heir to the throne of David. This is a most\nsignificant fact. It shows that the exiles had retained some latent\nnational organisation, and it gives a faint political character to the\nreturn, although, as we have already observed, the main object of it\nwas religious. To fervent readers of old prophecies strange hopes\nwould dawn, hopes of the Messiah whose advent Isaiah, in particular,\nhad predicted. Was this new shoot from the stock of David indeed the\nLord's Anointed? Those who secretly answered the question to\nthemselves in the affirmative were doomed to much perplexity and not a\nlittle disappointment. Nevertheless Zerubbabel was a lower, a\nprovisional, a temporary Messiah. God was educating His people through\ntheir illusions. As one by one the national heroes failed to satisfy\nthe large hopes of the prophets, they were left behind, but the hopes\nstill maintained their unearthly vitality. Hezekiah, Josiah,\nZerubbabel, the Maccabees all passed, and in passing they all helped\nto prepare for One who alone could realise the dreams of seers and\nsingers in all the best ages of Hebrew thought and life.\n\nStill the bulk of the people do not seem to have been dominated by the\nMessianic conception. It is one characteristic of the return that the\nidea of the personal, God-sent, but human Messiah recedes; and\nanother, older, and more persistent Jewish hope comes to the\nfront--viz., the hope in God Himself as the Saviour of His people and\ntheir Vindicator. Cyrus could not have suspected any political\ndesigns, or he would not have made Zerubbabel the head of the\nexpedition. Evidently \"Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah,\" to whom\nCyrus handed over the sacred vessels of the temple, is the same man as\nZerubbabel, because in v. 16 we read that Sheshbazzar laid the\nfoundation of the temple, while in iii. 8 this work is ascribed to\nZerubbabel, with whom the origin of the work is again connected in v.\n2.\n\nThe second name is Jeshua.[15] The man who bears it was afterwards the\nhigh-priest at Jerusalem. It is impossible to say whether he had\nexercised any sacerdotal functions during the exile; but his prominent\nplace shows that honour was now offered to his priesthood. Still he\ncomes after the royal prince.\n\n  [15] This name is a later form of \"Joshua\"; the older form of the name\n  is used for the same person in Hag. i. 1, 14, and Zech. iii. 1.\n\nThen follow nine names without any description.[16] Nehemiah's list\nincludes another name, which seems to have dropped out of the list in\nEzra. These, together with the two already mentioned, make an exact\ndozen. It cannot be an accident that twelve names stand at the head of\nthe list; they must be meant to represent the twelve tribes--like the\ntwelve apostles in the Gospels, and the twelve gates of the New\nJerusalem in the Apocalypse. Thus it is indicated that the return is\nfor all Israel, not exclusively for the Judaean Hebrews. Undoubtedly\nthe bulk of the pilgrims were descendants of captives from the\nSouthern Kingdom.[17] The dispersion of the Northern Kingdom had begun\ntwo centuries earlier than Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judaea; it had\nbeen carried on by successive removals of the people in successive\nwars. Probably most of these early exiles had been driven farther\nnorth than those districts which were assigned to the Judaean captives;\nprobably, too; they had been scattered far and wide; lastly, we know\nthat they had been sunken in an idolatrous imitation of the manners\nand customs of their heathen neighbours, so that there was little to\ndifferentiate them from the people among whom they were domiciled.\nUnder all these circumstances, is it remarkable that the ten tribes\nhave disappeared from the observation of the world? They have\nvanished, but only as the Goths have vanished in Italy, as the\nHuguenot refugees have vanished in England--by mingling with the\nresident population. We have not to search for them in Tartary, or\nSouth America, or any other remote region of the four continents,\nbecause we have no reason to believe that they are now a separate\npeople.\n\n  [16] Of course the Nehemiah and Mordecai in this list are different\n  persons from those who bear the same names in the Books of Nehemiah\n  and Esther and belong to later dates.\n\n  [17] See Ezra i. 5.\n\nStill a very small \"Remnant\" was faithful. This \"Remnant\" was welcome\nto find its way back to Palestine with the returning Judaeans. As the\nimmediate object of the expedition was to rebuild the temple at the\nrival capital of Jerusalem, it was not to be expected that patriots of\nthe Northern Kingdom would be very eager to join it. Yet some\ndescendants of the ten tribes made their way back. Even in New\nTestament times the genealogy of the prophetess Anna was reckoned from\nthe tribe of Asher.[18] It is most improbable that the twelve leaders\nwere actually descendants of the twelve tribes. But just as in the\ncase of the apostles, whom we cannot regard as thus descended, they\nrepresented all Israel. Their position at the head of the expedition\nproclaimed that the \"middle wall of partition\" was broken down. Thus\nwe see that redemption tends to liberalise the redeemed, that those\nwho are restored to God are also brought back to the love of their\nbrethren.\n\n  [18] Luke ii. 36.\n\nThe list that follows the twelve is divisible into two sections.\nFirst, we have a number of families; then there is a change in the\ntabulation, and the rest of the people are arranged according to their\ncities. The most simple explanation of this double method is that the\nfamilies constitute the Jerusalem citizens.\n\nThe towns named in the second division are all situated in the\nneighbourhood of Jerusalem. The only part of Palestine as yet restored\nto the Jews was Jerusalem, with the towns in its vicinity. The\nsouthern half of Judaea remained in the hands of the Edomites, who\nbegrudged to the Jews even the resumption of the northern portion--and\nvery naturally, seeing that the Edomites had held it for half a\ncentury, a time which gives some assurance of permanent possession.\nThis must be borne in mind when we come across the troubles between\nthe returned exiles and their neighbours in Palestine. We can never\nunderstand a quarrel until we have heard both sides. There is no\nEdomite history of the wars of Israel. No doubt such a history would\nput another face on the events--just as a Chinese history of the\nEnglish wars in the East would do, to the shame of the Christian\nnation.\n\nAfter the leaders and the people generally come the successive orders\nof the temple ministry. We begin with the priests, and among these a\nfront rank is given to the house of Jeshua. The high-priest himself\nhad been named earlier, next to Zerubbabel, among the leaders of the\nnation, so distinct was his position from that of the ordinary\npriesthood. Next to the priests we have the Levites, who are now\nsharply separated from the first order of the ministry. The very small\nnumber of Levites in comparison with the large number of priests is\nstartling--over four thousand priests and only seventy-four Levites!\nThe explanation of this anomaly may be found in what had been\noccurring in Chaldaea. Ezekiel declared that the Levites were to be\ndegraded because of their sinful conduct.[19] We see from the\narrangement in Ezra that the prophet's message was obeyed. The Levites\nwere now separated from the priests, and set down to a lower function.\nThis could not have been acceptable to them. Therefore it is not at\nall surprising that the majority of them held aloof from the\nexpedition for rebuilding the temple in sullen resentment, or at best\nin cool indifference, refusing to take part in a work the issue of\nwhich would exhibit their humiliation to menial service. But the\nseventy-four had grace to accept their lowly lot.\n\n  [19] Ezek. xliv. 9-16.\n\nThe Levites are not set in the lowest place. They are distinguished\nfrom several succeeding orders. The singers, the children of Asaph,\nwere really Levites; but they form a separate and important class, for\nthe temple service was to be choral--rich and gladsome. The\ndoor-keepers are a distinct order, lowly but honourable, for they are\ndevoted to the service of God, for whom all work is glorious.\n\n  \"They also serve who only stand and wait.\"\n\nNext come the Nethinims, or temple-helots. These seem to have been\naborigines of Canaan who had been pressed into the service of the old\nJerusalem temple, like the Gibeonites, the hewers of wood and drawers\nof water. After the Nethinims come \"the children of Solomon's\nservants,\" another order of slaves, apparently the descendants of the\nwar captives whom Solomon had assigned to the work of building the\ntemple. It shows what thorough organisation was preserved among the\ncaptives that these bondsmen were retained in their original position\nand brought back to Jerusalem. To us this is not altogether admirable.\nWe may be grieved to see slavery thus enlisted in the worship of God.\nBut we must recollect that even with the Christian gospel in her hand,\nfor centuries, the Church had her slaves, the monasteries their serfs.\nNo idea is of slower growth than the idea of the brotherhood of man.\n\nSo far all was in order; but there were exceptional cases. Some of the\npeople could not prove their Israelite descent, and accordingly they\nwere set aside from their brethren. Some of the priests even could not\ntrace their genealogy. Their condition was regarded as more serious,\nfor the right of office was purely hereditary. The dilemma brought to\nlight a sad sense of loss. If only there were a priest with the Urim\nand Thummim, this antique augury of flashing gems might settle the\ndifficulty! But such a man was not to be found. The Urim and Thummim,\ntogether with the Ark and the Shekinah, are named by the rabbis among\nthe precious things that were never recovered. The Jews looked back\nwith regret to the wonderful time when the privilege of consulting an\noracle had been within the reach of their ancestors. Thus they shared\nthe universal instinct of mankind that turns fondly to the past for\nmemories of a golden age, the glories of which have faded and left us\nonly the dingy scenes of every-day life. In this instinct we may\ndetect a transference to the race of the vaguely perceived personal\nloss of each man as he reflects on those far-off, dream-like\nchild-days, when even he was a \"mighty prophet,\" a \"seer blest,\" one\nwho had come into the world \"trailing clouds of glory.\" Alas! he\nperceives that the mystic splendours have faded into the light of\ncommon day, if they have not even given place to the gloom of doubt,\nor the black night of sin. Then, taking himself as a microcosm, he\nascribes a similar fate to the race.\n\nNothing is more inspiriting in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ\nthan its complete reversal of this dismal process of reflection, and\nits promise of the Golden Age in the future. The most exalted Hebrew\nprophecy anticipated something of the kind; here and there it lit up\nits sombre pages with the hope of a brilliant future. The attitude of\nthe Jews in the present instance, when they simply set a question on\none side, waiting till a priest with Urim and Thummim should appear,\nsuggests too faint a belief in the future to be prophetic. But like\nSocrates' hint at the possibility of one arising who should solve the\nproblems which were inscrutable to the Athenians of his day, it points\nto a sense of need. When at length Christ came as \"the Light of the\nWorld,\" it was to supply a widely felt want. It is true He brought no\nUrim and Thummim. The supreme motive for thankfulness in this\nconnection is that His revelation is so much more ample than the\nwizard guidance men had formerly clung to, as to be like the broad\nsunshine in comparison with the shifting lights of magic gems. Though\nHe gave no formal answers to petty questions such as those for which\nthe Jews would resort to a priest, as their heathen neighbours\nresorted to a soothsayer, He shed a wholesome radiance on the path of\nlife, so that His followers have come to regard the providing of a\npriest with Urim and Thummim as at best an expedient adapted to the\nrequirements of an age of superstition.\n\nIf the caravan lacked the privilege of an oracle, care was taken to\nequip it as well as the available means would allow. These were not\nabundant. There were servants, it is true. There were beasts of burden\ntoo--camels, horses, asses; but these were few in comparison to the\nnumbers of the host--only at the rate of one animal to a family of\nfour persons. Yet the expedition set out in a semi-royal character,\nfor it was protected by a guard of a thousand horsemen sent by Cyrus.\nBetter than this, it possessed a spirit of enthusiasm which triumphed\nover poverty and hardship, and spread a great gladness through the\npeople. Now at length it was possible to take down the harps from the\nwillows. Besides the temple choristers, two hundred singing men and\nwomen accompanied the pilgrims to help to give expression to the\nexuberant joyousness of the host. The spirit of the whole company was\nexpressed in a noble lyric that has become familiar to us:--\n\n  \"When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion,\n  We were like unto them that dream.\n  Then was our mouth filled with laughter,\n  And our tongue with singing:\n  Then said they among the nations,\n  The Lord hath done great things for them.\n  The Lord hath done great things for us;\n  Whereof we are glad.\"[20]\n\n  [20] Psalm cxxvi. 1-3.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_THE NEW TEMPLE._\n\nEZRA ii. 68-iii.\n\n\nUnlike the historian of the exodus from Egypt, our chronicler gives no\naccount of adventures of the pilgrims on the road to Palestine,\nalthough much of their way led them through a wild and difficult\ncountry. So huge a caravan as that which accompanied Zerubbabel must\nhave taken several months to cover the eight hundred miles between\nBabylon and Jerusalem;[21] for even Ezra with his smaller company\nspent four months on their journey.[22] A dreary desert stretched over\nthe vast space between the land of exile and the old home of the Jews\namong the mountains of the West; and here the commissariat would tax\nthe resources of the ablest organisers. It is possible that the\ndifficulties of the desert were circumvented in the most prosaic\nmanner--by simply avoiding this barren, waterless region, and taking a\nlong sweep round by the north of Syria. Passing over the pilgrimage,\nwhich afforded him no topics of interest, without a word of comment,\nthe chronicler plants us at once in the midst of the busy scenes at\nJerusalem, where we see the returned exiles, at length arrived at the\nend of their tedious journey, preparing to accomplish the one purpose\nof their expedition.\n\n  [21] _I.e._, if the route was the usual one, by Tadmor (Palmyra). The\n  easier but roundabout way by Aleppo would have occupied a still longer\n  time.\n\n  [22] Ezra vii. 8, 9.\n\nThe first step was to provide the means for building the temple, and\ncontributions were made for this object by all classes of the\ncommunity--as we gather from the more complete account in\nNehemiah[23]--from the prince and the aristocracy to the general\npublic, for it was to be a united work. And yet it is implied by the\nnarrative that many had no share in it. These people may have been\npoor originally or impoverished by their journey, and not at all\ndeficient in generosity or lacking in faith. Still we often meet with\nthose who have enough enthusiasm to applaud a good work and yet not\nenough to make any sacrifice in promoting it. It is expressly stated\nthat the gifts were offered freely. No tax was imposed by the\nauthorities; but there was no backwardness on the part of the actual\ndonors, who were impelled by a glowing devotion to open their purses\nwithout stint. Lastly, those who contributed did so \"after their\nability.\" This is the true \"proportionate giving.\" For all to give an\nequal sum is impossible unless the poll-tax is to be fixed at a\nmiserable minimum. Even for all to give the same proportion is unjust.\nThere are poor men who ought not to sacrifice a tenth of what they\nreceive; there are rich men who will be guilty of unfaithfulness to\ntheir stewardship if they do not devote far more than this fraction of\ntheir vast revenues to the service of God and their fellow-men. It\nwould be reasonable for some of the latter only to reserve the tithe\nfor their own use and to give away nine-tenths of their income, for\neven then they would not be giving \"after their ability.\"\n\n  [23] Neh. vii. 70-72.\n\nAfter the preliminary step of collecting the contributions, the\npilgrims proceed to the actual work they have in hand. In this they\nare heartily united; they gather themselves together \"as one man\" in a\ngreat assembly, which, if we may trust the account in Esdras, is held\nin an open space by the first gate towards the east,[24] and therefore\nclose to the site of the old temple, almost among its very ruins. The\nunity of spirit and the harmony of action which characterise the\ncommencement of the work are good auguries of its success. This is to\nbe a popular undertaking. Sanctioned by Cyrus, promoted by the\naristocracy, it is to be carried out with the full co-operation of the\nmultitude. The first temple had been the work of a king; the second is\nto be the work of a people. The nation had been dazzled by the\nsplendour of Solomon's court, and had basked in its rays so that the\nafter-glow of them lingered in the memories of ages even down to the\ntime of our Lord.[25] But there was a healthier spirit in the humbler\nwork of the returned exiles, when, forced to dispense with the king\nthey would gladly have accepted, they undertook the task of building\nthe new temple themselves.\n\n  [24] 1 Esdras v. 47.\n\n  [25] Matt. vi. 29.\n\nIn the centre of the mosque known as the \"Dome of the Rock\" there is a\ncrag with the well-worn remains of steps leading up to the top of it,\nand with channels cut in its surface. This has been identified by\nrecent explorers as the site of the great Altar of Burnt-offerings. It\nis on the very crest of Mount Moriah. Formerly it was thought that it\nwas the site of the inmost shrine of the temple, known as \"The Holy\nof Holies,\" but the new view, which seems to be fairly established,\ngives an unexpected prominence to the altar. This rude square\nstructure of unhewn stone was the most elevated and conspicuous object\nin temple. The altar was to Judaism what the cross is to Christianity.\nBoth for us and for the Jews what is most vital and precious in\nreligion is the dark mystery of a sacrifice. The first work of the\ntemple builders was to set up the altar again on its old foundation.\nBefore a stone of the temple was laid, the smoke of sacrificial fires\nmight be seen ascending to heaven from the highest crag of Moriah. For\nfifty years all sacrifices had ceased. Now with haste, in fear of\nhindrance from jealous neighbours, means were provided to re-establish\nthem before any attempt was made to rebuild the temple. It is not\nquite easy to see what the writer means when, after saying \"And they\nset the altar upon his bases,\" he adds, \"for fear was upon them\nbecause of the people of those countries.\" The suggestion that the\nphrase may be varied so as to mean that the awe which this religious\nwork inspired in the heathen neighbours prevented them from molesting\nit is far-fetched and improbable. Nor is it likely that the writer\nintends to convey the idea that the Jews hastened the building of the\naltar as a sort of Palladium, trusting that its sacrifices would\nprotect them in case of invasion, for this is to attribute too low and\nmaterialistic a character to their religion. More reasonable is the\nexplanation that they hastened the work because they feared that their\nneighbours might either hinder it or wish to have a share in it--an\nequally objectionable thing, as subsequent events showed.\n\nThe chronicler distinctly states that the sacrifices which were now\noffered, as well as the festivals which were established later, were\nall designed to meet the requirements of the law of Moses--that\neverything might be done \"as it is written in the law of Moses the man\nof God.\" This statement does not throw much light on the history of\nthe Pentateuch. We know that that work was not yet in the hands of the\nJews at Jerusalem, because this was nearly eighty years before Ezra\nintroduced it. The sentence suggests that according to the chronicler\n_some_ law bearing the name of Moses was known to the first body of\nreturned exiles. We need not regard that suggestion as a reflection\nfrom later years. Deuteronomy may have been the law referred to; or it\nmay have been some rubric of traditional usages in the possession of\nthe priests.\n\nMeanwhile two facts of importance come out here--_first_, that the\nmethod of worship adopted by the returned exiles was a revival of\nancient customs, a return to the old ways, not an innovation of their\nown, and _second_, that this restoration was in careful obedience to\nthe known will of God. Here we have the root idea of the Torah. It\nannounces that God has revealed His will, and it implies that the\nservice of God can only be acceptable when it is in harmony with the\nwill of God. The prophets taught that obedience was better than\nsacrifice. The priests held that sacrifice itself was a part of\nobedience. With both the primary requisite was obedience--as it is the\nprimary requisite in all religion.\n\nThe particular kind of sacrifice offered on the great altar was the\nburnt-offering. Now we do occasionally meet with expiatory ideas in\nconnection with this sacrifice; but unquestionably the principal\nconception attached to the burnt-offering, in distinction from the\nsin-offering, was the idea of self-dedication on the part of the\nworshipper. Thus the Jews re-consecrated themselves to God by the\nsolemn ceremony of sacrifice, and they kept up the thought of renewed\nconsecration by the regular repetition of the burnt-offering. It is\ndifficult for us to enter into the feelings of the people who\npractised so antique a cult, even to them archaic in its ceremonies,\nand dimly suggestive of primitive rites that had their origin in\nfar-off barbaric times. But one thing is clear, shining as with\nletters of awful fire against the black clouds of smoke that hang over\nthe altar. This sacrifice was always a \"whole offering.\" As it was\nbeing completely consumed in the flames before their very eyes, the\nworshippers would see a vivid representation of the tremendous truth\nthat the most perfect sacrifice is death--nay, that it is even more\nthan death, that it is absolute self-effacement in total and\nunreserved surrender to God.\n\nVarious rites follow the great central sacrifice of the\nburnt-offering, ushered in by the most joyous festival of the year,\nthe Feast of Tabernacles, when the people scatter themselves over the\nhills round Jerusalem under the shade of extemporised bowers made out\nof the leafy boughs of trees, and celebrate the goodness of God in the\nfinal and richest harvest, the vintage. Then come New Moon and the\nother festivals that stud the calendar with sacred dates and make the\nJewish year a round of glad festivities.\n\nThus, we see, the full establishment of religious services precedes\nthe building of the temple. A weighty truth is enshrined in this\napparently incongruous fact. The worship itself is felt to be more\nimportant than the house in which it is to be celebrated. That truth\nshould be even more apparent to us who have read the great words of\nJesus uttered by Jacob's well, \"The hour cometh when neither in this\nmountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father, ... when the\ntrue worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth.\"[26]\nHow vain then is it to treat the erection of churches as though it\nwere the promotion of a revival of religion! As surely as the empty\nsea-shell tossed up on the beach can never secrete a living organism\nto inhabit it, a mere building--whether it be the most gorgeous\ncathedral or the plainest village meeting-house--will never induce a\nliving spirit of worship to dwell in its cold desolation. Every true\nreligious revival begins in the spiritual sphere and finds its place\nof worship where it may--in the rustic barn or on the hill-side--if no\nmore seemly home can be provided for it, because its real temple is\nthe humble and contrite heart.\n\n  [26] John iv. 21, 23.\n\nStill the design of building the temple at Jerusalem was kept\nconstantly in view by the pilgrims. Accordingly it was necessary to\npurchase materials, and in particular the fragrant cedar wood from the\ndistant forests of Lebanon. These famous forests were still in the\npossession of the Phoenicians, for Cyrus had allowed a local\nautonomy to the busy trading people on the northern sea-board. So in\nspite of the king's favour it was requisite for the Jews to pay the\nfull price for the costly timber. Now, in disbursing the original\nfunds brought up from Babylon, it would seem that the whole of this\nmoney was expended in labour, in paying the wages of masons and\ncarpenters. Therefore the Jews had to export agricultural\nproducts--such as corn, wine, and olive oil--in exchange for the\nimports of timber they received from the Phoenicians. The question\nat once arises, how did they come to be possessed of these fruits of\nthe soil? The answer is supplied by a chronological remark in our\nnarrative. It was in the second year of their residence in Jerusalem\nand its neighbourhood that the Jews commenced the actual building of\ntheir temple. They had first patiently cleared, ploughed, and sown the\nneglected fields, trimmed and trained the vines, and tended the olive\ngardens, so that they were able to reap a harvest, and to give the\nsurplus products for the purchase of the timber required in building\nthe temple. As the foundation was laid in the spring, the order for\nthe cedar wood must have been sent before the harvest was\nreaped--pledging it in advance with faith in the God who gives the\nincrease. The Phoenician woodmen fell their trees in the distant\nforests of Lebanon; and the massive trunks are dragged down to the\ncoast, and floated along the Mediterranean to Joppa, and then carried\non the backs of camels or slowly drawn up the heights of Judah in\nox-waggons, while the crops that are to pay for them are still green\nin the fields.\n\nHere then is a further proof of devotion on the part of the Jews from\nBabylon--though it is scarcely hinted at in the narrative, though we\ncan only discover it by a careful comparison of facts and dates.\nLabour is expended on the fields; long weary months of waiting are\nendured; when the fruits of toil are obtained, these hard-earned\nstores are not hoarded by their owners: they too, like the gold and\nsilver of the wealthier Jews, are gladly surrendered for the one\nobject which kindles the enthusiasm of every class of the community.\n\nAt length all is ready. Jeshua the priest now precedes Zerubbabel, as\nwell as the rest of the twelve leaders, in inaugurating the great\nwork. On the Levites is laid the immediate responsibility of carrying\nit through. When the foundation is laid, the priests in their new\nwhite vestments sound their silver trumpets, and the choir of Levites,\nthe sons of Asaph, clang their brazen cymbals. To the accompaniment of\nthis inspiriting music they sing glad psalms in praise of God, giving\nthanks to Him, celebrating His goodness and His mercy that endureth\nfor ever toward Israel. This is not at all like the soft music and\ncalm chanting of subdued cathedral services that we think of in\nconnection with great national festivals. The instruments blare and\nclash, the choristers cry aloud, and the people join them with a\nmighty shout. When shrill discordant notes of bitter wailing, piped by\na group of melancholy old men, threaten to break the harmony of the\nscene, they are drowned in the deluge of jubilation that rises up in\nprotest and beats down all their opposition with its triumph of\ngladness. To a sober Western the scene would seem to be a sort of\nreligious orgy, like a wild Bacchanalian festival, like the howling of\nhosts of dervishes. But although it is the Englishman's habit to take\nhis religion sombrely, if not sadly, it may be well for him to pause\nbefore pronouncing a condemnation of those men and women who are more\nexuberant in the expression of spiritual emotion. If he finds, even\namong his fellow-countrymen, some who permit themselves a more lively\nmusic and a more free method of public worship than he is accustomed\nto, is it not a mark of insular narrowness for him to visit these\nunconventional people with disapprobation? In abandoning the severe\nmanners of their race, they are only approaching nearer to the\ntime-old methods of ancient Israel.\n\nIn this clangour and clamour at Jerusalem the predominant note was a\nburst of irrepressible gladness. When God turned the captivity of\nIsrael, mourning was transformed into laughter. To understand the\nwild excitement of the Jews, their paean of joy, their very ecstasy, we\nmust recollect what they had passed through, as well as what they were\nnow anticipating. We must remember the cruel disaster of the overthrow\nof Jerusalem, the desolation of the exile, the sickness of weary\nwaiting for deliverance, the harshness of the persecution that\nembittered the later years of the captivity under Nabonidas; we must\nthink of the toilsome pilgrimage through the desert, with its dismal\nwastes, its dangers and its terrors, followed by the patient work on\nthe land and gathering in of means for building the temple. And now\nall this was over. The bow had been terribly bent; the rebound was\nimmense. People who cannot feel strong religious gladness have never\nknown the heartache of deep religious grief. These Israelites had\ncried out of the depths; they were prepared to shout for joy from the\nheights. Perhaps we may go further, and detect a finer note in this\ngreat blast of jubilation, a note of higher and more solemn gladness.\nThe chastisement of the exile was past, and the long-suffering mercy\nof God--enduring for ever--was again smiling out on the chastened\npeople. And yet the positive realisation of their hopes was for the\nfuture. The joy, therefore, was inspired by faith. With little\naccomplished as yet, the sanguine people already saw the temple in\ntheir mind's eye, with its massive walls, its cedar chambers, and its\nadornment of gold and richly dyed hangings. In the very laying of the\nfoundation their eager imaginations leaped forward to the crowning of\nthe highest pinnacles. Perhaps they saw more; perhaps they perceived,\nthough but dimly, something of the meaning of the spiritual\nblessedness that had been foretold by their prophets.\n\nAll this gladness centred in the building of a temple, and therefore\nultimately in the worship of God. We take but a one-sided view of\nJudaism if we judge it by the sour ideas of later Pharisaism. As it\npresented itself to St. Paul in opposition to the gospel, it was stern\nand loveless. But in its earlier days this religion was free and\ngladsome, though, as we shall soon see, even then a rigour of\nfanaticism soon crept in and turned its joy into grief. Here, however,\nat the founding of the temple, it wears its sunniest aspect. There is\nno reason why religion should wear any other aspect to the devout\nsoul. It should be happy; for is it not the worship of a happy God?\n\nNevertheless, in the midst of the almost universal acclaim of joy and\npraise, there was the note of sadness wailed by the old men, who could\nrecollect the venerable fane in which their fathers had worshipped\nbefore the ruthless soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar had reduced it to a\nheap of ashes. Possibly some of them had stood on this very spot half\na century before, in an agony of despair, while they saw the cruel\nflames licking the ancient stones and blazing up among the cedar\nbeams, and all the fine gold dimmed with black clouds of smoke. Was it\nlikely that the feeble flock just returned from Babylon could ever\nproduce such a wonder of the world as Solomon's temple had been? The\nenthusiastic younger people might be glad in their ignorance; but\ntheir sober elders, who knew more, could only weep. We cannot but\nthink that, after the too common habit of the aged, these mournful old\nmen viewed the past in a glamour of memory, magnifying its splendours\nas they looked back on them through the mists of time. If so, they\nwere old indeed; for this habit, and not years, makes real old age. He\nis aged who lives in bygone days, with his face ever set to the\nirreparable past, vainly regretting its retreating memories,\nuninterested in the present, despondent of the future. The true elixir\nof life, the secret of perpetual youth of soul, is interest in the\npresent and the future, with the forward glance of faith and hope. Old\nmen who cultivate this spirit have young hearts though the snow is on\ntheir heads. And such are wise. No doubt, from the standpoint of a\nnarrow common sense, with its shrunken views confined to the material\nand the mundane, the old men who wept had more reason for their\nconduct than the inexperienced younger men who rejoiced. But there is\na prudence that comes of blindness, and there is an imprudence that is\nsublime in its daring, because it springs from faith. The despair of\nold age makes one great mistake, because it ignores one great truth.\nIn noting that many good things have passed away, it forgets to\nremember that God remains. God is not dead! Therefore the future is\nsafe. In the end the young enthusiasts of Jerusalem were justified. A\nprophet arose who declared that a glory which the former temple had\nnever known should adorn the new temple, in spite of its humble\nbeginning; and history verified his word when the Lord took possession\nof His house in the person of His Son.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_THE LIMITS OF COMPREHENSION._\n\nEZRA iv. 1-5, 24.\n\n\nThe fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra introduces the vexed question\nof the limits of comprehension in religion by affording a concrete\nillustration of it in a very acute form. Communities, like individual\norganisms, can only live by means of a certain adjustment to their\nenvironment, in the settlement of which there necessarily arises a\nserious struggle to determine what shall be absorbed and what\nrejected, how far it is desirable to admit alien bodies and to what\nextent it is necessary to exclude them. The difficulty thus occasioned\nappeared in the company of returned exiles soon after they had begun\nto rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. It was the seed of many troubles.\nThe anxieties and disappointments which overshadowed the subsequent\nhistory nearly all of them sprang from this one source. Here we are\nbrought to a very distinguishing characteristic of the Persian period.\nThe idea of Jewish exclusiveness which has been so singular a feature\nin the whole course of Judaism right down to our own day was now in\nits birth-throes. Like a young Hercules, it had to fight for its life\nin its very cradle. It first appeared in the anxious compilation of\ngenealogical registers and the careful sifting of the qualifications\nof the pilgrims before they left Babylon. In the events which followed\nthe settlement at Jerusalem it came forward with determined insistence\non its rights, in opposition to a very tempting offer which would have\nbeen fatal to its very existence.\n\nThe chronicler introduces the neighbouring people under the title \"The\nadversaries of Judah and Benjamin\"; but in doing so he is describing\nthem according to their later actions; when they first appear on his\npages their attitude is friendly, and there is no reason to suspect\nany hypocrisy in it. We cannot take them to be the remainder of the\nIsraelite inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom who had been permitted\nto stay in their land when their brethren had been violently expelled\nby the Assyrians, and who were now either showing their old enmity to\nJudah and Benjamin by trying to pick a new quarrel, or, on the other\nhand, manifesting a better spirit and seeking reconciliation. No doubt\nsuch people existed, especially in the north, where they became, in\npart at least, the ancestors of the Galileans of New Testament times.\nBut the men now referred to distinctly assert that they were brought\nup to Palestine by the Assyrian king Esar-haddon. Neither can they be\nthe descendants of the Israelite priests who were sent at the request\nof the colonists to teach them the religion of the land when they were\nalarmed at an incursion of lions;[27] for only one priest is directly\nmentioned in the history, and though he may have had companions and\nassistants, the small college of missionaries could not be called \"the\npeople of the land\" (ver. 4). These people must be the foreign\ncolonists. There were Chaldaeans from Babylon and the neighbouring\ncities of Cutha and Sepharvaim (the modern _Mosaib_), Elamites from\nSusa, Phoenicians from Sidon--if we may trust Josephus here[28]--and\nArabs from Petra. These had been introduced on four successive\noccasions--first, as the Assyrian inscriptions show, by Sargon, who\nsent two sets of colonists; then by Esar-haddon; and, lastly, by\nAshur-banipal.[29] The various nationalities had had time to become\nwell amalgamated together, for the first colonisation had happened a\nhundred and eighty years, and the latest colonisation a hundred and\nthirty years, before the Jews returned from Babylon. As the successive\nexportations of Israelites went on side by side with the successive\nimportations of foreigners, the two classes must have lived together\nfor some time; and even after the last captivity of the Israelites had\nbeen effected, those who were still left in the land would have come\ninto contact with the colonists. Thus, apart from the special mission\nof the priest whose business it was to introduce the rites of\nsacrificial worship, the popular religion of the Israelites would have\nbecome known to the mixed heathen people who were settled among them.\n\n  [27] 2 Kings xvii. 25-28.\n\n  [28] _Ant._, XII. v. 5.\n\n  [29] The \"Osnappar\" of Ezra iv. 10.\n\nThese neighbours assert that they worship the God whom the Jews at\nJerusalem worship, and that they have sacrificed to Him since the days\nof Esar-haddon, the Assyrian king to whom, in particular, they\nattribute their being brought up to Palestine, possibly because the\nancestors of the deputation to Jerusalem were among the colonists\nplanted by that king. For a century and a half they have acknowledged\nthe God of the Jews. They therefore request to be permitted to assist\nin rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. At the first blush of it their\npetition looks reasonable and even generous. The Jews were poor; a\ngreat work lay before them; and the inadequacy of their means in view\nof what they aimed at had plunged the less enthusiastic among them\ninto grief and despair. Here was an offer of assistance that might\nprove most efficacious. The idea of centralisation in worship of which\nJosiah had made so much would be furthered by this means, because\ninstead of following the example of the Israelites before the exile\nwho had their altar at Bethel, the colonists proposed to take part in\nthe erection of the one Jewish temple at Jerusalem. If their previous\nhabit of offering sacrifices in their own territory was offensive to\nrigorous Jews, although they might speak of it quite naively, because\nthey were unconscious that there was anything objectionable in it and\neven regard it as meritorious, the very way to abolish this ancient\ncustom was to give the colonists an interest in the central shrine. If\ntheir religion was defective, how could it be improved better than by\nbringing them into contact with the law-abiding Jews? While the offer\nof the colonists promised aid to the Jews in building the temple, it\nalso afforded them a grand missionary opportunity for carrying out the\nbroad programme of the Second Isaiah, who had promised the spread of\nthe light of God's grace among the Gentiles.\n\nIn view of these considerations we cannot but read the account of the\nabsolute rejection of the offer by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of\nthe twelve leaders with a sense of painful disappointment. The less\npleasing side of religious intensity here presents itself. Zeal seems\nto be passing into fanaticism. A selfish element mars the picture of\nwhole-hearted devotion which was so delightfully portrayed in the\nhistory of the returned exiles up to this time. The leaders are\ncautious enough to couch their answer in terms that seem to hint at\ntheir inability to comply with the friendly request of their\nneighbours, however much they may wish to do so, because of the\nlimitation imposed upon them in the edict of Cyrus which confined the\ncommand to build the temple at Jerusalem to the Jews. But it is\nevident that the secret of the refusal is in the mind and will of the\nJews themselves. They absolutely decline any co-operation with the\ncolonists. There is a sting in the carefully chosen language with\nwhich they define their work: they call it building a house \"unto\n_our_ God.\" Thus they not only accept the polite phrase \"Your God\"\nemployed by the colonists in addressing them; but by markedly\naccentuating its limitation they disallow any right of the colonists\nto claim the same divinity.\n\nSuch a curt refusal of friendly overtures was naturally most offensive\nto the people who received it. But their subsequent conduct was so\nbitterly ill-natured that we are driven to think they must have had\nsome selfish aims from the first. They at once set some paid agents to\nwork at court to poison the mind of the government with calumnies\nabout the Jews. It is scarcely likely that they were able to win Cyrus\nover to their side against his favourite _proteges_. The king may have\nbeen too absorbed with the great affairs of his vast dominions for any\nmurmur of this business to reach him while it was being disposed of by\nsome official. But perhaps the matter did not come up till after Cyrus\nhad handed over the government to his son Cambyses, which he did in\nthe year B.C. 532--three years before his death. At all events the\ncalumnies were successful. The work of the temple building was\narrested at its very commencement--for as yet little more had been\ndone beyond collecting materials. The Jews were paying dearly for\ntheir exclusiveness.\n\nAll this looks very miserable. But let us examine the situation.\n\nWe should show a total lack of the historical spirit if we were to\njudge the conduct of Zerubbabel and his companions by the broad\nprinciples of Christian liberalism. We must take into account their\nreligious training and the measure of light to which they had\nattained. We must also consider the singularly difficult position in\nwhich they were placed. They were not a nation; they were a Church.\nTheir very existence, therefore, depended upon a certain\necclesiastical organisation. They must have shaped themselves\naccording to some definite lines, or they would have melted away into\nthe mass of mixed nationalities and debased eclectic religions with\nwhich they were surrounded. Whether the course of personal\nexclusiveness which they chose was wisest and best may be fairly\nquestioned. It has been the course followed by their children all\nthrough the centuries, and it has acquired this much of\njustification--it has succeeded. Judaism has been preserved by Jewish\nexclusiveness. We may think that the essential truths of Judaism might\nhave been maintained by other means which would have allowed of a more\ngracious treatment of outsiders. Meanwhile, however, we must see that\nZerubbabel and his companions were not simply indulging in churlish\nunsociability when they rejected the request of their neighbours.\nRightly or wrongly, they took this disagreeable course with a great\npurpose in mind.\n\nThen we must understand what the request of the colonists really\ninvolved. It is true they only asked to be allowed to assist in\n_building_ the temple. But it would have been impossible to stay here.\nIf they had taken an active share in the labour and sacrifice of the\nconstruction of the temple, they could not have been excluded\nafterwards from taking part in the temple worship. This is the more\nclear since the very grounds of their request were that they\nworshipped and sacrificed to the God of the Jews. Now a great prophet\nhad predicted that God's house was to be a home of prayer for all\nnations.[30] But the Jews at Jerusalem belonged to a very different\nschool of thought. With them, as we have learnt from the genealogies,\nthe racial idea was predominant. Judaism was for the Jews.\n\n  [30] Isa. lvi. 7.\n\nBut let us understand what that religion was which the colonists\nasserted to be identical with the religion of the returned exiles.\nThey said they worshipped the God of the Jews, but it was after the\nmanner of the people of the Northern Kingdom. In the days of the\nIsraelites that worship had been associated with the steer at Bethel,\nand the people of Jerusalem had condemned the degenerate religion of\ntheir northern brethren as sinful in the sight of God. But the\ncolonists had not confined themselves to this. They had combined their\nold idolatrous religion with that of the newly adopted indigenous\ndivinity of Palestine. \"They feared the Lord, and served their own\ngods.\"[31] Between them, they adored a host of Pagan divinities, whose\nbarbarous names are grimly noted by the Hebrew historian--Succoth-benoth,\nNergal, Ashima, etc.[32] There is no evidence to show that this heathenism\nhad become extinct by the time of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple.\nAt all events, the bastard product of such a worship as that of the Bethel\nsteer and the Babylonian and Phoenician divinities, even when purged of\nits most gross corruption, was not likely to be after the mind of the\npuritan pilgrims. The colonists did not offer to adopt the traditional\nTorah, which the returned exiles were sedulously observing.\n\n  [31] 2 Kings xvii. 33.\n\n  [32] 2 Kings xvii. 30, 31.\n\nStill it may be said, if the people were imperfect in knowledge and\ncorrupt in practice, might not the Jews have enlightened and helped\nthem? We are reminded of the reproach that Bede brings so sternly\nagainst the ancient British Christians when he blames them for not\nhaving taught the gospel to the Saxon heathen who had invaded their\nland. How far it would have been possible for a feeble people to\nevangelise their more powerful neighbours, in either case, it is\nimpossible to say.\n\nIt cannot be denied, however, that in their refusal the Jews gave\nprominence to racial and not to religious distinctions. Yet even in\nthis matter it would be unreasonable for us to expect them to have\nsurpassed the early Christian Church at Jerusalem and to have\nanticipated the daring liberalism of St. Paul. The followers of St.\nJames were reluctant to receive any converts into their communion\nexcept on condition of circumcision. This meant that Gentiles must\nbecome Jews before they could be recognised as Christians. Now there\nwas no sign that the mixed race of colonists ever contemplated\nbecoming Jews by humbling themselves to a rite of initiation. Even if\nmost of them were already circumcised, as far as we know none of them\ngave an indication of willingness to subject themselves wholly to\nJewish ordinances. To receive them, therefore, would be contrary to\nthe root principle of Judaism. It is not fair to mete out a harsh\ncondemnation to Jews who declined to do what was only allowed among\nChristians after a desperate struggle, which separated the leader of\nthe liberal party from many of his brethren and left him for a long\nwhile under a cloud of suspicion.\n\nGreat confusion has been imported into the controversy on Church\ncomprehension by not keeping it separate from the question of\ntolerance in religion. The two are distinct in many respects.\nComprehension is an ecclesiastical matter; tolerance is primarily\nconcerned with the policy of the state. Whilst it is admitted that\nnobody should be coerced in his religion by the state, it is not\ntherefore to be assumed that everybody is to be received into the\nChurch.\n\nNevertheless we feel that there is a real and vital connection between\nthe ideas of toleration and Church comprehensiveness. A Church may\nbecome culpably intolerant, although she may not use the power of the\nstate for the execution of her mandates; she may contrive many painful\nforms of persecution, without resorting to the rack and the\nthumb-screw. The question therefore arises, What are the limits to\ntolerance within a Church? The attempt to fix these limits by creeds\nand canons has not been wholly successful, either in excluding the\nunworthy or in including the most desirable members. The drift of\nthought in the present day being towards wider comprehensiveness, it\nbecomes increasingly desirable to determine on what principles this\nmay be attained. Good men are weary of the little garden walled\naround, and they doubt whether it is altogether the Lord's peculiar\nground; they have discovered that many of the flowers of the field are\nfair and fragrant, and they have a keen suspicion that not a few\nweeds may be lurking even in the trim parterre; so they look over the\nwall and long for breadth and brotherhood, in a larger recognition of\nall that is good in the world. Now the dull religious lethargy of the\neighteenth century is a warning against the chief danger that\nthreatens those who yield themselves to this fascinating impulse.\nLatitudinarianism sought to widen the fold that had been narrowed on\none side by sacerdotal pretensions and on the other side by puritan\nrigour. The result was that the fold almost disappeared. Then religion\nwas nearly swallowed up in the swamps of indifference. This deplorable\nissue of a well-meant attempt to serve the cause of charity suggests\nthat there is little good in breaking down the barriers of\nexclusiveness unless we have first established a potent centre of\nunity. If we have put an end to division simply by destroying the\ninterests which once divided men, we have only attained the communion\nof death. In the graveyard friend and foe lie peaceably side by side,\nbut only because both are dead. Wherever there is life two opposite\ninfluences are invariably at work. There is a force of attraction\ndrawing in all that is congenial, and there is a force of a contrary\ncharacter repelling everything that is uncongenial. Any attempt to\ntamper with either of these forces must result in disaster. A social\nor an ecclesiastical division that arbitrarily crosses the lines of\nnatural affinity creates a schism in the body, and leads to a painful\nmutilation of fellowship. On the other hand, a forced comprehension of\nalien elements produces internal friction, which often leads to an\nexplosion, shattering the whole fabric. But the common mistake has\nbeen in attending to the circumference and neglecting the centre, in\nbeating the bounds of the parish instead of fortifying the citadel.\nThe liberalism of St. Paul was not latitudinarian, because it was\ninspired by a vital principle which served as the centre of all his\nteaching. He preached liberty and comprehensiveness, because he had\nfirst preached Christ. In Christ he found at once a bond of union and\nan escape from narrowness. The middle wall of partition was broken\ndown, not by a Vandal armed with nothing better than the besom of\ndestruction, but by the Founder of a new kingdom, who could dispense\nwith artificial restrictions because He could draw all men unto\nHimself.\n\nUnfortunately the returned captives at Jerusalem did not feel\nconscious of any such spiritual centre of unity. They might have found\nit in their grandly simple creed, in their faith in God. But their\nabsorption in sacrificial ritual and its adjuncts shows that they were\ntoo much under the influence of religious externalism. This being the\ncase, they could only preserve the purity of their communion by\ncarefully guarding its gates. It is pitiable to see that they could\nfind no better means of doing this than the harsh test of racial\nintegrity. Their action in this matter fostered a pride of birth which\nwas as injurious to their own better lives as it was to the extension\nof their religion in the world. But so long as they were incapable of\na larger method, if they had accepted counsels of liberalism they\nwould have lost themselves and their mission. Looking at the positive\nside of their mission, we see how the Jews were called to bear witness\nto the great principle of separateness. This principle is as essential\nto Christianity as it was to Judaism. The only difference is that with\nthe more spiritual faith it takes a more spiritual form. The people\nof God must ever be consecrated to God, and therefore separate from\nsin, separate from the world--separate unto God.\n\n     NOTE.--For the section iv. 6-23 see Chapter XIV. This\n     section is marked by a change of language; the writer adopts\n     Aramaic at iv. 8, and he continues in that language down to\n     vi. 18. The decree of Artaxerxes in vii. 12-26 is also in\n     Aramaic.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_THE MISSION OF PROPHECY._\n\nEZRA v. 1, 2.\n\n\nThe work of building the temple at Jerusalem, which had been but\nnominally commenced in the reign of Cyrus, when it was suddenly\narrested before the death of that king, and which had not been touched\nthroughout the reigns of the two succeeding kings, Cambyses and\nPseudo-Bardes, was taken up in earnest in the second year of Darius,\nthe son of Hystaspes (B.C. 521). The disorders of the empire were then\nfavourable to local liberty. Cambyses committed suicide during a\nrevolt of his army on the march to meet the Pretender who had assumed\nthe name of his murdered brother, Bardes. Seven months later the\nusurper was assassinated in his palace by some of the Persian nobles.\nDarius, who was one of the conspirators, ascended the throne in the\nmidst of confusion and while the empire seemed to be falling to\npieces. Elam, the old home of the house of Cyrus, revolted; Syria\nrevolted; Babylon revolted twice, and was twice taken by siege. For a\ntime the king's writ could not run in Palestine. But it was not on\naccount of these political changes that the Jews returned to their\nwork. The relaxing of the supreme authority had left them more than\never at the mercy of their unfriendly neighbours. The generous\ndisposition of Darius might have led them to regard him as a second\nCyrus, and his religion might have encouraged them to hope that he\nwould be favourable to them, for Darius was a monotheist, a worshipper\nof Ormazd. But they recommenced their work without making any appeal\nto the Great King and without receiving any permission from him, and\nthey did this when he was far too busy fighting for his throne to\nattend to the troubles of a small, distant city.\n\nWe must look in another direction for the impetus which started the\nJews again upon their work. Here we come upon one of the most striking\nfacts in the history of Israel, nay, one of the greatest phenomena in\nthe spiritual experience of mankind. The voice of prophecy was heard\namong the ruins of Jerusalem. The Cassandra-like notes of Jeremiah had\ndied away more than half a century before. Then Ezekiel had seen his\nfantastic visions, \"a captive by the river of Chebar,\" and the Second\nIsaiah had sounded his trumpet-blast in the East summoning the exiles\nto a great hope; but as yet no prophet had appeared among the pilgrims\non their return to Jerusalem. We cannot account for the sudden\noutburst of prophecy. It is a work of the Spirit that breathes like\nthe wind, coming we know not how. We can hear its sound; we can\nperceive the fact. But we cannot trace its origin, or determine its\nissues. It is born in mystery and it passes into mystery. If it is\ntrue that \"_poeta nascitur, non fit_,\" much more must we affirm that\nthe prophet is no creature of human culture. He may be cultivated,\nafter God has made him; he cannot be manufactured by any human\nmachinery. No \"School of the Prophets\" ever made a true prophet. Many\nof the prophets never came near any such institution; some of them\ndistinctly repudiated the professional \"order.\" The lower prophets\nwith which the Northern Kingdom once swarmed were just dervishes who\nsang and danced and worked themselves into a frenzy before the altars\non the high places; these men were quite different from the truly\ninspired messengers of God. Their craft could be taught, and their\nsacred colleges recruited to any extent from the ranks of fanaticism.\nBut the rare, austere souls that spoke with the authority of the Most\nHigh came in a totally different manner. When there was no prophet and\nwhen visions were rare men could only wait for God to send the\nhoped-for guide; they could not call him into existence. The\nappearance of an inspired soul is always one of the marvels of\nhistory. Great men of the second rank may be the creatures of their\nage. But it is given to the few of the very first order to be\nindependent of their age, to confront it and oppose it if need be,\nperhaps to turn its current and shape its course.\n\nThe two prophets who now proclaimed their message in Jerusalem\nappeared at a time of deep depression. They were not borne on the\ncrest of a wave of a religious revival, as its spokesmen to give it\nutterance. Pagan orators and artists flourished in an Augustan age.\nThe Hebrew prophets came when the circumstances of society were least\nfavourable. Like painters arising to adorn a dingy city, like poets\nsinging of summer in the winter of discontent, like flowers in the\nwilderness, like wells in the desert, they brought life and strength\nand gladness to the helpless and despondent, because they came from\nGod. The literary form of their work reflected the civilisation of\ntheir day, but there was on it a light that never shone on sea or\nshore, and this they knew to be the light of God. We never find a\ntrue religious revival springing from the spirit of the age. Such a\nrevival always begins in one or two choice souls--in a Moses, a\nSamuel, a John the Baptist, a St. Bernard, a Jonathan-Edwards, a\nWesley, a Newman. Therefore it is vain for weary watchers to scan the\nhorizon for signs of the times in the hope that some general\nimprovement of society or some widespread awakening of the Church will\nusher in a better future. This is no reason for discouragement,\nhowever. It rather warns us not to despise the day of small things.\nWhen once the spring of living water breaks out, though it flows at\nfirst in a little brook, there is hope that it may swell into a great\nriver.\n\nThe situation is the more remarkable since the first of the two\nprophets was an old man, who even seems to have known the first temple\nbefore its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar.[33] Haggai is called simply\n\"the prophet,\" perhaps because his father's name was not known, but\nmore likely because he himself had attained so much eminence that the\ntitle was given to him _par excellence_. Still this may only apply to\nthe descriptions of him in the age of the chronicler. There is no\nindication that he prophesied in his earlier days. He was probably one\nof the captives who had been carried away to Babylon in his childhood,\nand who had returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem. Yet all this time\nand during the first years of his return, as far as we know, he was\nsilent. At length, in extreme old age, he burst out into inspired\nutterance--one of Joel's old men who were to dream dreams,[34] like\nJohn the Evangelist, whose greatest work dates from his last years,\nand Milton, who wrote his great epic when affliction seemed to have\nended his life-work. He must have been brooding over the bitter\ndisappointment in which the enthusiasm of the returned captives had\nbeen quenched. It could not be God's will that they should be thus\nmocked and deceived in their best hopes. True faith is not a\nwill-o'-the-wisp that lands its followers in a dreary swamp. The hope\nof Israel is no mirage. For God is faithful. Therefore the despair of\nthe Jews must be wrong.\n\n  [33] Hag. i. 1, ii. 9.\n\n  [34] Joel ii. 28.\n\nWe have a few fragments of the utterances of Haggai preserved for us\nin the Old Testament Canon. They are so brief and bald and abrupt as\nto suggest the opinion that they are but notes of his discourses, mere\noutlines of what he really said. As they are preserved for us they\ncertainly convey no idea of wealth of poetic imagination or richness\nof oratorical colouring. But Haggai may have possessed none of these\nqualities, and yet his words may have had a peculiar force of their\nown. He is a reflective man. The long meditation of years has taught\nhim the value of thoughtfulness. The burden of his message is\n\"Consider your ways.\"[35] In short, incisive utterances he arrests\nattention and urges consideration. But the outcome of all he has to\nsay is to cheer the drooping spirits of his fellow-citizens, and urge\non the rebuilding of the temple with confident promises of its great\nfuture. For the most part his inspiration is simple, but it is\nsearching, and we perceive the triumphant hopefulness of the true\nprophet in the promise that the latter glory of the house of God shall\nbe greater than the former.[36]\n\n  [35] Hag. i. 5, 7.\n\n  [36] Hag. ii. 9.\n\nHaggai began to prophesy on the first day of the sixth month of the\nsecond year of Darius.[37] So effective were his words that Zerubbabel\nand his companions were at once roused from the lethargy of despair,\nand within three weeks the masons and carpenters were again at work on\nthe temple.[38] Two months after Haggai had broken the long silence of\nprophecy in Jerusalem Zechariah appeared. He was of a very different\nstamp; he was one of the young men who see visions. Familiar with the\nimagery of Babylonian art, he wove its symbols into the pictures of\nhis own exuberant fancy. Moreover, Zechariah was a priest. Thus, like\nJeremiah and Ezekiel, he united the two rival tendencies which had\nconfronted one another in marked antagonism during the earlier periods\nof the history of Israel. Henceforth the brief return of prophetism,\nits soft after-glow among the restored people, is in peaceable\nalliance with priestism. The last prophet, Malachi, even exhorts the\nJews to pay the priests their dues of tithe. Zechariah, like Haggai,\nurges on the work of building the temple.\n\n  [37] Hag. i. 1.\n\n  [38] Hag. ii. 1 _seq._\n\nThus the chronicler's brief note on the appearance of two prophets at\nJerusalem, and the electrical effect of their message, is a striking\nillustration of the mission of prophecy. That mission has been\nstrangely misapprehended by succeeding ages. Prophets have been\ntreated as miraculous conjurers, whose principal business consisted in\nputting together elaborate puzzles, perfectly unintelligible to their\ncontemporaries, which the curious of later times were to decipher by\nthe light of events. The prophets themselves formed no such idle\nestimate of their work, nor did their contemporaries assign to them\nthis quaint and useless role. Though these men were not the creatures\nof their times, they lived for their times. Haggai and Zechariah, as\nthe chronicler emphatically puts it, \"prophesied to the Jews that were\nin Jerusalem, ... _even unto them_.\" The object of their message was\nimmediate and quite practical--to stir up the despondent people and\nurge them to build the temple--and it was successful in accomplishing\nthat end. As prophets of God they necessarily touched on eternal\ntruths. They were not mere opportunists; their strength lay in the\ngrasp of fundamental principles. This is why their teaching still\nlives, and is of lasting use for the Church in all ages. But in order\nto understand that teaching we must first of all read it in its\noriginal historical setting, and discover its direct bearing on\ncontemporary needs.\n\nNow the question arises, In what way did these prophets of God help\nthe temple-builders? The fragments of their utterances which we\npossess enable us to answer this question. Zerubbabel was a\ndisappointing leader. Such a man was far below the expected Messiah,\nalthough high hopes may have been set upon him when he started at the\nhead of the caravan of pilgrims from Babylon. Cyrus may have known him\nbetter, and with the instinct of a king in reading men may have\nentrusted the lead to the heir of the Jewish throne, because he saw\nthere would be no possibility of a dangerous rebellion resulting from\nthe act of confidence. Haggai's encouragement to Zerubbabel to \"be\nstrong\" is in a tone that suggests some weakness on the part of the\nJewish leader. Both the prophets thought that he and his people were\ntoo easily discouraged. It was a part of the prophetic insight to look\nbelow the surface and discover the real secret of failure. The Jews\nset down their failure to adverse circumstances; the prophets\nattributed it to the character and conduct of the people and their\nleaders. Weak men commonly excuse their inactivity by reciting their\ndifficulties, when stronger men would only regard those difficulties\nas furnishing an occasion for extra exertion. That is a most\nsuperficial view of history which regards it as wholly determined by\ncircumstances. No great nation ever arose on such a principle. The\nGreeks who perished at Thermopylae within a few years of the times we\nare now considering are honoured by all the ages as heroes of\npatriotism just because they refused to bow to circumstances. Now the\ncourage which patriots practised in pagan lands is urged upon the Jews\nby their prophets from higher considerations. They are to see that\nthey are weak and cowardly when they sit in dumb despair, crushed by\nthe weight of external opposition. They have made a mistake in putting\ntheir trust in princes.[39] They have relied too much on Zerubbabel\nand too little on God. The failure of the arm of flesh should send\nthem back to the never-failing out-stretched arm of the Almighty.\n\n  [39] Psalm cxviii. 8, 9.\n\nHave we not met with the same mistaken discouragement and the same\ndeceptive excuses for it in the work of the Church, in missionary\nenterprises, in personal lives? Every door is shut against the servant\nof God but one, the door of prayer. Forgetting this, and losing sight\nof the key of faith that would unlock it, he sits, like Elijah by\nKerith, the picture of abject wretchedness. His great enterprises are\nabandoned because he thinks the opposition to them is insuperable. He\nforgets that, though his own forces are small, he is the envoy of the\nKing of kings, who will not suffer him to be worsted if only he\nappeals to Heaven for fresh supplies. A dead materialism lies like a\nleaden weight on the heart of the Church, and she has not faith enough\nto shake it off and claim her great inheritance in all the spiritual\nwealth of the Unseen. Many a man cries, like Jacob, \"All these things\nare against me,\" not perceiving that, even if they are, no number of\n\"things\" should be permitted to check the course of one who looks\nabove and beyond what is seen and therefore only temporal to the\neternal resources of God.\n\nThis was the message of Zechariah to Zerubbabel: \"Not by might, nor by\npower, but by My spirit, saith the Lord of hosts. Who art thou, O\ngreat mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he\nshall bring forth the head stone with shoutings of Grace, grace unto\nit!\"[40]\n\n  [40] Zech. iv. 6, 7.\n\nHere, then, is the secret of the sudden revival of activity on the\npart of the Jews after they had been slicing for years in dumb apathy,\ngazing hopelessly on the few stones that had been laid among the ruins\nof the old temple. It was not the returning favour of the court under\nDarius, it was not the fame of the house of David, it was not the\npriestly dignity of the family of Zadok that awakened the slumbering\nzeal of the Jews; the movement began in an unofficial source, and it\npassed to the people through unofficial channels. It commenced in the\nmeditations of a calm thinker; it was furthered by the visions of a\nrapt seer. This is a clear indication of the fact that the world is\nruled by mind and spirit, not merely by force and authority. Thought\nand imagination lie at the springs of action. In the heart of it\nhistory is moulded by ideas. \"Big battalions,\" \"the sinews of war,\"\n\"blood and iron,\" are phrases that suggest only the most external and\ntherefore the most superficial causes. Beneath them are the _ideas_\nthat govern all they represent.\n\nFurther, the influence of the prophets shows that the ideas which have\nmost vitality and vigour are moral and spiritual in character. All\nthoughts are influential in proportion as they take possession of the\nminds and hearts of men and women. There is power in conceptions of\nscience, philosophy, politics, sociology. But the ideas that touch\npeople to the quick, the ideas that stir the hidden depths of\nconsciousness and rouse the slumbering energies of life, are those\nthat make straight for the conscience. Thus the two prophets exposed\nthe shame of indolence; they rallied their gloomy fellow-citizens by\nhigh appeals to the sense of right.\n\nAgain, this influence was immensely strengthened by its relation to\nGod. The prophets were more than moralists. The meditations of Marcus\nAurelius could not touch any people as the considerations of the calm\nHaggai touched the Jews, for the older prophet, as well as the more\nrousing Zechariah, found the spell of his message in its revelation of\nGod. He made the Jews perceive that they were not deserted by Jehovah;\nand directly they felt that God was with them in their work the weak\nand timid citizens were able to quit them like men. The irresistible\nmight of Cromwell's Ironsides at Marston Moor came from their\nunwavering faith in their battle-cry, \"The Lord of Hosts is with us!\"\nGeneral Gordon's immeasurable courage is explained when we read his\nletters and diaries, and see how he regarded himself as simply an\ninstrument through whom God wrought. Here, too, is the strong side of\nCalvinism.\n\nThen this impression of the power and presence of God in their\ndestinies was deepened in the Jews by the manifest Divine authority\nwith which the prophets spake. They prophesied \"in the name of the God\nof Israel\"--the one God of the people of both kingdoms now united in\ntheir representatives. Their \"Thus saith the Lord\" was the powder that\ndrove the shot of their message through the toughest hide of apathy.\nExcept to a Platonist, ideas are impossible apart from the mind that\nthinks them. Now the Jews, as well as their prophets, felt that the\ngreat ideas of prophecy could not be the products of pure human\nthinking. The sublime character, the moral force, the superb\nhopefulness of these ideas proclaimed their Divine origin. As it is\nthe mission of the prophet to speak for God, so it is the voice of God\nin His inspired messenger that awakes the dead and gives strength to\nthe weak.\n\nThis ultimate source of prophecy accounts for its unique character of\nhopefulness, and that in turn makes it a powerful encouragement for\nthe weak and depressed people to whom it is sent. Wordsworth tells us\nthat we live by \"admiration, love, and hope.\" If one of these three\nsources of vitality is lost, life itself shrinks and fades. The man\nwhose hope has fled has no lustre in his eye, no accent in his voice,\nno elasticity in his tread; by his dull and listless attitude he\ndeclares that the life has gone out of him. But the ultimate end of\nprophecy is to lead up to a gospel, and the meaning of the word\n\"gospel\" is just that there is a message from God bringing hope to the\ndespairing. By inspiring a new hope this message kindles a new life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n_NEW DIFFICULTIES MET IN A NEW SPIRIT._\n\nEZRA v. 3-vi. 5.\n\n\nIt is in keeping with the character of his story of the returned Jews\nthroughout, that no sooner has the chronicler let a ray of sunshine\nfall on his page--in his brief notice of the inspiriting mission of\nthe two prophets--than he is compelled to plunge his narrative again\ninto gloom. But he shows that there was now a new spirit in the Jews,\nso that they were prepared to meet opposition in a more manly fashion.\nIf their jealous neighbours had been able to paralyse their efforts\nfor years, it was only to be expected that a revival of energy in\nJerusalem should provoke an increase of antagonism abroad, and\ndoubtless the Jews were prepared for this. Still it was not a little\nalarming to learn that the infection of the anti-Jewish temper had\nspread over a wide area. The original opposition had come from the\nSamaritans. But in this later time the Jews were questioned by the\nSatrap of the whole district east of the Euphrates--\"the governor\nbeyond the river,\"[41] as the chronicler styles him, describing his\nterritory as it would be regarded officially from the standpoint of\nBabylon. His Aramaic name, Tattenai, shows that he was not a Persian,\nbut a native Syrian, appointed to his own province, according to the\nPersian custom. This man and one Shethar-bozenai, whom we may assume\nto be his secretary, must have been approached by the colonists in\nsuch a way that their suspicions were roused. Their action was at\nfirst only just and reasonable. They asked the Jews to state on what\nauthority they were rebuilding the temple with its massive walls. In\nthe Hebrew Bible the answer of the Jews is so peculiar as to suggest a\ncorruption of the text. It is in the first person plural--\"Then said\n_we_ unto them,\" etc.[42] In the Septuagint the third person is\nsubstituted--\"Then said _they_,\" etc., and this rendering is followed\nin the Syriac and Arabic versions. It would require a very slight\nalteration in the Hebrew text. The Old Testament Revisers have\nretained the first person--setting the alternative reading in the\nmargin. If we keep to the Hebrew text as it stands, we must conclude\nthat we have here a fragment from some contemporary writer which the\nchronicler has transcribed literally. But then it seems confusing.\nSome have shaped the sentence into a direct statement, so that in\nreply to the inquiry for their authority the Jews give the names of\nthe builders. How is this an answer? Possibly the name of Zerubbabel,\nwho had been appointed governor of Jerusalem by Cyrus, could be quoted\nas an authority. And yet the weakness of his position was so evident\nthat very little would be gained in this way, for it would be the\nright of the Satrap to inquire into the conduct of the local governor.\nIf, however, we read the sentence in the third person, it will\ncontain a further question from the Satrap and his secretary,\ninquiring for the names of the leaders in the work at Jerusalem. Such\nan inquiry threatened danger to the feeble Zerubbabel.\n\n  [41] Ezra v. 3.\n\n  [42] Ezra v. 4.\n\nThe seriousness of the situation is recognised by the grateful comment\nof the chronicler, who here remarks that \"the eye of their God was\nupon the elders of the Jews.\"[43] It is the peculiarity of even the\ndryest records of Scripture that the writers are always ready to\ndetect the presence of God in history. This justifies us in describing\nthe Biblical narratives as \"sacred history,\" in contrast to the\nso-called \"secular history\" of such authors as Herodotus and Livy. The\nnarrow conception of the difference is to think that God was with the\nJews, while He left the Greeks and Romans and the whole Gentile world\nto their fate without any recognition or interference on His part.\nSuch a view is most dishonouring to God, who is thus regarded as no\nbetter than a tribal divinity, and not as the Lord of heaven and\nearth. It is directly contradicted by the Old Testament historians,\nfor they repeatedly refer to the influence of God on great world\nmonarchies. No doubt a claim to the Divine graciousness as the\npeculiar privilege of Israel is to be seen in the Old Testament. As\nfar as this was perverted into a selfish desire to confine the\nblessings of God to the Jews, it was vigorously rebuked in the Book of\nJonah. Still it is indisputable that those who truly sought God's\ngrace, acknowledged His authority, and obeyed His will, must have\nenjoyed privileges which such of the heathen as St. Paul describes in\nthe first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans could not share. Thus\nthe chronicler writes as though the leaders of the Jews in their\ndifficulties were the special objects of the Divine notice. The eye of\nGod was on _them_, distinctively. God is spoken of as _their_ God.\nThey were men who knew, trusted, and honoured God, and at the present\nmoment they were loyally carrying out the direction of God's prophets.\nAll this is special. Nevertheless, it remains true that the chief\ncharacteristic of Biblical history is its recognition of the presence\nof God in the affairs of mankind generally, and this applies to all\nnations, although it is most marked among those nations in which God\nis known and obeyed.\n\n  [43] Ezra v. 5.\n\nThe peculiar form of Providence which is brought before us in the\npresent instance is the Divine observation. It is difficult to believe\nthat, just as the earth is visible to the stars throughout the day\nwhile the stars are invisible to the earth, we are always seen by God\nalthough we never see Him. When circumstances are adverse--and these\ncircumstances are only too visible--it is hard not to doubt that God\nis still watching all that happens to us, because although we cry out\nin our agony no answer breaks the awful silence and no hand comes out\nof the clouds to hold us up. It seems as though our words were lost in\nthe void. But that is only the impression of the moment. If we read\nhistory with the large vision of the Hebrew chronicler, can we fail to\nperceive that this is not a God-deserted world? In the details His\npresence may not be discerned, but when we stand back from the canvas\nand survey the whole picture, it flashes upon us like a sunbeam spread\nover the whole landscape. Many a man can recognise the same happy\ntruth in the course of his own life as he looks back over a wide\nstretch of it, although while he was passing through his perplexing\nexperience the thicket of difficulties intercepted his vision of the\nheavenly light.\n\nNow it is a most painful result of unbelief and cowardice working on\nthe consciousness of guilt lurking in the breast of every sinful man,\nthat the \"eye of God\" has become an object of terror to the\nimagination of so many people. Poor Hagar's exclamation of joy and\ngratitude has been sadly misapprehended. Discovering to her amazement\nthat she is not alone in the wilderness, the friendless, heart-broken\nslave-girl looks up through her tears with a smile of sudden joy on\nher face, and exclaims, \"Thou God seest me!\"[44] And yet her happy\nwords have been held over terrified children as a menace! That is a\nfalse thought of God which makes any of His children shrink from His\npresence, except they are foul and leprous with sin, and even then\ntheir only refuge is, as St. Augustine found, to come to the very God\nagainst whom they have sinned. We need not fear lest some day God may\nmake a miserable discovery about us. He knows the worst, already. Then\nit is a ground of hope that while He sees all the evil in us God still\nloves His children--that He does not love us, as it were, under a\nmisapprehension. Our Lord's teaching on the subject of the Divine\nobservation is wholly reassuring. Not a sparrow falls to the ground\nwithout our Father's notice, the very hairs of our head are all\nnumbered, and the exhortation based on these facts is not \"Beware of\nthe all-seeing Eye!\" but \"Fear not.\"[45]\n\n  [44] Gen. xvi. 13.\n\n  [45] Luke xii. 7.\n\nThe limitation of the chronicler's remark is significant. He speaks of\nthe _eye_ of God, not of God's mighty hand, nor of His outstretched\narm. It was not yet the time for action; but God was watching the\ncourse of events. Or if God was acting, His procedure was so secret\nthat no one could perceive it. Meanwhile it was enough to know that\nGod was observing everything that was transpiring. He could not be\nthought of as an Epicurean divinity, surveying the agony and tragedy\nof human life with a stony gaze of supercilious indifference, as the\nproud patrician looks down on the misery of the dim multitude. For God\nto see is for God to care; and for God to care is for God to help. But\nthis simple statement of the Divine observation maintains a reserve as\nto the method of the action of God, and it is perhaps the best way of\ndescribing Providence so that it shall not appear to come into\ncollision with the free will of man.\n\nThe chronicler distinctly associates the Divine observation with the\ncontinuance of the Jews in their work. Because the eye of God was on\nthem their enemies could not cause them to cease until the matter had\nbeen referred to Darius and his answer received. This may be explained\nby some unrecorded juncture of circumstances which arrested the action\nof the enemies of Israel; by the overruling Providence according to\nwhich the Satrap was led to perceive that it would not be wise or just\nfor him to act until he had orders from the king; or by the new zeal\nwith which the two prophets had inspired the Jews, so that they took\nup a bold position in the calm confidence that God was with them.\nAccount for it as we may, we see that in the present case the Jews\nwere not hindered in their work. It is enough for faith to perceive\nthe result of the Divine care without discovering the process.\n\nThe letter of the Satrap and his secretary embodies the reply of the\nJews to the official inquiries, and that reply clearly and boldly\nsets forth their position. One or two points in it call for passing\nnotice.\n\nIn the first place, the Jews describe themselves as \"servants of the\nGod of heaven and earth.\" Thus they start by mentioning their\nreligious status, and not any facts about their race or nation. This\nwas wise, and calculated to disarm suspicion as to their motives; and\nit was strictly true, for the Jews were engaged in a distinctly\nreligious work. Then the way in which they describe their God is\nsignificant. They do not use the national name \"Jehovah.\" That would\nserve no good purpose with men who did not know or acknowledge their\nspecial faith. They say nothing to localise and limit their idea of\nGod. To build the temple of a tribal god would be to further the ends\nof the tribe, and this the jealous neighbours of the Jews supposed\nthey were doing. By the larger title the Jews lift their work out of\nall connection with petty personal ends. In doing so they confess\ntheir true faith. These Jews of the return were pure monotheists. They\nbelieved that there was one God who ruled over heaven and earth.\n\nIn the second place, with just a touch of national pride, pathetic\nunder the circumstances, they remind the Persians that their nation\nhas seen better days, and that they are rebuilding the temple which a\ngreat king had set up. Thus, while they would appeal to the generosity\nof the authorities, they would claim their respect, with the dignity\nof men who know they have a great history. In view of this the next\nstatement is most striking. Reciting the piteous story of the\noverthrow of their nation, the destruction of their temple, and the\ncaptivity of their fathers, the Jews ascribe it all to their national\nsins. The prophets had long ago discerned the connection of cause and\neffect in these matters. But while it was only the subject of\nprediction, the proud people indignantly rejected the prophetic view.\nSince then their eyes had been opened by the painful purging of dire\nnational calamities. One great proof that the nation had profited by\nthe fiery ordeal of the captivity is that it now humbly acknowledged\nthe sins which had brought it into the furnace. Trouble is\nilluminating. While it humbles men, it opens their eyes. It is better\nto see clearly in a lowly place than to walk blindfold on perilous\nheights.\n\nAfter this explanatory preamble, the Jews appeal to the edict of\nCyrus, and describe their subsequent conduct as a direct act of\nobedience to that edict. Thus they plead their cause as loyal subjects\nof the Persian empire. In consequence of this appeal, the Satrap and\nhis secretary request the king to order a search to be made for the\nedict, and to reply according to his pleasure.\n\nThe chronicler then proceeds to relate how the search was prosecuted,\nfirst among the royal archives at Babylon--in \"the house of\nbooks.\"[46] One of Mr. Layard's most valuable discoveries was that of\na set of chambers in a palace at Koyunjik, the whole of the floor of\nwhich was covered more than a foot deep with terra-cotta tablets\ninscribed with public records.[47] A similar collection has been\nrecently found in the neighbourhood of Babylon.[48] In some such\nrecord-house the search for the edict of Cyrus was made. But the\ncylinder or tablet on which it was written could not be found. The\nsearchers then turned their attention to the roll-chamber at the\nwinter palace of Ecbatana, and there a parchment or papyrus copy of\nthe edict was discovered.\n\n  [46] Ezra vi. 1.\n\n  [47] \"Nineveh and Babylon,\" p. 345.\n\n  [48] Bertheau-Ryssel, \"Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch,\" p. 74.\n\nOne of the items of this edict as it is now given is somewhat\nsurprising, for it was not named in the earlier account in the first\nchapter of the Book of Ezra. This is a description of the dimensions\nof the temple which was to be built at Jerusalem. It must have been\nnot a little humiliating to the Jews to have to take these\nmeasurements from a foreign sovereign, a heathen, a polytheist.\nPossibly, however, they had been first supplied to the king by the\nJews, so that the builders might have the more explicit permission for\nwhat they were about to undertake. On the other hand, it may be that\nwe have here the outside dimensions, beyond which the Jews were not\npermitted to go, and that the figures represent a limit for their\nambitions. In either case the appearance of the details in the decree\nat all gives us a vivid conception of the thoroughness of the Persian\nautocracy, and of the perfect subjection of the Jews to Cyrus.\n\nSome difficulty has been felt in interpreting the figures because they\nseem to point to a larger building than Solomon's temple. The height\nis given at sixty cubits, and the breadth at the same measurement. But\nSolomon's temple was only thirty cubits high, and its total breadth,\nwith its side-chambers, was not more than forty cubits.[49] When we\nconsider the comparative poverty of the returned Jews, the\ndifficulties under which they laboured, the disappointment of the old\nmen who had seen the former building, and the short time within which\nthe work was finished--only four years[50]--it is difficult to believe\nthat it was more than double the size of the glorious fabric for which\nDavid collected materials, on which Solomon lavished the best\nresources of his kingdom, and which even then took many more years in\nbuilding. Perhaps the height includes the terrace on which the temple\nwas built, and the breadth the temple adjuncts. Perhaps the temple\nnever attained the dimensions authorised by the edict. But even if the\nfull size were reached, the building would not have approached the\nsize of the stupendous temples of the great ancient empires. Apart\nfrom its courts Solomon's temple was certainly a small building. It\nwas not the size, but the splendour of that famous fabric that led to\nits being regarded with so much admiration and pride.\n\n  [49] 1 Kings vi. 2.\n\n  [50] Ezra iv. 24, vi. 15.\n\nThe most remarkable architectural feature of all these ancient temples\nwas the enormous magnitude of the stones with which they were built.\nAt the present day the visitor to Jerusalem gazes with wonder at huge\nblocks, all carefully chiselled and accurately fitted together, where\nparts of the old foundations may still be discerned. The narrative in\nEzra makes several references to the great stones--\"stones of\nrolling\"[51] it calls them, because they could only be moved on\nrollers. Even the edict mentions \"three rows of great stones,\"\ntogether with \"a row of new timber,\"[52]--an obscure phrase, which\nperhaps means that the walls were to be of the thickness of three\nstones, while the timber formed an inner pannelling; or that there\nwere to be three storeys of stone and one of wood; or yet another\npossibility, that on three tiers of stone a tier of wood was to be\nlaid. In the construction of the inner court of Solomon's temple this\nthird method seems to have been followed, for we read, \"And he built\nthe inner court with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar\nbeams.\"[53] However we regard it--and the plan is confusing and a\nmatter of much discussion--the impression is one of massive strength.\nThe jealous observers noted especially the building of \"the wall\" of\nthe temple.[54] So solid a piece of work might be turned into a\nfortification. But no such end seems to have been contemplated by the\nJews. They built solidly because they wished their work to stand. It\nwas to be no temporary tabernacle; but a permanent temple designed to\nendure to posterity. We are struck with the massive character of the\nRoman remains in Britain, which show that when the great world\nconquerors took possession of our island they settled down in it and\nregarded it as a permanent property. The same grand consciousness of\npermanence must have been in the minds of the brave builders who\nplanted this solid structure at Jerusalem in the midst of troubles and\nthreatenings of disaster. To-day, when we look at the stupendous\nPhoenician and Jewish architecture of Syria, we are struck with\nadmiration at the patience, the perseverance, the industry, the\nthoroughness, the largeness of idea that characterised the work of\nthese old-world builders. Surely it must have been the outcome of a\nsimilar tone and temper of mind. The modern mind may be more nimble,\nas the modern work is more expeditious. But for steadfastness of\npurpose the races that wrought so patiently at great enduring works\nseem to have excelled anything we can attain. And yet here and there a\nsimilar characteristic is observable--as, for example, in the\nself-restraint and continuous toil of Charles Darwin, when he\ncollected facts for twenty years before he published the book which\nembodied the conclusion he had drawn from his wide induction.\n\n  [51] Ezra v. 8.\n\n  [52] Ezra vi. 4.\n\n  [53] 1 Kings vi. 36.\n\n  [54] Ezra v. 9.\n\nThe solid character of the temple-building is further suggestive,\nbecause the work was all done for the service of God. Such work should\nnever be hasty, because God has the leisure of eternity in which to\ninspect it. It is labour lost to make it superficial and showy without\nany real strength, because God sees behind all pretences. Moreover,\nthe fire will try every man's work of what sort it is. We grow\nimpatient of toil; we weary for quick results; we forget that in\nbuilding the spiritual temple strength to endure the shocks of\ntemptation and to outlast the decay of time is more valued by God than\nthe gourd-like display which is the sensation of the hour, only to\nperish as quickly as it has sprung up.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE._\n\nEZRA vi. 6-22.\n\n\nThe chronicler's version of the edict in which Darius replies to the\napplication of the Satrap Tattenai is so very friendly to the Jews\nthat questions have been raised as to its genuineness. We cannot but\nperceive that the language has been modified in its transition from\nthe Persian terra-cotta cylinder to the roll of the Hebrew chronicler,\nbecause the Great King could not have spoken of the religion of Israel\nin the absolute phrases recorded in the Book of Ezra. But when all\nallowance has been made for verbal alterations in translation and\ntranscription, the substance of the edict is still sufficiently\nremarkable. Darius fully endorses the decree of Cyrus, and even\nexceeds that gracious ordinance in generosity. He curtly bids Tattenai\n\"let the work of the house of God alone.\" He even orders the Satrap to\nprovide for this work out of the revenues of his district. The public\nrevenues are also to be used in maintaining the Jewish priests and in\nproviding them with sacrifices--\"that they may offer sacrifices of\nsweet savour unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king\nand of his sons.\"[55]\n\n  [55] Ezra vi. 10.\n\nOn the other hand, it cannot be doubted that Darius sent a reply that\nwas favourable to the Jews, for all opposition to their work was\nstopped, and means were found for completing the temple and\nmaintaining the costly ritual. The Jews gratefully acknowledged the\ninfluence of God on the heart of Darius. Surely they were right in\ndoing so. They were gifted with the true insight of faith. It is no\ncontradiction to add that--in the earthly sphere and among the human\nmotives through which God works, by guiding them--what we know of\nDarius will account to some extent for his friendliness towards the\nJews. He was a powerful ruler, and when he had quelled the serious\nrebellions that had broken out in several quarters of his kingdom, he\norganised his government in a masterly style with a new and thorough\nsystem of satrapies.[56] Then he pushed his conquests farmer afield,\nand subsequently came into contact with Europe, although ultimately to\nsuffer a humiliating defeat in the famous battle of Marathon. In fact,\nwe may regard him as the real founder of the Persian Empire. Cyrus,\nthough his family was of Persian origin, was originally a king of\nElam, and he had to conquer Persia before he could rule over it; but\nDarius was a prince of the Persian royal house. Unlike Cyrus, he was\nat least a monotheist, if not a thoroughgoing Zoroastrian. The\ninscription on his tomb at _Naksh-i-Rustem_ attributes all that he has\nachieved to the favour of Ormazd. \"When Ormazd saw this earth filled\nwith revolt and civil war, then did he entrust it to me. He made me\nking, and I am king. By the grace of Ormazd I have restored the\nearth.\" \"All that I have done I have done through the grace of\nOrmazd. Ormazd brought help to me until I had completed my work. May\nOrmazd protect from evil me and my house and this land. Therefore I\npray unto Ormazd, May Ormazd grant this to me.\" \"O Man! May the\ncommand of Ormazd not be despised by thee: leave not the path of\nright, sin not!\"[57] Such language implies a high religious conception\nof life. Although it is a mistake to suppose that the Jews had\nborrowed anything of importance from Zoroastrianism during the\ncaptivity or in the time of Cyrus--inasmuch as that religion was then\nscarcely known in Babylon--when it began to make itself felt there,\nits similarity to Judaism could not fail to strike the attention of\nobservant men. It taught the existence of one supreme God--though it\nco-ordinated the principles of good and evil in His being, as two\nsubsidiary existences, in a manner not allowed by Judaism--and it\nencouraged prayer. It also insisted on the dreadful evil of sin and\nurged men to strive after purity, with an earnestness that witnessed\nto the blending of morality with religion to an extent unknown\nelsewhere except among the Jews. Thus, if Darius were a Zoroastrian,\nhe would have two powerful links of sympathy with the Jews in\nopposition to the corrupt idolatry of the heathen--the spiritual\nmonotheism and the earnest morality that were common to the two\nreligions. And in any case it is not altogether surprising to learn\nthat when he read the letter of the people who described themselves as\n\"the servants of the God of heaven and earth,\" the worshipper of\nOrmazd should have sympathised with them rather than with their\nsemi-pagan opponents. Moreover, Darius must have known something of\nJudaism from the Jews of Babylon. Then, he was restoring the temples\nof Ormazd which his predecessor had destroyed. But the Jews were\nengaged in a very similar work; therefore the king, in his antipathy\nto the idolaters, would give no sanction to a heathenish opposition to\nthe building of the temple at Jerusalem by a people who believed in\nOne Spiritual God.\n\n  [56] Herodotus, iii. 89.\n\n  [57] Sayce, Introduction, pp. 57, 58.\n\nDarius was credited with a generous disposition, which would incline him to\na kindly treatment of his subjects. Of course we must interpret this\naccording to the manners of the times. For example, in his edict about the\ntemple-building he gives orders that any one of his subjects who hinders\nthe work is to be impaled on a beam from his own house, the site of which\nis to be used for a refuse heap.[58] Darius also invokes the God of the\nJews to destroy any foreign king or people who should attempt to alter or\ndestroy the temple at Jerusalem. The savagery of his menace is in harmony\nwith his conduct when, according to Herodotus, he impaled _three thousand_\nmen at Babylon after he had recaptured the city.[59] Those were cruel\ntimes--Herodotus tells us that the besieged Babylonians had previously\nstrangled their own wives when they were running short of provisions.[60]\nThe imprecation with which the edict closes may be matched by one on the\ninscription of Darius at _Behistum_, where the Great King invokes the curse\nof Ormazd on any persons who should injure the tablet. The ancient despotic\nworld-rulers had no conception of the modern virtue of humanitarianism. It\nis sickening to picture to ourselves their methods of government. The\nenormous misery involved is beyond calculation. Still we may believe that\nthe worst threats were not always carried out; we may make some allowance\nfor Oriental extravagance of language. And yet, after all has been said,\nthe conclusion of the edict of Darius presents to us a kind of state\nsupport for religion which no one would defend in the present day. In\naccepting the help of the Persian sovereign the Jews could not altogether\ndissociate themselves from his way of government. Nevertheless it is fair\nto remember that they had not asked for his support. They had simply\ndesired to be left unmolested.\n\n  [58] Ezra. vi. 11.\n\n  [59] Herodotus, iii. 159.\n\n  [60] _Ibid._\n\nTattenai loyally executed the decree of Darius; the temple-building\nproceeded without further hindrance, and the work was completed about four\nyears after its recommencement at the instigation of the prophet Haggai.\nThen came the joyous ceremony of the dedication. All the returned exiles\ntook part in it. They are named collectively \"the children of\nIsrael\"--another indication that the restored Jews were regarded by the\nchronicler as the representatives of the whole united nation as this had\nexisted under David and Solomon before the great schism. Similarly there\nare _twelve_ he-goats for the sin-offering--for the twelve tribes.[61]\nSeveral classes of Israelites are enumerated,--first the clergy in their\ntwo orders, the priests and the Levites, always kept distinct in \"Ezra\";\nnext the laity, who are described as \"the children of the captivity.\" The\nlimitation of this phrase is significant. In the dedication of the temple\nthe Israelites of the land who were mixed up with the heathen people are\nnot included. Only the returned exiles had built the temple; only they were\nassociated in the dedication of it. Here is a strictly guarded Church.\nAccess to it is through the one door of an unimpeachable genealogical\nrecord. Happily the narrowness of this arrangement is soon to be broken\nthrough. In the meanwhile it is to be observed that it is just the people\nwho have endured the hardship of separation from their beloved Jerusalem to\nwhom the privilege of rejoicing in the completion of the new temple is\ngiven. The tame existence that cannot fathom the depths of misery is\nincapable of soaring to the heights of bliss. The joy of the harvest is for\nthose who have sown in tears.\n\n  [61] Ezra vi. 17.\n\nThe work was finished, and yet its very completion was a new\ncommencement. The temple was now dedicated--literally \"initiated\"--for\nthe future service of God.\n\nThis dedication is an instance of the highest use of man's work. The\nfruit of years of toil and sacrifice is given to God. Whatever\ntheories we may have about the consecration of a building--and surely\nevery building that is put to a sacred use is in a sense a sacred\nbuilding--there can be no question as to the rightness of dedication.\nThis is just the surrender to God of what was built for Him out of the\nresources that He had supplied. A dedication service is a solemn act\nof transfer by which a building is given over to the use of God. We\nmay save it from narrowness if we do not limit it to places of public\nassembly. The home where the family altar is set up, where day by day\nprayer is offered, and where the common round of domestic duties is\nelevated and consecrated by being faithfully discharged as in the\nsight of God, is a true sanctuary; it too, like the Jerusalem temple,\nhas its \"Holy of Holies.\" Therefore when a family enters a new house,\nor when two young lives cross the threshold of what is to be\nhenceforth their \"home,\" there is as true a ground for a solemn act of\ndedication as in the opening of a great temple. A prophet declared\nthat \"Holiness to the Lord\" was to characterise the very vessels of\nhousehold use in Jerusalem.[62] It may lift some of the burden of\ndrudgery which presses on people who are compelled to spend their time\nin common house-toil, for them to perceive that they may become\npriests and priestesses ministering at the altar even in their daily\nwork. In the same spirit truly devout men of business will dedicate\ntheir shops, their factories, their offices, the tools of their work,\nand the enterprises in which they engage, so that all may be regarded\nas belonging to God, and only to be used as His will dictates. Behind\nevery such act of dedication there must be a prior act of\nself-consecration, without which the gift of any mere thing to God is\nbut an insult to the Father who only seeks the hearts of His children.\nNay, without this a real gift of any kind is impossible. But the\npeople who have first given their own selves to the Lord are prepared\nfor all other acts of surrender.\n\n  [62] Zech. xiv. 21.\n\nAccording to the custom of their ritual, the Jews signalised the\ndedication of the temple by the offering of sacrifices. Even with the\nhelp of the king's bounty these were few in number compared with the\nlavish holocausts that were offered in the ceremony of dedicating\nSolomon's temple.[63] Here, in the external aspect of things, the\nmelancholy archaeologists might have found another cause for\nlamentation. But we are not told that any such people appeared on the\npresent occasion. The Jews were not so foolish as to believe that the\nvalue of a religious movement could be ascertained by the study of\narchitectural dimensions. Is it less misleading to attempt to estimate\nthe spiritual prosperity of a Church by casting up the items of its\nbalance-sheet, or tabulating the numbers of its congregations?\n\n  [63] 1 Kings viii. 63.\n\nLooking more closely into the chronicler's description of the\nsacrifices, we see that these were principally of two distinct\nkinds.[64] There were some animals for burnt offerings, which\nsignified complete dedication, and pledged their offerers to it. Then\nthere were other animals for sin-offerings. Thus even in the joyous\ndedication of the temple the sin of Israel could not be forgotten. The\nincreasing importance of sacrifices for sin is one of the most marked\nfeatures of the Hebrew ritual in its later stages of development. It\nshows that in the course of ages the national consciousness of sin was\nintensified. At the same time it makes clear that the inexplicable\nconviction that without shedding of blood there could be no remission\nof sins was also deepened. Whether the sacrifice was regarded as a\ngift pleasing and propitiating an offended God, or as a substitute\nbearing the death-penalty of sin, or as a sacred life, bestowing, by\nmeans of its blood, new life on sinners who had forfeited their own\nlives; in any case, and however it was interpreted, it was felt that\nblood must be shed if the sinner was to be freed from guilt.\nThroughout the ages this awful thought was more and more vividly\npresented, and the mystery which the conscience of many refused to\nabandon continued, until there was a great revelation of the true\nmeaning of sacrifice for sin in the one efficacious atonement of\nChrist.\n\n  [64] Ezra vi. 17.\n\nA subsidiary point to be noticed here is that there were just _twelve_\nhe-goats sacrificed for the twelve tribes of Israel. These were\nnational sin-offerings, and not sacrifices for individual sinners.\nUnder special circumstances the individual could bring his own private\noffering. But in this great temple function only national sins were\nconsidered. The nation had suffered as a whole for its collective sin;\nin a corresponding way it had its collective expiation of sin. There\nare always national sins which need a broad public treatment, apart\nfrom the particular acts of wickedness committed by separate men.\n\nAll this is said by the chronicler to have taken place in accordance\nwith The Law--\"As it is written in the book of Moses.\"[65] Here, as in\nthe case of the similar statement of the chronicler in connection with\nthe sacrifices offered when the great altar of burnt-offerings was set\nup,[66] we must remember, in the first place, that we have to do with\nthe reflections of an author writing in a subsequent age, to whom the\nwhole Pentateuch was a familiar book. But then it is also clear that\nbefore Ezra had startled the Jews by reading The Law in its later\nrevelation there must have been some earlier form of it, not only in\nDeuteronomy, but also in a priestly collection of ordinances. It is a\ncurious fact that no full directions on the division of the courses of\nthe priests and Levites is now to be found in the Pentateuch. On this\noccasion the services must have been arranged on the model of the\ntraditional priestly law. They were not left to the caprice of the\nhour. There was order; there was continuity; there was obedience.\n\n  [65] Ezra vi. 18.\n\n  [66] Ezra iii. 2.\n\nThe chronicler concludes this period of his history by adding a\nparagraph[67] on the first observance of the Passover among the\nreturned Jews. The national religion is now re-established, and\ntherefore the greatest festival of the year can be enjoyed. One of the\ncharacteristics of this festival is made especially prominent in the\npresent observance of it. The significance of the unleavened bread is\npointedly noticed. All leaven is to be banished from the houses during\nthe week of the Passover. All impurity must also be banished from the\npeople. The priests and Levites perform the ceremonial purifications\nand get themselves legally clean. The franchise is enlarged; and the\nlimitations of genealogy with which we started are dispensed with. A\nnew class of Israelites receives a brotherly welcome in this time of\ngeneral purification. In distinction from the returned captives, there\nare now the Israelites who \"had separated themselves unto them from\nthe filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord.\" Jehovah\nis pointedly described as \"the God of Israel\"--_i.e._, the God of all\nsections of Israel.[68] These people cannot be proselytes from\nheathenism--there could be few if any such in exclusive times. They\nmight consist of Jews who had been living in Palestine all through the\ncaptivity, Israelites also left in the Northern Kingdom, and scattered\nmembers of the ten tribes from various regions. All such are welcome\non condition of a severe process of social purging. They must break\noff from their heathen associations. We may suspect a spirit of Jewish\nanimosity in the ugly phrase \"the filthiness of the heathen.\" But it\nwas only too true that both the Canaanite and the Babylonian habits\nof life were disgustingly immoral. The same horrible characteristic is\nfound among most of the heathen to-day. These degraded people are not\nsimply benighted in theological error; they are corrupted by horrible\nvices. Missionary work is more than the propagation of Christian\ntheology; it is the purging of Augean stables. St. Paul reminds us\nthat we must put away the old leaven of sinful habits in order to\npartake of the Christian Passover,[69] and St. James that one feature\nof the religious service which is acceptable to God is to keep oneself\nunspotted from the world.[70] Though unfortunately with the\nexternalism of the Jews their purification too often became a mere\nceremony, and their separation an ungracious race-exclusiveness,\nstill, at the root of it, the Passover idea here brought before us is\nprofoundly true. It is the thought that we cannot take part in a\nsacred feast of Divine gladness except on condition of renouncing sin.\nThe joy of the Lord is the beatific vision of saints, the blessedness\nof the pure in heart who see God.\n\n  [67] Here, at Ezra vi. 18, the author drops the Aramaic\n  language--which was introduced at iv. 8--and resumes the Hebrew. See\n  page 71.\n\n  [68] Ezra vi. 21.\n\n  [69] 1 Cor. v. 7.\n\n  [70] James i. 27.\n\nOn this condition, for the people who were thus separate, the festival\nwas a scene of great gladness. The chronicler calls attention to three\nthings that were in the mind of the Jews inspiring their praises\nthroughout.[71] The first is that God was the source of their\njoy--\"the Lord had made them joyful.\" There is joy in religion; and\nthis joy springs from God. The second is that God had brought about\nthe successful end of their labours by directly influencing the Great\nKing. He had \"turned the heart of the king of Assyria\"--a title for\nDarius that speaks for the authenticity of the narrative, for it\nrepresents an old form of speech for the ruler of the districts that\nhad once belonged to the king of Assyria. The third fact is that God\nhad been the source of strength to the Jews, so that they had been\nable to complete their work. The result of the Divine aid was \"to\nstrengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of\nIsrael.\" Among his own people joy and strength from God, in the great\nworld a providential direction of the mind of the king--this was what\nfaith now perceived, and the perception of so wonderful a Divine\nactivity made the Passover a festival of boundless gladness. Wherever\nthat ancient Hebrew faith is experienced in conjunction with the\nPassover spirit of separation from the leaven of sin religion always\nis a well of joy.\n\n  [71] Ezra vi. 22.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_EZRA THE SCRIBE._\n\nEZRA vii. 1-10.\n\n\nAlthough the seventh chapter of \"Ezra\" begins with no other indication\nof time than the vague phrase \"Now after these things,\" nearly sixty\nyears had elapsed between the events recorded in the previous chapter\nand the mission of Ezra here described. We have no history of this\nlong period. Zerubbabel passed into obscurity without leaving any\ntrace of his later years. He had accomplished his work; the temple had\nbeen built; but the brilliant Messianic anticipations that had\nclustered about him at the outset of his career were to await their\nfulfilment in a greater Son of David, and people could afford to\nneglect the memory of the man who had only been a sort of temporary\ntrustee of the hope of Israel. We shall come across indications of the\neffects of social trouble and religious decadence in the state of\nJerusalem as she appeared at the opening of this new chapter in her\nhistory. She had not recovered a vestige of her ancient civic\nsplendour; the puritan rigour with which the returned exiles had\nfounded a Church among the ruins of her political greatness had been\nrelaxed, so that the one distinguishing feature of the humble colony\nwas in danger of melting away in easy and friendly associations with\nneighbouring peoples. When it came, the revival of zeal did not\noriginate in the Holy City. It sprang up among the Jews at Babylon.\nThe earlier movement in the reign of Cyrus had arisen in the same\nquarter. The best of Judaism was no product of the soil of Palestine:\nit was an exotic. The elementary \"Torah\" of Moses emerged from the\ndesert, with the learning of Egypt as its background, long before it\nwas cultivated at Jerusalem to blossom in the reformation of Josiah.\nThe final edition of The Law was shaped in the Valley of the\nEuphrates, with the literature and science of Babylon to train its\neditors for their great task, though it may have received its\nfinishing touches in Jerusalem. These facts by no means obscure the\nglory of the inspiration and Divine character of The Law. In its\ntheology, in its ethics, in its whole spirit and character, the\nPentateuch is no more a product of Babylonian than of Egyptian ideas.\nIts purity and elevation of character speak all the more emphatically\nfor its Divine origin when we take into account its corrupt\nsurroundings; it was like a white lily growing on a dung-heap.\n\nStill it is important to notice that the great religious revival of\nEzra's time sprang up on the plains of Babylon, not among the hills of\nJudah. This involves two very different facts--the peculiar spiritual\nexperience with which it commenced, and the special literary and\nscientific culture in the midst of which it was shaped.\n\nFirst, it originated in the experience of the captivity, in\nhumiliation and loss, and after long brooding over the meaning of the\ngreat chastisement. The exiles were like poets who \"learn in sorrow\nwhat they teach in song.\" This is apparent in the pathetic psalms of\nthe same period, and in the writings of the visionary of Chebar, who\ncontributed a large share to the new movement in view of the\nre-establishment of religious worship at Jerusalem.\n\nThus Jerusalem was loved by the exiles, the temple pictured in detail\nto the imagination of men who never trod its sacred courts, and the\nsacrificial system most carefully studied by people who had no means\nof putting it in practice. No doubt The Law now represented an\nintellectual rather than a concrete form of religion. It was an ideal.\nSo long as the real is with us, it tends to depress the ideal by its\nmaterial bulk and weight. The ideal is elevated in the absence of the\nreal. Therefore the pauses of life are invaluable; by breaking through\nthe iron routine of habit, they give us scope for the growth of larger\nideas that may lead to better attainments.\n\nSecondly, this religious revival appeared in a centre of scientific\nand literary culture. The Babylonians \"had cultivated arithmetic,\nastronomy, history, chronology, geography, comparative philology, and\ngrammar.\"[72] In astronomy they were so advanced that they had mapped\nout the heavens, catalogued the fixed stars, calculated eclipses, and\naccounted for them correctly. Their enormous libraries of terra-cotta,\nonly now being unearthed, testify to their literary activity. The Jews\nbrought back from Babylon the names of the months, the new form of\nletters used in writing their books, and many other products of the\nlearning and science of the Euphrates. Internally the religion of\nIsrael is solitary, pure, Divine. Externally the literary form of it,\nand the physical conception of the universe which it embodies, owe not\na little to the light which God had bestowed upon the people of\nBabylon; just as Christianity, in soul and essence the religion of\nJesus of Nazareth, was shaped in theory by the thought, and in\ndiscipline by the law and order, with which God had endowed the two\ngreat European races of Greece and Rome.\n\n  [72] Rawlinson, \"Ezra and Nehemiah,\" p. 2.\n\nThe chronicler introduces Ezra with a brief sketch of his origin and a\nbare outline of his expedition to Jerusalem.[73] He then next\ntranscribes a copy of the edict of Artaxerxes which authorised the\nexpedition.[74] After this he inserts a detailed account of the\nexpedition from the pen of Ezra himself, so that here the narrative\nproceeds in the first person--though, in the abrupt manner of the\nwhole book, without a word of warning that this is to be the case.[75]\n\n  [73] Ezra vii. 1-10.\n\n  [74] Ezra vii. 11-26.\n\n  [75] Ezra vii. 27-ix.\n\nIn the opening verses of Ezra vii. the chronicler gives an epitome of\nthe genealogy of Ezra, passing over several generations, but leading\nup to Aaron. Ezra, then, could claim a high birth. He was a born\npriest of the select family of Zadok, but not of the later house of\nhigh-priests. Therefore the privileges which are assigned to that\nhouse in the Pentateuch cannot be accounted for by ascribing ignoble\nmotives of nepotism to its publisher. Though Ezra is named \"The\nPriest,\" he is more familiarly known to us as \"The Scribe.\" The\nchronicler calls him \"a ready scribe\" (or, a scribe skilful) \"in the\nlaw of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given.\" Originally the\ntitle \"Scribe\" was used for town recorders and registrars of the\ncensus. Under the later kings of Judah, persons bearing this name were\nattached to the court as the writers and custodians of state\ndocuments. But these are all quite distinct from the scribes who\nappeared after the exile. The scribes of later days were guardians and\ninterpreters of the written Torah, the sacred law. They appeared with\nthe publication and adoption of the Pentateuch. They not only studied\nand taught this complete law; they interpreted and applied its\nprecepts. In so doing they had to pronounce judgments of their own.\nInasmuch as changing circumstances necessarily required modifications\nin rules of justice, while The Law could not be altered after Ezra's\nday, great ingenuity was required to reconcile the old law with the\nnew decisions. Thus arose sophistical casuistry. Then in \"fencing\" The\nLaw the scribes added precepts of their own to prevent men from coming\nnear the danger of transgression.\n\nScribism was one of the most remarkable features of the later days of\nIsrael. Its existence in so much prominence showed that religion had\npassed into a new phase, that it had assumed a literary aspect. The\nart of writing was known, indeed, in Egypt and Babylon before the\nexodus; it was even practised in Palestine among the Hittites as early\nas Abraham. But at first in their religious life the Jews did not give\nmuch heed to literary documents. Priestism was regulated by\ntraditional usages rather than by written directions, and justice was\nadministered under the kings according to custom, precedent, and\nequity. Quite apart from the discussion concerning the antiquity of\nthe Pentateuch, it is certain that its precepts were neither used nor\nknown in the time of Josiah, when the reading of the roll discovered\nin the temple was listened to with amazement. Still less did\nprophetism rely on literary resources. What need was there of a book\nwhen the Spirit of God was speaking through the audible voice of a\nliving man? At first the prophets were men of action. In more\ncultivated times they became orators, and then their speeches were\nsometimes preserved--as the speeches of Demosthenes were\npreserved--for future reference, after their primary end had been\nserved. Jeremiah found it necessary to have a scribe, Baruch, to write\ndown his utterances. This was a further step in the direction of\nliterature; and Ezekiel was almost entirely literary, for his\nprophecies were most of them written in the first instance. Still they\nwere prophecies; _i.e._, they were original utterances, drawn directly\nfrom the wells of inspiration. The function of the scribes was more\nhumble--to collect the sayings and traditions of earlier ages; to\narrange and edit the literary fragments of more original minds. Their\nown originality was almost confined to their explanations of difficult\npassages, or their adaptation of what they received to new needs and\nnew circumstances. Thus we see theology passing into the reflective\nstage: it is becoming historical; it is being transformed into a\nbranch of archaeology. Ezra the Scribe is nervously anxious to claim\nthe authority of Moses for what he teaches. The robust spirit of\nIsaiah was troubled with no such scruple. Scribism rose when prophecy\ndeclined. It was a melancholy confession that the fountains of living\nwater were drying up. It was like an aqueduct laboriously constructed\nin order to convey stored water to a thirsty people from distant\nreservoirs. The reservoirs may be full, the aqueduct may be sound;\nstill who would not rather drink of the sparkling stream as it springs\nfrom the rock? Moreover scribism degenerated into rabbinism, the\nscholasticism of the Jews. We may see its counterpart in the Catholic\nscholasticism which drew supplies from patristic tradition, and again\nin Protestant scholasticism--which came nearer to the source of\ninspiration in the Bible, and yet which stiffened into a traditional\ninterpretation of Scripture, confining its waters to iron pipes of\northodoxy.\n\nBut some men refuse to be thus tied to antiquarianism. They dare to\nbelieve that the Spirit of God is still in the world, whispering in\nthe fancy of little children, soothing weary souls, thundering in the\nconscience of sinners, enlightening honest inquirers, guiding\nperplexed men of faith. Nevertheless we are always in danger of one or\nother of the two extremes of formal scholasticism and indefinite\nmysticism. The good side of the scribes' function is suggestive of\nmuch that is valuable. If God did indeed speak to men of old \"in\ndivers portions and in divers manners,\"[76] what He said must be of\nthe greatest value to us, for truth in its essence is eternal. We\nChristians have the solid foundation of a historical faith to build\nupon, and we cannot dispense with our gospel narratives and doctrinal\nepistles. What Christ was, what Christ did, and the meaning of all\nthis, is of vital importance to us; but it is chiefly important\nbecause it enables us to see what He is to-day--a Priest ever living\nto make intercession for us, a Deliverer who is even now able to save\nunto the uttermost all who come unto God by Him, a present Lord who\nclaims the active loyalty of every fresh generation of the men and\nwomen for whom He died in the far-off past. We have to combine the\nconcrete historical religion with the inward, living, spiritual\nreligion to reach a faith that shall be true both objectively and\nsubjectively--true to the facts of the universe, and true to personal\nexperience.\n\n  [76] Heb. i. 1.\n\nEzra accomplished his great work, to a large extent, because he\nventured to be more than a scribe. Even when he was relying on the\nauthority of antiquity, the inspiration which was in him saved him\nfrom a pedantic adherence to the letter of the Torah as he had\nreceived it. The modification of The Law when it was reissued by the\ngreat scribe, which is so perplexing to some modern readers, is a\nproof that the religion of Israel had not yet lost vitality and\nsettled down into a fossil condition. It was living; therefore it was\ngrowing, and in growing it was casting its old shell and evolving a\nnew vesture better adapted to its changed environment. Is not this\njust a signal proof that God had not deserted His people?\n\nEzra is presented to us as a man of a deeply devout nature. He\ncultivated his own personal religion before he attempted to influence\nhis compatriots. The chronicler tells us that he had prepared\n(directed) his heart, to seek the law of the Lord and to do it. With\nour haste to obtain \"results\" in Christian service, there is danger\nlest the need of personal preparation should be neglected. But work is\nfeeble and fruitless if the worker is inefficient, and he must be\nquite as inefficient if he has not the necessary graces as if he had\nnot the requisite gifts. Over and above the preparatory intellectual\nculture--never more needed than in our own day--there is the\nall-essential spiritual training. We cannot effectually win others to\nthat truth which has no place in our own hearts. Enthusiasm is kindled\nby enthusiasm. The fire must be first burning within the preacher\nhimself if he would light it in the breasts of other men. Here lies\nthe secret of the tremendous influence Ezra exerted when he came to\nJerusalem. He was an enthusiast for the law he so zealously\nadvocated. Now enthusiasm is not the creation of a moment's thought;\nit is the outgrowth of long meditation, inspired by deep, passionate\nlove. It shows itself in the experience expressed by the Psalmist when\nhe said, \"While I mused the fire burned.\"[77] Ours is not an age of\nmusing. But if we have no time to meditate over the great verities of\nour faith, the flames will not be kindled, and in place of the glowing\nfire of enthusiasm we shall have the gritty ashes of officialism.\n\n  [77] Psalm xxxix. 3.\n\nEzra turned his thoughts to the law of his God; he took this for the\nsubject of his daily meditation, brooding over it until it became a\npart of his own thinking. This is the way a character is made. Men\nhave larger power over their thoughts than they are inclined to admit;\nand the greatness or the meanness, the purity or the corruption of\ntheir character depends on the way in which that power is used. Evil\nthoughts may come unbidden to the purest mind--for Christ was tempted\nby the devil; but such thoughts can be resisted, and treated as\nunwelcome intruders. The thoughts that are welcomed and cherished,\nnourished in meditation, and sedulously cultivated--these bosom\nfriends of the inner man determine what he himself is to become. To\nallow one's mind to be treated as the plaything of every idle\nreverie--like a boat drifting at the mercy of wind and current without\na hand at the helm--is to court intellectual and moral shipwreck. The\nfirst condition of achieving success in self-culture is to direct the\ncourse of the thinking aright. St. Paul enumerated a list of good and\nhonourable subjects to bid us \"think on\" such things.[78]\n\n  [78] Phil. iv. 8.\n\nThe aim of Ezra's meditation was threefold. First, he would \"seek the\nlaw of the Lord,\" for the teacher must begin with understanding the\ntruth, and this may involve much anxious searching. Possibly Ezra had\nto pursue a literary inquiry, hunting up documents, comparing data,\narranging and harmonising scattered fragments. But the most important\npart of his seeking was his effort to find the real meaning and\npurpose of The Law. It was in regard to this that he would have to\nexercise his mind most earnestly. Secondly, his aim was \"to do it.\" He\nwould not attempt to preach what he had not tried to perform. He would\ntest the effect of his doctrine on himself before venturing to\nprescribe it for others. Thus he would be most sure of escaping a\nsubtle snare which too often entraps the preacher. When the godly man\nof business reads his Bible, it is just to find light and food for his\nown soul; but when the preacher turns the pages of the sacred book, he\nis haunted by the anxiety to light upon suitable subjects for his\nsermons. Every man who handles religious truths in the course of his\nwork is in danger of coming to regard those truths as the tools of his\ntrade. If he succumbs to this danger it will be to his own personal\nloss, and then even as instruments in his work the degraded truths\nwill be blunt and inefficient, because a man can never know the\ndoctrine until he has begun to obey the commandment. If religious\nteaching is not to be pedantic and unreal, it must be interpreted by\nexperience. The most vivid teaching is a transcript from life.\nThirdly, Ezra would \"teach in Israel statutes and judgments.\" This\nnecessarily comes last--after the meditation, after the experience.\nBut it is of great significance as the crown and finish of the rest.\nEzra is to be his nation's instructor. In the new order the first\nplace is not to be reserved for a king; it is assigned to a\nschoolmaster.\n\nThis will be increasingly the case as knowledge is allowed to prevail,\nand as truth is permitted to sway the lives of men and fashion the\nhistory of communities.\n\nSo far we have Ezra's own character and culture. But there was another\nside to his preparation for his great life-work of which the\nchronicler took note, and which he described in a favourite phrase of\nEzra's, a phrase so often used by the scribe that the later writer\nadopted it quite naturally. Ezra's request to be permitted to go up to\nJerusalem with a new expedition is said to have been granted him by\nthe king \"according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him.\"[79]\nThus the chronicler here acknowledges the Divine hand in the whole\nbusiness, as he has the inspired insight to do again and again in the\ncourse of his narrative. The special phrase thus borrowed from Ezra is\nrich in meaning. In an earlier passage the chronicler noticed that\n\"the _eye_ of their God was upon the elders of the Jews.\"[80] Now, in\nEzra's phrase, it is the _hand_ of his God that is on Ezra. The\nexpression gives us a distinct indication of the Divine activity. God\nworks, and, so to speak, uses His hand. It also suggests the nearness\nof God. The hand of God is not only moving and acting; it is upon\nEzra. God touches the man, holds him, directs him, impels him; and, as\nhe shows elsewhere, Ezra is conscious of the influence, if not\nimmediately, yet by means of a devout study of the providential\nresults. This Divine power even goes so far as to move the Persian\nmonarch. The chronicler ascribes the conduct of successive kings of\nPersia to the immediate action of God. But here it is connected with\nGod's hand being on Ezra. When God is holding and directing His\nservants, even external circumstances are found to work for their\ngood, and even other men are induced to further the same end. This\nbrings us to the kernel, the very essence of religion. That was not\nfound in Ezra's wisely chosen meditations; nor was it to be seen in\nhis devout practices. Behind and beneath the man's earnest piety was\nthe unseen but mighty action of God; and here, in the hand of his God\nresting upon him, was the root of all his religious life. In\nexperience the human and the Divine elements of religion are\ninextricably blended together; but the vital element, that which\noriginates and dominates the whole, is the Divine. There is no real,\nliving religion without it. It is the secret of energy and the\nassurance of victory. The man of true religion is he who has the hand\nof God resting upon him, he whose thought and action are inspired and\nswayed by the mystic touch of the Unseen.\n\n  [79] Ezra vii. 6.\n\n  [80] Ezra v. 5.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n_EZRA'S EXPEDITION._\n\nEZRA vii. 11-viii.\n\n\nLike the earlier pilgrimage of Zerubbabel and his companions, Ezra's\ngreat expedition was carried out under a commission from the Persian\nmonarch of his day. The chronicler simply calls this king \"Artaxerxes\"\n(_Artahshashta_), a name borne by three kings of Persia; but there can\nbe no reasonable doubt that his reference is to the son and successor\nof Xerxes--known by the Greeks as \"Macrocheir,\" and by the Romans as\n\"Longimanus\"--Artaxerxes \"of the long hand,\" for this Artaxerxes alone\nenjoyed a sufficiently extended reign to include both the commencement\nof Ezra's public work and the later scenes in the life of Nehemiah\nwhich the chronicler associates with the same king. Artaxerxes was but\na boy when he ascended the throne, and the mission of Ezra took place\nin his earlier years, while the generous enthusiasm of the kindly\nsovereign--whose gentleness has become historic--had not yet been\ncrushed by the cares of empire. In accordance with the usual style of\nour narrative, we have his decree concerning the Jews preserved and\ntranscribed in full; and yet here, as in other cases, we must make\nsome allowance either for the literary freedom of the chronicler, or\nfor the Jewish sympathies of the translator; for it cannot be\nsupposed that a heathen, such as Artaxerxes undoubtedly was, would\nhave shown the knowledge of the Hebrew religion, or have owned the\nfaith in it, which the edict as we now have it suggests. Nevertheless,\nhere again, there is no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of\nthe document, for it is quite in accord with the policy of the\nprevious kings Cyrus and Darius, and in its special features it\nentirely agrees with the circumstances of the history.\n\nThis edict of Longimanus goes beyond any of its predecessors in\nfavoring the Jews, especially with regard to their religion. It is\ndirectly and personally addressed to Ezra, whom the king may have\nknown as an earnest, zealous leader of the Hebrew community at\nBabylon, and through him it grants to all Jewish exiles who wish to go\nup to Jerusalem liberty to return to the home of their fathers. It may\nbe objected that after the decree of Cyrus any such fresh sanction\nshould not have been needed. But two generations had passed away since\nthe pilgrimage of the first body of returning captives, and during\nthis long time many things had happened to check the free action of\nthe Jews and to cast reproach upon their movements. For a great\nexpedition to start now without any orders from the reigning monarch\nmight excite his displeasure, and a subject people who were dependent\nfor their very existence on the good-will of an absolute sovereign\nwould naturally hesitate before they ventured to rouse his suspicions\nby undertaking any considerable migration on their own account.\n\nBut Artaxerxes does much more than sanction the journey to Jerusalem;\nhe furthers the object of this journey with royal bounty, and he lays\na very important commission on Ezra, a commission which carries with\nit the power, if not the name, of a provincial magistrate. In the\nfirst place, the edict authorises a state endowment of the Jewish\nreligion. Ezra is to carry great stores to the poverty-stricken\ncommunity at Jerusalem. These are made up in part of contributions\nfrom the Babylonian Jews, in part of generous gifts from their\nfriendly neighbours, and in part of grants from the royal treasury.\nThe temple has been rebuilt, and the funds now accumulated are not\nlike the bulk of those collected in the reign of Cyrus for a definite\nobject, the cost of which might be set down to the \"Capital Account\"\nin the restoration of the Jews; they are destined in some measure for\nimprovements to the structure, but they are also to be employed in\nmaintenance charges, especially in supporting the costly services of\nthe temple. Thus the actual performance of the daily ritual at the\nJerusalem sanctuary is to be kept up by means of the revenues of the\nPersian Empire. Then, the edict proceeds to favour the priesthood by\nfreeing that order from the burden of taxation. This \"clerical\nimmunity,\" which suggests an analogy with the privileges the Christian\nclergy prized so highly in the Middle Ages, is an indirect form of\nincreased endowment, but the manner in which the endowment is granted\ncalls especial attention to the privileged status of the order that\nenjoys it. Thus the growing importance of the Jerusalem hierarchy is\nopenly fostered by the Persian king. Still further, Artaxerxes adds to\nhis endowment of the Jewish religion a direct legal establishment.\nEzra is charged to see that the law of his God is observed throughout\nthe whole region extending up from the Euphrates to Jerusalem. This\ncan only be meant to apply to the Jews who were scattered over the\nwide area, especially those of Syria. Still the mandate is startling\nenough, especially when we take into account the heavy sanctions with\nwhich it is weighted, for Ezra has authority given him to enforce\nobedience by excommunication, by fine, by imprisonment, and even by\nthe death-penalty. \"The law of his God\" is named side by side with\n\"the law of the king.\"[81] and the two are to be obeyed equally.\nFortunately, owing to the unsettled condition of the country as well\nas to Ezra's own somewhat unpractical disposition, the reformer never\nseems to have put his great powers fully to the test.\n\n  [81] Ezra vii. 26.\n\nNow, as in the previous cases of Cyrus and Darius, we are confronted\nwith the question, How came the Persian king to issue such a decree?\nIt has been suggested that as Egypt was in revolt at the time, he\ndesired to strengthen the friendly colony at Jerusalem as a western\nbulwark. But, as we have seen in the case of Cyrus, the Jews were too\nfew and feeble to be taken much account of among the gigantic forces\nof the vast empire; and, moreover, it was not the military\nfortification of Jerusalem--certainly a valuable stronghold when well\nmaintained--but the religious services of the temple and the\nobservance of The Law that this edict aimed at aiding and encouraging.\nNo doubt in times of unsettlement the king would behave most\nfavourably towards a loyal section of his people. Still, more must be\nassigned as an adequate motive for his action. Ezra is charged as a\nspecial commissioner to investigate the condition of the Jews in\nPalestine. He is to \"inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem.\"[82]\nInasmuch as it was customary for the Persian monarchs to send out\ninspectors from time to time to examine and report on the condition\nof the more remote districts of their extensive empire, it has been\nplausibly suggested that Ezra may have been similarly employed. But in\nthe chronicler's report of the edict we read, immediately after the\ninjunction to make the investigation, an important addition describing\nhow this was to be done, viz., \"According to the law of thy God which\nis in thine hand,\"[83] which shows that Ezra's inquiry was to be of a\nreligious character, and as a preliminary to the exaction of obedience\nto the Jewish law. It may be said that this clause was not a part of\nthe original decree; but the drift of the edict is religious\nthroughout rather than political, and therefore the clause in question\nis fully in harmony with its character. There is one sentence which is\nof the deepest significance, if only we can believe that it embodies\nan original utterance of the king himself--\"Whatsoever is commanded by\nthe God of heaven, let it be done exactly for the house of the God of\nheaven; _for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king\nand his sons_?\"[84] While his empire was threatened by dangerous\nrevolts, Artaxerxes seems to have desired to conciliate the God whom\nthe most devout of his people regarded with supreme awe.\n\n  [82] Ezra vii. 14.\n\n  [83] Ezra. vii. 14.\n\n  [84] Ezra vii. 23.\n\nWhat is more clear and at the same time more important is the great\ntruth detected by Ezra and recorded by him in a grateful burst of\npraise. Without any warning the chronicler suddenly breaks off his own\nnarrative, written in the third person, to insert a narrative written\nby Ezra himself in the first person--beginning at Ezra vii. 27 and\ncontinued down to Ezra x. The scribe opens by blessing God--\"the Lord\nGod of our fathers,\" who had \"put such a thing in the king's heart as\nto beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem.\"[85] This,\nthen, was a Divine movement. It can only be accounted for by ascribing\nthe original impulse to God. Natural motives of policy or of\nsuperstition may have been providentially manipulated, but the hand\nthat used them was the hand of God. The man who can perceive this\nimmense fact at the very outset of his career is fit for any\nenterprise. His transcendent faith will carry him through difficulties\nthat would be insuperable to the worldly schemer.\n\n  [85] Ezra vii. 27.\n\nPassing from the thought of the Divine influence on Artaxerxes, Ezra\nfurther praises God because he has himself received \"mercy ... before\nthe king and his counsellors, and before all the king's mighty\nprinces.\"[86] This personal thanksgiving is evidently called forth by\nthe scribe's consideration of the part assigned to him in the royal\nedict. There was enough in that edict to make the head of a\nself-seeking, ambitious man swim with vanity. But we can see from the\nfirst that Ezra is of a higher character. The burning passion that\nconsumes him has not a particle of hunger for self-aggrandisement; it\nis wholly generated by devotion to the law of his God. In the\nnarrowness and bigotry that characterise his later conduct as a\nreformer, some may suspect the action of that subtle self-will which\ncreeps unawares into the conduct of some of the noblest men. Still the\nlast thing that Ezra seeks, and the last thing that he cares for when\nit is thrust upon him, is the glory of earthly greatness.\n\n  [86] Ezra vii. 28.\n\nEzra's aim in leading the expedition may be gathered from the\nreflection of it in the royal edict, since that edict was doubtless\ndrawn up with the express purpose of furthering the project of the\nfavoured Jew. Ezra puts the beautifying of the temple in the front of\nhis grateful words of praise to God. But the personal commission\nentrusted to Ezra goes much further. The decree significantly\nrecognises the fact that he is to carry up to Jerusalem a copy of the\nSacred Law. It refers to \"the law of thy God which is in thine\nhand.\"[87] We shall hear more of this hereafter. Meanwhile it is\nimportant to see that the law, obedience to which Ezra is empowered to\nexact, is to be conveyed by him to Jerusalem. Thus he is both to\nintroduce it to the notice of the people, and to see that it does not\nremain a dead letter among them. He is to teach it to those who do not\nknow it.[88] At the same time these people are distinctly separated\nfrom others, who are expressly described as \"all such as know the laws\nof thy God.\"[89] This plainly implies that both the Jerusalem Jews,\nand those west of the Euphrates generally, were not all of them\nignorant of the Divine Torah. Some of them, at all events, knew the\nlaws they were to be made to obey. Still they may not have possessed\nthem in any written form. The plural term \"laws\" is here used, while\nthe written compilation which Ezra carried up with him is described in\nthe singular as \"The Law.\" Ezra, then, having searched out The Law and\ntested it in his own experience, is now eager to take it up to\nJerusalem, and get it executed among his fellow-countrymen at the\nreligious metropolis as well as among the scattered Jews of the\nprovincial districts. His great purpose is to make what he believes to\nbe the will of God known, and to see that it is obeyed. The very idea\nof a Torah implies a Divine will in religion. It presses upon our\nnotice the often-forgotten fact that God has something to say to us\nabout our conduct, that when we are serving Him it is not enough to be\nzealous, that we must also be obedient. Obedience is the keynote of\nJudaism. It is not less prominent in Christianity. The only difference\nis that Christians are freed from the shackles of a literal law in\norder that they may carry out \"the law of liberty,\" by doing the will\nof God from the heart as loyal disciples of Jesus Christ, so that for\nus, as for the Jews, obedience is the most fundamental fact of\nreligion. We can walk by faith in the freedom of sons; but that\nimplies that we have \"the obedience of faith.\" The ruling principle of\nour Lord's life is expressed in the words \"I delight to do Thy will, O\nMy God,\" and this must be the ruling principle in the life of every\ntrue Christian.\n\n  [87] Ezra vii. 14.\n\n  [88] Ezra vii. 25.\n\n  [89] _Ibid._\n\nEquipped with a royal edict, provided with rich contributions,\ninspired with a great religious purpose, confident that the hand of\nhis God was upon him, Ezra collected his volunteers, and proceeded to\ncarry out his commission with all practicable speed. In his record of\nthe journey, he first sets down a list of the families that\naccompanied him. It is interesting to notice names that had occurred\nin the earlier list of the followers of Zerubbabel, showing that some\nof the descendants of those who refused to go on the first expedition\ntook part in the second. They remind us of Christiana and her\nchildren, who would not join the Pilgrim when he set out from the City\nof Destruction, but who subsequently followed in his footsteps.\n\nBut there was little at Jerusalem to attract a new expedition; for the\nglamour which had surrounded the first return, with a son of David at\nits head, had faded in grievous disappointments; and the second series\nof pilgrims had to carry with them the torch with which to rekindle\nthe flames of devotion.\n\nEzra states that when he had marshalled his forces he spent three days\nwith them by a river called the \"Ahava,\" apparently because it flowed\nby a town of that name. The exact site of the camp cannot be\ndetermined, although it could not have been far from Babylon, and the\nriver must have been either one of the tributaries of the Euphrates or\na canal cut through its alluvial plain. The only plausible conjecture\nof a definite site settles upon a place now known as _Hit_, in the\nneighbourhood of some bitumen springs; and the interest of this place\nmay be found in the fact that here the usual caravan route leaves the\nfertile Valley of the Euphrates and plunges into the waterless desert.\nEven if Ezra decided to avoid the difficult desert track, and to take\nhis heavy caravan round through Northern Syria by way of Aleppo and\nthe Valley of the Orontes--an extended journey which would account for\nthe three months spent on the road--it would still be natural for him\nto pause at the parting of the ways and review the gathered host. One\nresult of this review was the startling discovery that there were no\nLevites in the whole company. We were struck with the fact that but a\nvery small and disproportionate number of these officials accompanied\nthe earlier pilgrimage of Zerubbabel, and we saw the probable\nexplanation in the disappointment if not the disaffection of the\nLevites at their degradation by Ezekiel. The more rigid arrangement of\nEzra's edition of The Law, which gave them a definite and permanent\nplace in a second rank, below the priesthood, was not likely to\nencourage them to volunteer for the new expedition. Nothing is more\ndifficult than self-effacement even in the service of God.\n\nThere was a community of Levites at a place called Casiphia,[90] under\nthe direction of a leader named Iddo. It would be interesting to think\nthat this community was really a sort of Levitical college, a school\nof students of the Torah; but we have no data to go upon in forming an\nopinion. One thing is certain. We cannot suppose that the new edition\nof The Law had been drawn up in this community of the Levites, because\nEzra had started with it in his hand as the charter of his great\nenterprise; nor, indeed, in any other Levitical college, because it\nwas not at all according to the mind of the Levites.\n\n  [90] The site of this town has not been identified. It could not have\n  been far from Ahava.\n\nAfter completing his company by the addition of the Levites, Ezra made a\nsolemn religious preparation for his journey. Like the Israelites after the\ndefeat at Gibeah in their retributive war with Benjamin;[91] like the\npenitent people at Mizpeh, in the days of Samuel, when they put away their\nidols;[92] like Jehoshaphat and his subjects when rumours of a threatened\ninvasion filled them with apprehension,[93]--Ezra and his followers fasted\nand humbled themselves before God in view of their hazardous undertaking.\nThe fasting was a natural sign of the humiliation, and this prostration\nbefore God was at once a confession of sin and an admission of absolute\ndependence on His mercy. Thus the people reveal themselves as the \"poor in\nspirit\" to whom our Lord directs his first beatitude. They are those who\nhumble themselves, and therefore those whom God will exalt.\n\n  [91] Judges xx. 26.\n\n  [92] 1 Sam. vii. 6.\n\n  [93] 2 Chron. xx. 3.\n\nWe must not confound this state of self-humiliation before God with\nthe totally different condition of abject fear which shrinks from\ndanger in contemptible cowardice. The very opposite to that is the\nattitude of these humble pilgrims. Like the Puritan soldiers who\nbecame bold as lions before man in the day of battle, just because\nthey had spent the night in fasting and tears and self-abasement\nbefore God, Ezra and his people rose from their penitential fast,\ncalmly prepared to face all dangers in the invincible might of God.\nThere seems to have been some enemy whom Ezra knew to be threatening\nhis path, for when he got safely to the end of his journey he gave\nthanks for God's protection from this foe;[94] and, in any case, so\nwealthy a caravan as his was would provoke the cupidity of the roving\nhordes of Bedouin that infested the Syrian wastes. Ezra's first\nthought was to ask for an escort; but he tells us that he was ashamed\nto do so, as this would imply distrust in God.[95] Whatever we may\nthink of his logic, we must be struck by his splendid faith, and the\nloyalty which would run a great risk rather than suffer what might\nseem like dishonour to his God. Here was one of God's heroes. We\ncannot but connect the preliminary fast with this courageous attitude\nof Ezra's. So in tales of chivalry we read how knights were braced by\nprayer and fast and vigil to enter the most terrible conflicts with\ntalismans of victory. In an age of rushing activity it is hard to find\nthe hidden springs of strength in their calm retreats. The glare of\npublicity starts us on the wrong track, by tempting us to advertise\nour own excellences, instead of abasing ourselves in the dust before\nGod. Yet is it not now as true as ever that no boasted might of man\ncan be in any way comparable to the Divine strength which takes\npossession of those who completely surrender their wills to God? Happy\nare they who have the grace to walk in the valley of humiliation, for\nthis leads to the armoury of supernatural power!\n\n  [94] Ezra viii. 31.\n\n  [95] Ezra viii. 22.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n_FOREIGN MARRIAGES._\n\nEZRA ix.\n\n\nThe successful issue of Ezra's undertaking was speedily followed by a\nbitter disappointment on the part of its leader, the experience of\nwhich urged him to make a drastic reformation that rent many a happy\nhome asunder and filled Jerusalem with the grief of broken hearts.\n\nDuring the obscure period that followed the dedication of the\ntemple--a period of which we have no historical remains--the rigorous\nexclusiveness which had marked the conduct of the returned exiles when\nthey had rudely rejected the proposal of their Gentile neighbours to\nassist them in rebuilding the temple was abandoned, and freedom of\nintercourse went so far as to permit intermarriage with the\ndescendants of the Canaanite aborigines and the heathen population of\nneighbouring nations. Ezra gives a list of tribal names closely\nresembling the lists preserved in the history of early ages, when the\nHebrews first contemplated taking possession of the promised land;[96]\nbut it cannot be imagined that the ancient tribes preserved their\nindependent names and separate existence as late as the time of the\nreturn--though the presence of the gypsies as a distinct people in\nEngland to-day shows that racial distinction may be kept up for ages\nin a mixed society. It is more probable that the list is literary,\nthat the names are reminiscences of the tribes as they were known in\nancient traditions. In addition to these old inhabitants of Canaan,\nthere are Ammonites and Moabites from across the Jordan, Egyptians,\nand, lastly, most significantly separate from the Canaanite tribes,\nthose strange folk, the Amorites, who are discovered by recent\nethnological research to be of a totally different stock from that of\nthe Canaanite tribes, probably allied to a light-coloured people that\ncan be traced along the Libyan border, and possibly even of Aryan\norigin. From all these races the Jews had taken them wives. So wide\nwas the gate flung open!\n\n  [96] Ezra. ix. 1.\n\nThis freedom of intermarriage may be viewed as a sign of general\nlaxity and indifference on the part of the citizens of Jerusalem, and\nso Ezra seems to have regarded it. But it would be a mistake to\nsuppose that there was no serious purpose associated with it, by means\nof which grave and patriotic men attempted to justify the practice. It\nwas a question whether the policy of exclusiveness had succeeded. The\ntemple had been built, it is true; and a city had risen among the\nruins of ancient Jerusalem. But poverty, oppression, hardship, and\ndisappointment had settled down on the little Judaean community, which\nnow found itself far worse off than the captives in Babylon. Feeble\nand isolated, the Jews were quite unable to resist the attacks of\ntheir jealous neighbours. Would it not be better to come to terms with\nthem, and from enemies convert them into allies? Then the policy of\nexclusiveness involved commercial ruin; and men who knew how their\nbrethren in Chaldaea were enriching themselves by trade with the\nheathen, were galled by a yoke which held them back from foreign\nintercourse. It would seem to be advisable, on social as well as on\npolitical grounds, that a new and more liberal course should be\npursued, if the wretched garrison was not to be starved out. Leading\naristocratic families were foremost in contracting the foreign\nalliances. It is such as they who would profit most, as it is such as\nthey who would be most tempted to consider worldly motives and to\nforgo the austerity of their fathers. There does not seem to have been\nany one recognised head of the community after Zerubbabel; the\n\"princes\" constituted a sort of informal oligarchy. Some of these\nprinces had taken foreign wives. Priests and Levites had also followed\nthe same course. It is a historical fact that the party of rigour is\nnot generally the official party. In the days of our Lord the priests\nand rulers were mostly Sadducean, while the Pharisees were men of the\npeople. The English Puritans were not of the Court party. But in the\ncase before us the leaders of the people were divided. While we do not\nmeet any priests among the purists, some of the princes disapproved of\nthe laxity of their neighbours, and exposed it to Ezra.\n\nEzra was amazed, appalled. In the dramatic style which is quite\nnatural to an Oriental, he rent both his tunic and his outer mantle,\nand he tore his hair and his long priestly beard. This expressed more\nthan the grief of mourning which is shown by tearing one garment and\ncutting the hair. Like the high-priest when he ostentatiously rent his\nclothes at what he wished to be regarded as blasphemy in the words of\nJesus, Ezra showed indignation and rage by his violent action. It was\na sign of his startled and horrified emotions; but no doubt it was\nalso intended to produce an impression on the people who gathered in\nawe to watch the great ambassador, as he sat amazed and silent on the\ntemple pavement through the long hours of the autumn afternoon.\n\nThe grounds of Ezra's grief and anger may be learnt from the\nremarkable prayer which he poured out when the stir occasioned by the\npreparation of the vesper ceremonies roused him, and when the\nascending smoke of the evening sacrifice would naturally suggest to\nhim an occasion for drawing near to God. Welling up, hot and\npassionate, his prayer is a revelation of the very heart of the\nscribe. Ezra shows us what true prayer is--that it is laying bare the\nheart and soul in the presence of God. The striking characteristic of\nthis outburst of Ezra's is that it does not contain a single petition.\nThere is no greater mistake in regard to prayer than the notion that\nit is nothing more than the begging of specific favours from the\nbounty of the Almighty. That is but a shallow kind of prayer at best.\nIn the deepest and most real prayer the soul is too near to God to ask\nfor any definite thing; it is just unbosoming itself to the Great\nConfidant, just telling out its agony to the Father who can understand\neverything and receive the whole burden of the anguished spirit.\n\nConsidering this prayer more in detail, we may notice, in the first\nplace, that Ezra comes out as a true priest, not indeed officiating at\nthe altar with ceremonial sacrifices, but identifying himself with the\npeople he represents, so that he takes to his own breast the shame of\nwhat he regards as the sin of his people. Prostrate with\nself-humiliation, he cries, \"O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift\nup my face to Thee, my God,\"[97] and he speaks of the sins which have\njust been made known to him as though he had a share in them, calling\nthem \"_our_ iniquities\" and \"_our_ trespass.\"[98] Have we not here a\nglimpse into that mystery of vicarious sin-bearing which is\nconsummated in the great intercession and sacrifice of our Lord?\nThough himself a sinful man, and therefore at heart sharing the guilt\nof his people by personal participation in it, as the holy Jesus could\nnot do, still in regard to the particular offence which he is now\ndeploring, Ezra is as innocent as an unfallen angel. Yet he blushes\nfor shame, and lies prostrate with confusion of face. He is such a\ntrue patriot that he completely identifies himself with his people.\nBut in proportion as such an identification is felt, there must be an\ninvoluntary sense of the sharing of guilt. It is vain to call it an\nillusion of the imagination. Before the bar of strict justice Ezra was\nas innocent of this one sin, as before the same bar Christ was\ninnocent of all sin. God could not really disapprove of him for it,\nany more than He could look with disfavour on the great Sin-bearer.\nBut subjectively, in his own experience, Ezra did not feel less\npoignant pangs of remorse than he would have felt if he had been\nhimself personally guilty. This perfect sympathy of true priesthood is\nrarely experienced; but since Christians are called to be priests, to\nmake intercession, and to bear one another's burdens, something\napproaching it must be shared by all the followers of Christ; they who\nwould go forth as saviours of their brethren must feel it acutely. The\nsin-bearing sacrifice of Christ stands alone in its perfect efficacy,\nand many mysteries crowd about it that cannot be explained by any\nhuman analogies. Still here and there we come across faint likenesses\nin the higher experiences of the better men, enough to suggest that\nour Lord's passion was not a prodigy, that it was really in harmony\nwith the laws by which God governs the moral universe.\n\n  [97] Ezra ix. 6.\n\n  [98] _Ibid._\n\nIn thus confessing the sin of the people before God, but in language\nwhich the people who shared with him a reverence for The Law could\nhear, no doubt Ezra hoped to move them also to share in his feelings\nof shame and abhorrence for the practices he was deploring. He came\ndangerously near to the fatal mistake of preaching through a prayer,\nby \"praying at\" the congregation. He was evidently too deeply moved to\nbe guilty of an insincerity, a piece of profanity, at which every\ndevout soul must revolt. Nevertheless the very exercise of public\nprayer--prayer uttered audibly, and conducted by the leader of a\ncongregation--means that this is to be an inducement for the people to\njoin in the worship. The officiating minister is not merely to pray\nbefore the congregation, while the people kneel as silent auditors.\nHis prayer is designed to guide and help their prayers, so that there\nmay be \"common prayer\" throughout the whole assembly. In this way it\nmay be possible for him to influence men and women by praying with\nthem, as he can never do by directly preaching to them. The essential\npoint is that the prayer must first of all be real on the part of the\nleader--that he must be truly addressing God, and then that his\nintention with regard to the people must be not to exhort them through\nhis prayer, but simply to induce them to join him in it.\n\nLet us now inquire what was the nature of the sin which so grievously\ndistressed Ezra, and which he regarded as so heavy a slur on the\ncharacter of his people in the sight of God. On the surface of it,\nthere was just a question of policy. Some have argued that the party\nof rigour was mistaken, that its course was suicidal, that the only\nway of preserving the little colony was by means of well-adjusted\nalliances with its neighbours--a low view of the question which Ezra\nwould not have glanced at for a moment, because with his supreme faith\nin God no consideration of worldly expediency or political diplomacy\ncould be allowed to deflect him from the path indicated, as he\nthought, by the Divine will. But a higher line of opposition has been\ntaken. It has been said that Ezra was illiberal, uncharitable,\nculpably narrow, and heartlessly harsh. That the man who could pour\nforth such a prayer as this, every sentence of which throbs with\nemotion, every word of which tingles with intense feeling--that this\nman was heartless cannot be believed. Still it may be urged that Ezra\ntook a very different view from that suggested by the genial outlook\nacross the nations which we meet in Isaiah. The lovely idyll of Ruth\ndefends the course he condemned so unsparingly. The Book of Jonah was\nwritten directly in rebuke of one form of Jewish exclusiveness. Ezra\nwas going even further than the Book of Deuteronomy, which had allowed\nmarriages with the heathen,[99] and had laid down definite marriage\nlaws in regard to foreign connections.[100] It cannot be maintained\nthat all the races named by Ezra were excluded. Could it be just to\ncondemn the Jews for not having followed the later and more exacting\nedition of The Law, which Ezra had only just brought up with him, and\nwhich had not been known by the offenders?\n\n  [99] Deut. xxi. 13.\n\n  [100] Deut. xxiii. 1-8.\n\nIn trying to answer these questions, we must start from one clear\nfact. Ezra is not merely guided by a certain view of policy. He may be\nmistaken, but he is deeply conscientious, his motive is intensely\nreligious. Whether rightly or wrongly, he is quite persuaded that the\nsocial condition at which he is so grievously shocked is directly\nopposed to the known will of God. \"We have forsaken Thy commandments,\"\nhe exclaims. But what commandments, we may ask, seeing that the people\nof Jerusalem did not possess a law that went so far as Ezra was\nrequiring of them? His own language here comes in most appositely.\nEzra does not appeal to Deuteronomy, though he may have had a passage\nfrom that book in mind,[101] neither does he produce the Law Book\nwhich he has brought up with him from Babylon and to which reference\nis made in our version of the decree of Artaxerxes;[102] but he turns\nto the prophets, not with reference to any of their specific\nutterances, but in the most general way, implying that his view is\nderived from the broad stream of prophecy in its whole course and\ncharacter. In his prayer he describes the broken commandments as\n\"those which Thou hast commanded by Thy servants the prophets.\" This\nis the more remarkable because the prophets did not favour the\nscrupulous observance of external rules, but dwelt on great principles\nof righteousness. Some of them took the liberal side, and expressed\ndecidedly cosmopolitan ideas in regard to foreign nations as Ezra must\nhave been aware. He may have mentally anticipated the excuses which\nwould be urged in reliance on isolated utterances of this character.\nStill, on a survey of the whole course of prophecy, he is persuaded\nthat it is opposed to the practices which he condemns. He throws his\nconclusion into a definite sentence, after the manner of a verbal\nquotation,[103] but this is only in accordance with the vivid,\ndramatic style of Semitic literature, and what he really means is that\nthe spirit of his national prophecy and the principles laid down by\nthe recognised prophets support him in the position which he has taken\nup. These prophets fought against all corrupt practices, and in\nparticular they waged ceaseless war with the introduction of\nheathenish manners to the religious and social life of Israel. It is\nhere that Ezra finds them to be powerful allies in his stern\nreformation. They furnish him, so to speak, with his major premiss,\nand that is indisputable. His weak place is in his minor premiss,\nviz., in the notion that intermarriage with Gentile neighbours\nnecessarily involves the introduction of corrupt heathenish habits.\nThis he quietly assumes. But there is much to be said for his\nposition, especially when we note that he is not now concerned with\nthe Samaritans, with whom the temple-builders came into contact and\nwho accepted some measure of the Jewish faith, but in some cases with\nknown idolaters--the Egyptians for instance. The complex social and\nmoral problems which surround the quarrel on which Ezra here embarks\nwill come before us more fully as we proceed. At present it may\nsuffice for us to see that Ezra rests his action on his conception of\nthe main characteristics of the teaching of the prophets.\n\n  [101] Deut. vii. 3.\n\n  [102] Ezra vii. 14.\n\n  [103] Ezra ix. 11.\n\nFurther, his reading of history comes to his aid. He perceives that\nit was the adoption of heathenish practices that necessitated the\nsevere chastisement of the captivity. God had only spared a small\nremnant of the guilty people. But He had been very gracious to that\nremnant, giving them \"a nail in His holy place\";[104] _i.e._, a\nfixture in the restored sanctuary, though as yet, as it were, but at\none small point, because so few had returned to enjoy the privileges\nof the sacred temple worship. Now even this nail might be drawn. Will\nthe escaped remnant be so foolish as to imitate the sins of their\nforefathers, and risk the slight hold which they have as yet obtained\nin the renewed centre of Divine favour? So to repudiate the lessons of\nthe captivity, which should have been branded irrevocably by the hot\nirons of its cruel hardships, what was this but a sign of the most\ndesperate depravity? Ezra could see no hope even of a remnant escaping\nfrom the wrath which would consume the people who were guilty of such\nwilful, such open-eyed apostasy.\n\n  [104] Ezra ix. 8.\n\nIn the concluding sentences of his prayer Ezra appeals to the\nrighteousness of God, who had permitted the remnant to escape at the\ntime of the Babylonian Captivity, saying, \"O Lord, the God of Israel,\nThou art righteous; for we are left a remnant that is escaped, as it\nis this day.\"[105] Some have supposed that God's righteousness here\nstands for His goodness, and that Ezra really means the mercy which\nspared the remnant. But this interpretation is contrary to usage, and\nquite opposed to the spirit of the prayer. Ezra has referred to the\nmercy of God earlier, but in his final sentences he has another\nthought in mind. The prayer ends in gloom and despondency--\"behold,\nwe are before Thee in our guiltiness; for none can stand before Thee\nbecause of this.\"[106] The righteousness of God, then, is seen in the\nfact that _only_ a remnant was spared. Ezra does not plead for the\npardon of the guilty people, as Moses did in his famous prayer of\nintercession.[107] As yet they are not conscious of their sin. To\nforgive them before they have owned their guilt would be immoral. The\nfirst condition of pardon is confession. \"_If we confess_ our sins, He\nis faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us\nfrom all unrighteousness.\"[108] Then, indeed, the very righteousness\nof God favours the pardon of the sinner. But till this state of\ncontrition is reached, not only can there be no thought of\nforgiveness, but the sternest, darkest thoughts of sin are most right\nand fitting. Ezra is far too much in earnest simply to wish to help\nhis people to escape from the consequences of their conduct. This\nwould not be salvation. It would be moral shipwreck. The great need is\nto be saved from the evil conduct itself. It is to this end that the\nvery passion of his soul is directed. Here we perceive the spirit of\nthe true reformer. But the evangelist cannot afford to dispense with\nsomething of the same spirit, although he can add the gracious\nencouragements of a gospel; for the only true gospel promises\ndeliverance from sin itself in the first instance as from the greatest\nof all evils, and deliverance from no other evil except on condition\nof freedom from this.\n\n  [105] Ezra ix. 15.\n\n  [106] Ezra ix. 15.\n\n  [107] Exod. xxxii. 31, 32.\n\n  [108] 1 John i. 9.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XIII.\n\n_THE HOME SACRIFICED TO THE CHURCH._\n\nEZRA x.\n\n\nEzra's narrative, written in the first person, ceases with his prayer,\nthe conclusion of which brings us to the end of the ninth chapter of\nour Book of Ezra; at the tenth chapter the chronicler resumes his\nstory, describing, however, the events which immediately follow. His\nwriting is here as graphic as Ezra's, and if it is not taken from\nnotes left by the scribe, at all events it would seem to be drawn from\nthe report of another eye-witness; for it describes most remarkable\nscenes with a vividness that brings them before the mind's eye, so\nthat the reader cannot study them even at this late day without a pang\nof sympathy.\n\nEzra's prayer and confession, his grievous weeping and prostrate\nhumiliation before God, deeply affected the spectators; and as the\nnews spread through the city, a very great congregation of men, women,\nand children assembled together to gaze at the strange spectacle. They\ncould not gaze unmoved. Deep emotion is contagious. The man who is\nhimself profoundly convinced and intensely concerned with his\nreligious ideas will certainly win disciples. Where the soundest\narguments have failed to persuade, a single note of sincere faith\noften strikes home. It is the passion of the orator that rouses the\nmultitude, and even where there is no oratory the passion of true\nfeeling pleads with irresistible eloquence. Ezra had not to speak a\nword to the people. What he was, what he felt, his agony of shame, his\nagony of prayer--all this melted them to tears, and a cry of\nlamentation went up from the gathered multitudes in the temple courts.\nTheir grief was more than a sentimental reflection of the scribe's\ndistress, for the Jews could see plainly that it was for them and for\ntheir miserable condition that this ambassador from the Persian court\nwas mourning so piteously. His sorrow was wholly vicarious. By no\ncalamity or offence of his own, but simply by what he regarded as\ntheir wretched fall, Ezra was now plunged into heart-broken agony.\nSuch a result of their conduct could not but excite the keenest\nself-reproaches in the breasts of all who in any degree shared his\nview of the situation. Then the only path of amendment visible before\nthem was one that involved the violent rupture of home ties; the cruel\nseverance of husband and wife, of parent and child; the complete\nsacrifice of human love on what appeared to be the altar of duty to\nGod. It was indeed a bitter hour for the Jews who felt themselves to\nbe offenders, and for their innocent wives and children who would be\ninvolved in any attempted reformation.\n\nThe confusion was arrested by the voice of one man, a layman named\nShecaniah the son of Jehiel, who came to the assistance of Ezra as a\nvolunteer spokesman of the people. This man entirely surrendered to\nEzra's view, making a frank and unreserved confession of his own and\nthe people's sin. So far then Ezra has won his point. He has begun to\ngain assent from among the offenders. Shecaniah adds to his confession\na sentence of some ambiguity, saying, \"Yet now there is hope for\nIsrael concerning this thing.\"[109] This might be thought to mean that\nGod was merciful, and that there was hope in the penitent attitude of\nthe congregation that He would take pity on the people and not deal\nhardly with them. But the similarity of the phraseology to the words\nof the last verse of the previous chapter, where the expression\n\"because of this\"[110] plainly points to the offence as the one thing\nin view, shows that the allusion here is to that offence, and not to\nthe more recent signs of penitence. Shecaniah means, then, that there\nis hope concerning this matter of the foreign marriages--viz., that\nthey may be rooted out of Israel. The hope is for a reformation, not\nfor any condoning of the offence. It means despair to the unhappy\nwives, the end of all home peace and joy in many a household--a lurid\nhope surely, and hardly worthy of the name except on the lips of a\nfanatic. Shecaniah now proceeds to make a definite proposal. He would\nhave the people enter into a solemn covenant with God. They are not\nonly to undergo a great domestic reformation, but they are to take a\nvow in the sight of God that they will carry it through. Shecaniah\nshows the unreflecting zeal of a raw convert; an officious person, a\nmeddler, he is too bold and forward for one whose place is the\npenitent's bench. The covenant is to pledge the people to divorce\ntheir foreign wives. Yet the unfeeling man will not soften his\nproposal by any euphemism, nor will he hide its more odious features.\nHe deliberately adds that the children should be sent away with their\nmothers. The nests are to be cleared of the whole brood.\n\n  [109] Ezra x. 2.\n\n  [110] Ezra ix. 15.\n\nEzra had not ventured to draw out such a direful programme. But\nShecaniah says that this is \"according to the counsel of my\nlord,\"[111] using terms of unwonted obsequiousness--unless, as seems\nless likely, the phrase is meant to apply to God, _i.e._, to be read,\n\"According to the counsel of _The Lord_.\" Shecaniah evidently gathered\nthe unexpressed opinion of Ezra from the language of his prayer and\nfrom his general attitude. This was the only way out of the\ndifficulty, the logical conclusion from what was now admitted. Ezra\nsaw it clearly enough, but it wanted a man of coarser fibre to say it.\nShecaniah goes further, and claims the concurrence of all who \"tremble\nat the words of the God of Israel.\" These people have been mentioned\nbefore as forming the nucleus of the congregation that gathered about\nEzra.[112] Then this outspoken man distinctly claims the authority of\nThe Law for his proposition. Ezra had based his view of the heathen\nmarriages on the general character of the teaching of the prophets;\nShecaniah now appeals to The Law as the authority for his scheme of\nwholesale divorce. This is a huge assumption of what has never been\ndemonstrated. But such people as Shecaniah do not wait for niceties of\nproof before making their sweeping proposals.\n\n  [111] Ezra x. 3.\n\n  [112] Ezra ix. 4.\n\nThe bold adviser followed up his suggestion by rallying Ezra and\ncalling upon him to \"be of good courage,\" seeing that he would have\nsupporters in the great reformation. Falling in with the proposed\nscheme, Ezra there and then extracted an oath from the people--both\nclergy and laity--that they would execute it. This was a general\nresolution. Some time was required and many difficulties had to be\nfaced before it could be carried into practice, and meanwhile Ezra\nwithdrew into retirement, still fasting and mourning.\n\nWe must now allow for an interval of some months. The chronological\narrangement seems to have been as follows. Ezra and his company left\nBabylon in the spring, as Zerubbabel had done before him--at the same\nseason as that of the great exodus from Egypt under Moses. Each of\nthese three great expeditions began with the opening of the natural\nyear, in scenes of bright beauty and hopefulness. Occupying four\nmonths on his journey, Ezra reached Jerusalem in the heat of July. It\ncould not have been very long after his arrival that the news of the\nforeign marriages was brought to him by the princes, because if he had\nspent any considerable time in Jerusalem first he must have found out\nthe state of affairs for himself. But now we are transported to the\nmonth of December for the meeting of the people when the covenant of\ndivorce is to be put in force. Possibly some of the powerful leaders\nhad opposed the summoning of such a gathering, and their hindrance may\nhave delayed it; or it may have taken Ezra and his counsellors some\ntime to mature their plans. Long brooding over the question could not\nhave lessened the scribe's estimate of its gravity. But the suggestion\nof all kinds of difficulties and the clear perception of the terrible\nresults which must flow from the contemplated reformation did not\ntouch his opinion of what was right, or his decision, once reached,\nthat there must be a clearing away of the foreign elements, root and\nbranch, although they had entwined their tendrils about the deepest\naffections of the people. The seclusion and mourning of Ezra is\nrecorded in Ezra x. 6. The next verse carries us on to the preparation\nfor the dreadful assembly, which, as we must conclude, really took\nplace some months later. The summons was backed up by threats of\nconfiscation and excommunication. To this extent the great powers\nentrusted to Ezra by the king of Persia were employed. It looks as if\nthe order was the issue of a conflict of counsels in which that of\nEzra was victorious, for it was exceedingly peremptory in tone and it\nonly gave three days notice. The people came, as they were bound to\ndo, for the authority of the supreme government was behind the\nsummons; but they resented the haste with which they had been called\ntogether, and they pleaded the inconvenience of the season for an\nopen-air meeting. They met in the midst of the winter rains; cold and\nwet they crouched in the temple courts, the picture of wretchedness.\nIn a hot, dry country so little provision is made for inclement\nweather, that when it comes the people suffer from it most acutely, so\nthat it means much more distress to them than to the inhabitants of a\nchill and rainy climate. Still it may seem strange that, with so\nterrible a question as the complete break-up of their homes presented\nto them, the Jews should have taken much account of the mere weather\neven at its worst. History, however, does not shape itself according\nto proportionate proprieties, but after the course of very human\nfacts. We are often unduly influenced by present circumstances, so\nthat what is small in itself, and in comparison with the supreme\ninterests of life, may become for the moment of the most pressing\nimportance, just because it is present and making itself felt as the\nnearest fact. Moreover, there is a sort of magnetic connection between\nthe external character of things and the most intangible of internal\nexperiences. The \"November gloom\" is more than a meteorological fact;\nit has its psychological aspect. After all, are we not citizens of\nthe great physical universe? and is it not therefore reasonable that\nthe various phases of nature should affect us in some degree, so that\nthe common topic of conversation, \"the weather,\" may really be of more\nserious concern than we suspect? Be that as it may, it is clear that\nwhile these Jews, who usually enjoyed brilliant sunshine and the fair\nblue Syrian sky, were shivering in the chill December rains, wet and\nmiserable, they were quite unable to discuss a great social question,\nor to brace themselves up for an act of supreme renunciation. It was a\nseason of depression, and the people felt limp and heartless, as\npeople often do feel at such a season. They pleaded for delay. Not\nonly was the weather a great hindrance to calm deliberation, but, as\nthey said, the proposed reformation was of a widespread character. It\nmust be an affair of some time. Let it be regularly organised. Let it\nbe conducted only before appointed courts in the several cities. This\nwas reasonable enough, and accordingly it was decided to adopt the\nsuggestion. It is easy to be a reformer in theory; but they who have\nfaced a great abuse in practice know how difficult it is to uproot it.\nThis is especially true of all attempts to affect the social order.\nWild ideas are floated without an effort. But the execution of these\nideas means far more toil and battle, and involves a much greater\ntumult in the world, than the airy dreamers who start them so\nconfidently and who are so surprised at the slowness of dull people to\naccept them ever imagine.\n\nNot only was there a successful plea for delay. There was also direct\nopposition to Ezra's stern proposal--although this did not prove to be\nsuccessful. The indication of opposition is obscured by the imperfect\nrendering of the Authorised Version. Turning to the more correct\ntranslation in the Revised Version we read, \"Only Jonathan the son of\nAsahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter:\nand Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.\"[113] Here was a\nlittle knot of champions of the poor threatened wives, defenders of\nthe peaceful homes so soon to be smitten by the ruthless axe of the\nreformer, men who believed in the sanctity of domestic life as not\nless real than the sanctity of ecclesiastical arrangements, men\nperhaps to whom love was as Divine as law, nay, was law, wherever it\nwas pure and true.\n\n  [113] Ezra x. 15.\n\nThis opposition was borne down; the courts sat; the divorces were\ngranted; wives were torn from their husbands and sent back to their\nindignant parents; and children were orphaned. Priests, Levites, and\nother temple officers did not escape the domestic reformation; the\ncommon people were not beneath its searching scrutiny; everywhere the\npruning knife lopped off the alien branches from the vine of Israel.\nAfter giving a list of families involved, the chronicler concludes\nwith the bare remark that men put away wives _with children_ as well\nas those who had no children.[114] It is baldly stated. What did it\nmean? The agony of separation, the lifelong division of the family,\nthe wife worse than widowed, the children driven from the shelter of\nthe home, the husband sitting desolate in his silent house--over all\nthis the chronicler draws a veil; but our imaginations can picture\nsuch scenes as might furnish materials for the most pathetic\ntragedies.\n\n  [114] Ezra x. 44.\n\nIn order to mitigate the misery of this social revolution, attention\nhas been called to the freedom of divorce which was allowed among the\nJews and to the inferior status assigned to women in the East. The\nwife, it is said, was always prepared to receive a bill of divorce\nwhenever her husband found occasion to dismiss her: she would have a\nright to claim back her dowry; and she would return to her father's\nhouse without the slightest slur upon her character. All this may be\ntrue enough; and yet human nature is the same all the world over, and\nwhere there is the strong mutual affection of true wedded love,\nwhether in the England of our Christian era or in the Palestine of the\nolden times, to sever the tie of union must mean the agony of torn\nhearts, the despair of blighted lives. And was this necessary? Even if\nit was not according to the ordinance of their religion for Jews to\ncontract marriages with foreigners, having contracted such marriages\nand having seen children grow up about them, was it not a worse evil\nfor them to break the bonds by violence and scatter the families? Is\nnot the marriage law itself holy? Nay, has it not a prior right over\nagainst Levitical institutions or prophetic ordinances, seeing that it\nmay be traced back to the sweet sanctities of Eden? What if the stern\nreformer had fallen into a dreadful blunder? Might it not be that this\nnew Hildebrand and his fanatical followers were even guilty of a huge\ncrime in their quixotic attempt to purge the Church by wrecking the\nhome?\n\nAssuredly from our point of view and with our Christian light no such\nconduct as theirs could be condoned. It was utterly undiscriminating,\nriding roughshod over the tenderest claims. Gentile wives such as Ruth the\nMoabitess might have adopted the faith of their husbands--doubtless in many\ncases they had done so--yet the sweeping, pitiless mandate of separation\napplied to them as surely as if they had been heathen sorceresses. On the\nother hand, we must use some historical imagination in estimating these\nsorrowful scenes. The great idea of Ezra was to preserve a separate people.\nHe held that this was essential to the maintenance of pure religion and\nmorals in the midst of the pagan abominations which surrounded the little\ncolony. Church separation seemed to be bound up with race separation. This\nEzra believed to be after the mind of the prophets, and therefore a truth\nof Divine inspiration. Under all the circumstances it is not easy to say\nthat his main contention was wrong, that Israel could have been preserved\nas a Church if it had ceased to keep itself separate as a race, or that\nwithout Church exclusiveness religious purity could have been maintained.\n\nWe are not called upon to face any such terrible problem, although St.\nPaul's warning against Christians becoming \"unequally yoked with\nunbelievers\"[115] reminds us that the worst ill-assortment in marriage\nshould not be thought of as only concerned with diversity of rank,\nwealth, or culture; that they are most ill-matched who have not common\ninterests in the deepest concerns of the soul. Then, too, it needs to\nbe remembered in these days, when ease and comfort are unduly prized,\nthat there are occasions on which even the peace and love of the home\nmust be sacrificed to the supreme claims of God. Our Lord ominously\nwarned His disciples that He would send a sword to sever the closest\ndomestic ties--\"to set a man at variance against his father, and the\ndaughter against her mother,\" etc.,[116] and He added, \"He that loveth\nfather or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.\"[117] In times of\nearly Christian persecution it was necessary to choose between the\ncross of Christ and the nearest domestic claims, and then faithful\nmartyrs accepted the cross even at the cost of the dear love of home\nand all its priceless jewels, as, for instance, in the familiar story\nof Perpetua and Felicitas. The same choice had to be made again under\nCatholic persecution among the Huguenots, as we are reminded by\nMillais' well-known picture, and even in a quasi-protestant\npersecution in the case of Sir Thomas More. It faces the convert from\nHindooism in India to-day. Therefore whatever opinion we may form of\nthe particular action of Ezra, we should do well to ponder gravely\nover the grand principle on which it was based. God must have the\nfirst place in the hearts and lives of His people, even though in some\ncases this may involve the shipwreck of the dearest earthly\naffections.\n\n  [115] Cor. vi. 14.\n\n  [116] Matt. x. 35.\n\n  [117] Matt. x. 37.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n_THE COST OF AN IDEALIST'S SUCCESS._\n\nEZRA iv. 6-23.\n\n\nThe fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra contains an account of a\ncorrespondence between the Samaritan colonists and two kings of\nPersia, which follows sharply on the first mention of the intrigues of\n\"the enemies of Judah and Benjamin\" at the Persian court in the later\ndays of Cyrus, and which precedes the description of the fortunes of\nthe Jews in the reign of Darius. If this has its right chronological\nposition in the narrative, it must relate to the interval during which\ntemple-building was in abeyance. In that case the two kings of Persia\nwould be Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus, and Pseudo-Bardes.\nBut the names in the text are Ahasuerus (_Ahashverosh_) and Artaxerxes\n(_Artahshashta_). It has been suggested that these are second names\nfor the predecessors of Darius. Undoubtedly it was customary for\nPersian monarchs to have more than one name. But elsewhere in the\nBiblical narratives these two names are invariably applied to the\nsuccessors of Darius--the first standing for the well-known Xerxes and\nthe second for Artaxerxes Longimanus. The presumption therefore is\nthat the same kings are designated by them here. Moreover, when we\nexamine the account of the correspondence with the Persian court, we\nfind that this agrees best with the later period. The opening verses\nof the fourth chapter of Ezra deal with the building of the temple;\nthe last verse of that chapter and the succeeding narrative of the\nfifth chapter resume the same topic. But the correspondence relates to\nthe building of _the walls of the city_. There is not a word about any\nsuch work in the context. Then in the letter addressed to Artaxerxes\nthe writers describe the builders of the walls as \"the Jews _which\ncame up from thee_.\"[118] This description would not fit Zerubbabel\nand his followers, who migrated under Cyrus. But it would apply to\nthose who accompanied Ezra to Jerusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes.\nLastly, the reign of Pseudo-Bardes is too brief for all that would\nhave to be crowded into it. It only occupied seven months. Yet a\nletter is sent up from the enemies of the Jews; inquiry is made into\nthe history of Jerusalem by Persian officials at the court; a reply\nbased on this inquiry is transmitted to Palestine; in consequence of\nthis reply an expedition is organised which effectually stops the\nworks at Jerusalem, but only after the exercise of force on the spot.\nIt is nearly impossible for all this to have happened in so short a\ntime as seven months. All the indications therefore concur to assign\nthe correspondence to the later period.\n\n  [118] Ezra iv. 12.\n\nThe chronicler must have inserted this section out of its order for\nsome reason of his own. Probably he desired to accentuate the\nimpression of the malignant and persistent enmity of the colonists,\nand with this end in view described the later acts of antagonism\ndirectly after mentioning the first outbreak of opposition. It is\njust possible that he perceived the unfavourable character of his\npicture of the Jews in their curt refusal of assistance from their\nneighbours, and that he desired to balance this by an accumulation of\nweighty indictments against the people whom the Jews had treated so\nungraciously.\n\nIn his account of the correspondence with the Persian court the\nchronicler seems to have taken note of three separate letters from the\nunfriendly colonists. First, he tells us that in the beginning of the\nreign of Ahasuerus they wrote an accusation against the Jews.[119]\nThis was before the mission of Ezra; therefore it was a continuance of\nthe old opposition that had been seen in the intrigues that preceded\nthe reign of Darius; it shows that after the death of that friendly\nmonarch the slumbering fires broke out afresh. Next, he names certain\nmen who wrote to Artaxerxes, and he adds that their letter was\ntranslated and written in the Aramaic language--the language which was\nthe common medium of intercourse in trade and official affairs among\nthe mixed races inhabiting Syria and all the regions west of the\nEuphrates.[120] The reference to this language probably arises from\nthe fact that the chronicler had seen a copy of the translation. He\ndoes not tell us anything either of the nationality of the writers or\nof the subject of their letter. It has been suggested that they were\nJews in Jerusalem who wrote to plead their cause with the Persian\nking. The fact that two of them bore Persian names--viz., Bishlam and\nMithredath--does not present a serious difficulty to this view, as we\nknow that some Jews received such names, Zerubbabel, for example,\nbeing named Sheshbazzar. But as the previous passage refers to an\naccusation against the Jews, and as the following sentences give an\naccount of a letter also written by the inimical colonists, it is\nscarcely likely that the intermediate colourless verse which mentions\nthe letter of Bishlam and his companions is of a different character.\nWe should expect some more explicit statement if that were the case.\nMoreover, it is most improbable that the passage which follows would\nbegin abruptly without an adversative conjunction--as is the case--if\nit proceeded to describe a letter provoked by opposition to another\nletter just mentioned. Therefore we must regard Bishlam and his\ncompanions as enemies of the Jews. Now some who have accepted this\nview have maintained that the letter of Bishlam and his friends is no\nother than the letter ascribed to Rehum and Shimshai in the following\nverses. It is stated that the former letter was in the Aramaic\nlanguage, and the letter which is ascribed to the two great officials\nis in that language. But the distinct statement that each group of men\nwrote a letter seems to imply that there were two letters written in\nthe reign of Artaxerxes, or three in all.\n\n  [119] Ezra iv. 6.\n\n  [120] Ezra iv. 7.\n\nThe third letter is the only one that the chronicler has preserved. He\ngives it in the Aramaic language, and from Ezra iv. 8, where this is\nintroduced, to vi. 18, his narrative proceeds in that language,\nprobably because he found his materials in some Aramaic document.\n\nSome have assigned this letter to the period of the reign of\nArtaxerxes prior to the mission of Ezra. But there are two reasons for\nthinking it must have been written after that mission. The first has\nbeen already referred to--viz., that the complaint about \"the Jews\nwhich came up from thee\" points to some large migration during the\nreign of Artaxerxes, which must be Ezra's expedition. The second\nreason arises from a comparison of the results of the correspondence\nwith the description of Jerusalem in the opening of the Book of\nNehemiah. The violence of the Samaritans recorded in Ezra iv. 23 will\naccount for the deplorable state of Jerusalem mentioned in Nehemiah i.\n3, the effects of the invasion referred to in the former passage\nagreeing well with the condition of the dismantled city reported to\nNehemiah. But in the history of Ezra's expedition no reference is made\nto any such miserable state of affairs. Thus the correspondence must\nbe assigned to the time between the close of \"Ezra\" and the beginning\nof \"Nehemiah.\"\n\nIt is to Ezra's company, then, that the correspondence with Artaxerxes\nrefers. There were two parties in Jerusalem, and the opposition was\nagainst the active reforming party, which now had the upper hand in\nthe city. Immediately we consider this, the cause of the continuance\nand increase of the antagonism of the colonists becomes apparent.\nEzra's harsh reformation in the expulsion of foreign wives must have\nstruck the divorced women as a cruel and insulting outrage. Driven\nback to their paternal homes with their burning wrongs, these poor\nwomen must have roused the utmost indignation among their people. Thus\nthe reformer had stirred up a hornets' nest. The legislator who\nventures to interfere with the sacred privacy of domestic life excites\nthe deepest passions, and a wise man will think twice before he\nmeddles in so dangerous a business. Only the most imperative\nrequirements of religion and righteousness can justify such a course,\nand even when it is justified nobody can foresee how far the trouble\nit brings may spread.\n\nThe letter which the chronicler transcribes seems to have been the most\nimportant of the three. It was written by two great Persian officials. In\nour English versions the first of these is called \"the chancellor,\" and the\nsecond \"the scribe\". \"The chancellor\" was probably the governor of a large\ndistrict, of which Palestine was but a provincial section; and \"the scribe\"\nhis secretary. Accordingly it is apparent that the persistent enmity of the\ncolonists, their misrepresentations, and perhaps their bribes, had resulted\nin instigating opposition to the Jews in very high places. The action of\nthe Jews themselves may have excited suspicion in the mind of the Persian\nSatrap, for it would seem from his letter that they had just commenced to\nfortify their city. The names of the various peoples who are associated\nwith these two great men in the title of the letter also show how far the\nopposition to the Jews had spread. They are given as the peoples whom\nOsnappar (_Esar-bani-pal_) had brought over and set in the city of Samaria,\n\"_and in the rest of the country beyond the river_.\"[121] That is to say,\nthe settlers in the vast district west of the Euphrates are included. Here\nwere _Apharsathchites_--who cannot be the Persians, as some have thought,\nbecause no Assyrian king ever seems to have penetrated to Persia, but may\nbe the Paraetaceni of Herodotus,[122] a Median people; _Tarpelites_--\nprobably the people named among the Hebrews after Tubal;[123]\n_Apharsites_--also wrongly identified by some with the Persians, but\nprobably another Median people; _Archevites_, from the ancient Erech\n(_Uruk_);[124] _Babylonians_, not only from the city of Babylon, but also\nfrom its neighbourhood; _Shushanchites_, from Shusan (_Susa_), the capital\nof Susiana; _Dehaites_--possibly the Dai of Herodotus,[125] because, though\nthese were Persians, they were nomads who may have wandered far;\n_Elamites_, from the country of which Susa was capital. A terrific array!\nThe very names would be imposing. All these people were now united in a\ncommon bond of enmity to the Jews of Jerusalem. Anticipating the fate of\nthe Christians in the Roman Empire, though on very different grounds, the\nJews seem to have been regarded by the peoples of Western Asia with\npositive antipathy as enemies of the human race. Their anti-social conduct\nhad alienated all who knew them. But the letter of indictment brought a\nfalse charge against them. The opponents of the Jews could not formulate\nany charge out of their real grievances sufficiently grave to secure an\nadverse verdict from the supreme authority. They therefore trumped up an\naccusation of treason. It was untrue, for the Jews at Jerusalem had always\nbeen the most peaceable and loyal subjects of the Great King. The search\nwhich was made into the previous history of the city could only have\nbrought to light any evidence of a spirit of independence as far back as\nthe time of the Babylonian invasions. Still this was enough to supplement\nthe calumnies of the irritated opponents which the Satrap and his secretary\nhad been persuaded to echo with all the authority of their high position.\nMoreover, Egypt was now in revolt, and the king may have been persuaded to\nsuspect the Jews of sympathy with the rebels. So Jerusalem was condemned as\na \"bad city\"; the Persian officials went up and forcibly stopped the\nbuilding of the walls, and the Jews were reduced to a condition of\nhelpless misery.\n\n  [121] Ezra iv. 10.\n\n  [122] Herodotus, i. 101.\n\n  [123] Gen. x. 2.\n\n  [124] Gen. x. 10.\n\n  [125] Herodotus, i. 125.\n\nThis was the issue of Ezra's reformation. Can we call it a success?\nThe answer to such a question will depend on what kind of success we\nmay be looking for. Politically, socially, regarded from the\nstandpoint of material profit and loss, there was nothing but the most\ndismal failure. But Ezra was not a statesman; he did not aim at\nnational greatness, nor did he aim even at social amelioration. In our\nown day, when social improvements are regarded by many as the chief\nends of government and philanthropy, it is difficult to sympathise\nwith conduct which ran counter to the home comforts and commercial\nprosperity of the people. A policy which deliberately wrecked these\nobviously attractive objects of life in pursuit of entirely different\naims is so completely remote from modern habits of thought and conduct\nthat we have to make a considerable effort of imagination if we would\nunderstand the man who promoted it. How are we to picture him?\n\nEzra was an idealist. Now the success of an idealist is not to be\nsought for in material prosperity. He lives for his idea. If this idea\ntriumphs he is satisfied, because he has attained the one kind of\nsuccess he aimed at. He is not rich; but he never sowed the seed of\nwealth. He may never be honoured: he has determined to set himself\nagainst the current of popular fashion; how then can he expect popular\nfavour? Possibly he may meet with misapprehension, contempt, hatred,\ndeath. The greatest Idealist the world ever saw was excommunicated as\na heretic; insulted by His opponents, and deserted by most of His\nfriends; tortured and crucified. The best of His disciples, those who\nhad caught the enthusiasm of His idea, were treated as the\noffscouring of the earth. Yet we now recognise that the grandest\nvictory ever achieved was won at Calvary; and we now regard the\ntravels of St. Paul through stoning and scourging, through Jewish\nhatred and Christian jealousy, on to the block, as nothing less than a\nmagnificent triumphant march. The idealist succeeds when his idea is\nestablished.\n\nJudged by this standard--the only fair standard--Ezra's work cannot be\npronounced a failure. On the contrary, he accomplished just what he\naimed at. He established the separateness of the Jews. Among\nourselves, more than two thousand years after his time, his great idea\nis still the most marked feature of his people. All along the ages it\nhas provoked jealousy and suspicion; and often it has been met by\ncruel persecution. The separate people have been treated as only too\nseparate from the rest of mankind. Thus the history of the Jews has\nbecome one long tragedy. It is infinitely sad. Yet it is incomparably\nmore noble than the hollow comedy of existence to which the absence of\nall aims apart from personal pleasure reduces the story of those\npeople who have sunk so low that they have no ideas. Moreover, with\nEzra the racial idea was really subordinate to the religious idea. To\nsecure the worship of God, free from all contamination--this was his\nultimate purpose. In accomplishing it he must have a devoted people\nalso free from contamination, a priesthood still more separate and\nconsecrated, and a ritual carefully guarded and protected from\ndefilement. Hence arose his great work in publishing the authoritative\ncodified scriptures of the Jews. To a Christian all this has its\ndefects--formalism, externalism, needless narrowness. Yet it succeeded\nin saving the religion of the Jews, and in transmitting that religion\nto future ages as a precious casket containing the seed of the great\nspiritual faith for which the world was waiting. There is something of\nthe schoolmaster in Ezra; but he is like the law he loved so\ndevoutly--a schoolmaster who brings us to Christ. He was needed both\nfor his times and also in order to lay the foundation of coming ages.\nWho shall say that such a man was not sent of God? How can we deny to\nhis unique work the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The harshness of\nits outward features must not blind us to the sublimity of its inner\nthought or the beneficence of its ultimate purpose.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n_NEHEMIAH THE PATRIOT._\n\nNEHEMIAH i. 1-3.\n\n\nThe Book of Nehemiah is the last part of the chronicler's narrative.\nAlthough it was not originally a separate work, we can easily see why\nthe editor, who broke up the original volume into distinct books,\ndivided it just where he did. An interval of twelve or thirteen years\ncomes between Ezra's reformation and the events recorded in the\nopening of \"Nehemiah.\" Still a much longer period was passed over in\nsilence in the middle of \"Ezra.\"[126] A more important reason for the\ndivision of the narrative may be found in the introduction of a new\ncharacter. The book which now bears his name is largely devoted to the\nactions of Nehemiah; and it commences with an autobiographical\nnarrative, which occupies the first six chapters and part of the\nseventh.\n\n  [126] At Ezra vii. 1.\n\nNehemiah plunges suddenly into his story, without giving us any hints\nof his previous history. His father, Hacaliah, is only a name to us.\nIt was necessary to state this name in order to distinguish the writer\nfrom other men named Nehemiah.[127] There is no reason to think that\nhis privileged position at court indicates high family connections.\nThe conjecture of Ewald that he owed his important and lucrative\noffice to his personal beauty and youthful attractions is enough to\naccount for it. His appointment to the office formerly held by\nZerubbabel is no proof that he belonged to the Jewish royal family. At\nthe despotic Persian court the king's kindness towards a favourite\nservant would override all claims of princely rank. Besides, it is\nmost improbable that we should have no hint of the Davidic descent if\nthis had been one ground of the appointment. Eusebius and Jerome both\ndescribe Nehemiah as of the tribe of Judah. Jerome is notoriously\ninaccurate; Eusebius is a cautious historian, but it is not likely\nthat in his late age--as long after Nehemiah as our age is after\nThomas a Becket--he could have any trustworthy evidence beyond that of\nthe Scriptures. The statement that the city of Jerusalem was the place\nof the sepulchres of his ancestors[128] lends some plausibility to the\nsuggestion that Nehemiah belonged to the tribe of Judah. With this we\nmust be content.\n\n  [127] _E.g._, the Nehemiah of Ezra ii. 2, who is certainly another\n  person.\n\n  [128] Neh. ii. 3.\n\nIt is more to the point to notice that, like Ezra, the younger man,\nwhose practical energy and high authority were to further the reforms\nof the somewhat doctrinaire scribe, was a Jew of the exile. Once more\nit is in the East, far away from Jerusalem, that the impulse is found\nfor furthering the cause of the Jews. Thus we are again reminded that\nwave after wave sweeps up from the Babylonian plains to give life and\nstrength to the religious and civic restoration.\n\nThe peculiar circumstances of Nehemiah deepen our interest in his\npatriotic and religious work. In his case it was not the hardships of\ncaptivity that fostered the aspirations of the spiritual life, for he\nwas in a position of personal ease and prosperity. We can scarcely\nthink of a lot less likely to encourage the principles of patriotism\nand religion than that of a favourite upper servant in a foreign,\nheathen court. The office held by Nehemiah was not one of political\nrank. He was a palace slave, not a minister of state like Joseph or\nDaniel. But among the household servants he would take a high\nposition. The cup-bearers had a special privilege of admission to the\naugust presence of their sovereign in his most private seclusion. The\nking's life was in their hands; and the wealthy enemies of a despotic\nsovereign would be ready enough to bribe them to poison the king, if\nonly they proved to be corruptible. The requirement that they should\nfirst pour some wine into their own hands, and drink the sample before\nthe King, is an indication that fear of treachery haunted the mind of\nan Oriental monarch, as it does the mind of a Russian czar to-day.\nEven with this rough safeguard it was necessary to select men who\ncould be relied upon. Thus the cup-bearers would become \"favourites.\"\nAt all events, it is plain that Nehemiah was regarded with peculiar\nfavour by the king he served. No doubt he was a faithful servant, and\nhis fidelity in his position of trust at court was a guarantee of\nsimilar fidelity in a more responsible and far more trying office.\n\nNehemiah opens his story by telling us that he was in \"the\npalace,\"[129] or rather \"the fortress,\" at Susa, the winter abode of\nthe Persian monarchs--an Elamite city, the stupendous remains of\nwhich astonish the traveller in the present day--eighty miles east of\nthe Tigris and within sight of the Bakhtiyari Mountains. Here was the\ngreat nail of audience, the counterpart of another at Persepolis.\nThese two were perhaps the largest rooms in the ancient world next to\nthat at Karnak. Thirty-six fluted columns, distributed as six rows of\nsix columns each, slender and widely spaced, supported a roof\nextending two hundred feet each way. The month Chislev, in which the\noccurrence Nehemiah proceeds to relate happened, corresponds to parts\nof our November and December. The name is an Assyrian and Babylonian\none, and so are all the names of the months used by the Jews. Further,\nNehemiah speaks of what he here narrates as happening in the twentieth\nyear of Artaxerxes, and in the next chapter he mentions a subsequent\nevent as occurring in the month Nisan[130] in the same year. This\nshows that he did not reckon the year to begin at Nisan, as the Jews\nwere accustomed to reckon it. He must have followed the general\nAsiatic custom, which begins the year in the autumn, or else he must\nhave regulated his dates according to the time of the king's\naccession. In either case we see how thoroughly un-Jewish the setting\nof his narrative is--unless a third explanation is adopted, viz., that\nthe Jewish year, beginning in the spring, only counts from the\nadoption of Ezra's edition of The Law. Be this as it may, other\nindications of Orientalism, derived from his court surroundings, will\nattract our attention in our consideration of his language later on.\nNo writer of the Bible reflects the influence of alien culture more\nclearly than Nehemiah. Outwardly, he is the most foreign Jew we meet\nwith in Scripture. Yet in his and character he is the very ideal of a\nJewish patriot. His patriotism shines all the more splendidly because\nit bursts out of a foreign environment. Thus Nehemiah shows how little\nhis dialect and the manners he exhibits can be taken as the gauge of a\nman's true life.\n\n  [129] Neh. i. 1.\n\n  [130] Neh. ii. 1.\n\nNehemiah states that, while he was thus at Susa, in winter residence\nwith the court, one of his brethren, named Hanani, together with\ncertain men of Judah, came to him.[131] The language here used will\nadmit of our regarding Hanani as only a more or less distant relative\nof the cup-bearer; but a later reference to him at Jerusalem as \"my\nbrother Hanani\"[132] shows that his own brother is meant.\n\n  [131] Neh. i. 2.\n\n  [132] Neh. vii. 2.\n\nJosephus has an especially graphic account of the incident. We have no\nmeans of discovering whether he drew it from an authentic source, but\nits picturesqueness may justify the insertion of it here: \"Now there\nwas one of those Jews who had been carried captive, who was cup-bearer\nto King Xerxes; his name was Nehemiah. As this man was walking before\nSusa, the metropolis of the Persians, he heard some strangers that\nwere entering the city, after a long journey, speaking to one another\nin the Hebrew tongue; so he went to them and asked from whence they\ncame; and when their answer was, that they came from Judaea, he began\nto inquire of them again in what state the multitude was, and in what\ncondition Jerusalem was: and when they replied that they were in a bad\nstate, for that their walls were thrown down to the ground, and that\nthe neighbouring nations did a great deal of mischief to the Jews,\nwhile in the day-time they over-ran the country and pillaged it, and\nin the night did them mischief, insomuch that not a few were led away\ncaptive out of the country, and out of Jerusalem itself, and that the\nroads were in the day-time found full of dead men. Hereupon Nehemiah\nshed tears, out of commiseration of the calamities of his countrymen;\nand, looking up to heaven, he said, 'How long, O Lord, wilt thou\noverlook our nation, while it suffers so great miseries, and while we\nare made the prey and the spoil of all men?' And while he staid at the\ngate, and lamented thus, one told him that the king was going to sit\ndown to supper; so he made haste, and went as he was, without washing\nhimself, to minister to the king in his office of cup-bearer,\"\netc.[133]\n\n  [133] Josephus, _Ant._, XI. v. 6.\n\nEvidently Nehemiah was expressly sought out. His influence would\nnaturally be valued. There was a large Jewish community at Susa, and\nNehemiah must have enjoyed a good reputation among his people;\notherwise it would have been vain for the travellers to obtain an\ninterview with him. The eyes of these Jews were turned to the royal\nservant as the fellow-countryman of greatest influence at court. But\nNehemiah anticipated their message and relieved them of all difficulty\nby questioning them about the city of their fathers. Jerusalem was\nhundreds of miles away across the desert; no regular methods of\ncommunication kept the Babylonian colony informed of the condition of\nthe advance guard at the ancient capital; therefore scraps of news\nbrought by chance travellers were eagerly devoured by those who were\nanxious for the rare information. Plainly Nehemiah shared this\nanxiety. His question was quite spontaneous, and it suggests that\namid the distractions of his court life his thoughts had often\nreverted to the ancient home of his people. If he had not been truly\npatriotic, he could have used some device, which his palace experience\nwould have readily suggested, so as to divert the course of this\nconversation with a group of simple men from the country, and keep the\npainful subject in the background. He must have seen clearly that for\none in his position of influence to make inquiries about a poor and\ndistressed community was to raise expectations of assistance. But his\nquestions were earnest and eager, because his interest was genuine.\n\nThe answers to Nehemiah's inquiries struck him with surprise as well\nas grief. The shock with which he received them reminds us of Ezra's\nstartled horror when the lax practices of the Jewish leaders were\nreported to him, although the trained court official did not display\nthe abandonment of emotion which was seen in the student suddenly\nplunged into the vortex of public life and unprepared for one of those\ndread surprises which men of the world drill themselves to face with\ncomparative calmness.\n\nWe must now examine the news that surprised and distressed Nehemiah.\nHis brother and the other travellers from Jerusalem inform him that\nthe descendants of the returned captives, the residents of Jerusalem,\n\"are in great affliction and reproach\"; and also that the city walls\nhave been broken down and the gates burnt. The description of the\ndefenceless and dishonoured state of the city is what most strikes\nNehemiah. Now the question is to what calamities does this report\nrefer? According to the usual understanding, it is a description of\nthe state of Jerusalem which resulted from the sieges of\nNebuchadnezzar. But there are serious difficulties in the way of this\nview. Nehemiah must have known all about the tremendous events, one of\nthe results of which was seen in the very existence of the Jewish\ncolony of which he was a member. The inevitable consequences of that\nnotorious disaster could not have come before him unexpectedly and as\nstartling news. Besides, the present distress of the inhabitants is\nclosely associated with the account of the ruin of the defences, and\nis even mentioned first. Is it possible that one sentence should\ninclude what was happening now, and what took place a century earner,\nin a single picture of the city's misery? The language seems to point\nto the action of breaking through me walls rather than to such a\ngeneral demolition of them as took place when the whole city was razed\nto the ground by the Babylonian invaders. Lastly, the action of\nNehemiah cannot be accounted for on this hypothesis. He is plunged\ninto grief by the dreadful news, and at first he can only mourn and\nfast and pray. But before long, as soon as he obtains permission from\nhis royal master, he sets out for Jerusalem, and there his first great\nwork is to restore the ruined walls. The connection of events shows\nthat it is the information brought to him by Hanani and the other Jews\nfrom Jerusalem that rouses him to proceed to the city. All this points\nto some very recent troubles, which were previously unknown to\nNehemiah. Can we find any indication of those troubles elsewhere?\n\nThe opening scene in the patriotic career of Nehemiah exactly fit in\nwith the events which came under our consideration in the previous\nchapter. There we saw that the opposition to the Jews which is\nrecorded as early as Ezra iv., but attributed to the reign of an\n\"Artaxerxes,\" must have been carried into effect under Artaxerxes\nLongimanus--Nehemiah's master. This must have been subsequent to the\nmission of Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as Ezra makes no\nmention of its distressful consequences. The news reached Nehemiah in\nthe twentieth year of the same reign. Therefore the mischief must have\nbeen wrought some time during the intervening thirteen years. We have\nno history of that period. But the glimpse of its most gloomy\nexperiences afforded by the detached paragraph in Ezra iv. exactly\nfits in with the description of the resulting condition of Jerusalem\nin the Book of Nehemiah. This will fully account for Nehemiah's\nsurprise and grief; it will also throw a flood of light on his\ncharacter and subsequent action. If he had only been roused to repair\nthe ravages of the old Babylonian invasions, there would have been\nnothing very courageous in his undertaking. Babylon itself had been\noverthrown, and the enemy of Babylon was now in power. Anything\ntending to obliterate the destructive glory of the old fallen empire\nmight be accepted with favour by the Persian ruler. But the case is\nquite altered when we think of the more recent events. The very work\nNehemiah was to undertake had been attempted but a few years before,\nand it had failed miserably. The rebuilding of the walls had then\nexcited the jealousy of neighbouring peoples, and their gross\nmisrepresentations had resulted in an official prohibition of the\nwork. This prohibition, however, had only been executed by acts of\nviolence, sanctioned by the government. Worse than all else, it was\nfrom the very Artaxerxes whom Nehemiah served that the sanction had\nbeen obtained. He was an easy-going sovereign, readily accessible to\nthe advice of his ministers; in the earlier part of his reign he\nshowed remarkable favour towards the Jews, when he equipped and\ndespatched Ezra on his great expedition, and it is likely enough that\nin the pressure of his multitudinous affairs the King would soon\nforgot his unfavourable despatch. Nevertheless he was an absolute\nmonarch, and the lives of his subjects were in his hands. For a\npersonal attendant of such a sovereign to show sympathy with a city\nthat had come under his disapproval was a very risky thing. Nehemiah\nmay have felt this while he was hiding his grief from Artaxerxes. But\nif so, his frank confession at the first opportunity reflects all the\nmore credit on his patriotism and the courage with which he supported\nit.\n\nPatriotism is the most prominent principle in Nehemiah's conduct.\nDeeper considerations emerge later, especially after he has come under\nthe influence of an enthusiastic religious teacher in the person of\nEzra. But at first it is the city of his fathers that moves his heart.\nHe is particularly distressed at its desolate condition, because the\nburial-place of is ancestors is there. The great anxiety of the Jews\nabout the bodies of their dead, and their horror of the exposure of a\ncorpse, made them look with peculiar concern on the tombs of their\npeople. In sharing the sentiments that spring out of the habits of his\npeople in this respect, Nehemiah gives a specific turn to his\npatriotism. He longs to guard and honour the last resting-place of his\npeople; he would hear of any outrage on the city where their\nsepulchres are with the greatest distress. Thus filial piety mingles\nwith patriotism, and the patriotism itself is localised, like that of\nthe Greeks, and directed to the interests of a single city. Nehemiah\nhere represents a different attitude from that of Mordecai. It is not\nthe Jew that he thinks of in the first instance, but Jerusalem; and\nJerusalem is dear to him primarily, not because of his kinsmen who are\nliving there, but because it is the city of his fathers' sepulchres,\nthe city of the great past. Still the strongest feelings are always\npersonal. Patriotism loves the very soil of the fatherland; but the\ndepth and strength of the passion spring from association with an\naffection for the people that inhabit it. Without this patriotism\ndegenerates into a flimsy sentiment. At Jerusalem Nehemiah develops a\ndeep personal interest in the citizens. Even on the Susa acropolis,\nwhere the very names of these people are unknown to him, the thought\nof his ancestry gives a sanctity to the far-off city. Such a thought\nis enlarging and purifying. It lifts a man out of petty personal\nconcerns; it gives him unselfish sympathies; it prepares demands for\nsacrifice and service. Thus, while the mock patriotism which cares\nonly for glory and national aggrandisement is nothing but a vulgar\nproduct of enlarged selfishness, the true patriotism that awakens\nlarge human sympathies is profoundly unselfish, and shows itself to be\na part of the very religion of a devoted man.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n_NEHEMIAH'S PRAYER._\n\nNEHEMIAH i. 4-11.\n\n\nNehemiah records the twofold effect of the melancholy news which his\nbrother and the other travellers from Jerusalem brought him. Its first\nconsequence was grief; its second prayer. The grief was expressed in\nthe dramatic style of the Oriental by weeping, lamentations, fasting,\nand other significant acts and attitudes which the patriot kept up for\nsome days. Demonstrative as all this appears to us, it was calm and\nrestrained in comparison with Ezra's frantic outburst. Still it was\nthe sign and fruit of heartfelt distress, for Nehemiah was really and\ndeeply moved. Had the incident ended here, we should have seen a\npicture of patriotic sentiment, such as might be looked for in any\nloyal Jew, although the position of Nehemiah at court would have\nproved him loyal under exceptional circumstances. But the prayer which\nis the outcome of the soul-stirring thoughts and feelings of devout\npatriotism lifts the scene into a much higher interest. This prayer is\nsingularly penetrating, revealing a keen insight into the secret of\nthe calamities of Israel, and an exact perception of the relation of\nGod to those calamities. It shows a knowledge of what we may call the\ntheology of history, of the Divine laws and principles which are\nabove and behind the laws and principles indicated by the expression\n\"the philosophy of history.\" In form it is a combination of three\nelements,--the language of devotion cultivated by Persian sages;\nexpressions culled from the venerated Hebrew law-book, Deuteronomy;\nand new phrases called out by the new needs of the immediate occasion.\nNehemiah shows how natural it is for a person to fall into an accepted\ndialect of worship, even in an original prayer the end of which is\nnovel and special.\n\nHe opens his prayer with an expression that seems to be more Persian\nthan Jewish. He does not make his appeal to Jehovah as the \"God of\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\" but after the sacred name he adds the\ndescriptive title \"God of heaven.\" This is quite a favourite phrase of\nNehemiah's. Thus in describing his interview with Artaxerxes he says,\n\"So I prayed to the God of heaven\";[134] and at Jerusalem he answers\nthe mockery of his opponents by exclaiming, \"The God of heaven, He\nwill prosper us.\"[135] Now the same expression is found repeatedly in\nthe chronicler's version of royal edicts--in the edict of Cyrus,[136]\nin the edict of Darius,[137] in the edict of Artaxerxes.[138] If it is\nindeed of Persian origin, the use of it by Nehemiah is most\nsignificant. In this case, while it indicates the speaker's\nunconscious adoption of the language of his neighbours and shows him\nto be a Jew of Oriental culture, it also illustrates a far-reaching\nprocess of Providence. Here is an exalted name for God, the origin of\nwhich is apparently Gentile, accepted and used by a devout Jew, and\nthrough his employment of it passing over into the Scriptures,[139]\nso that the religion of Israel is enriched by a phrase from abroad. It\nwould be but a poor championship of the truth of the Hebrew revelation\nthat would lead us to close our eyes to whatever of good is to be\nfound outside its borders. Certainly we honour God by gladly\nperceiving that He has not left Himself entirely without witness in\nthe dim-lit temple of Pagan thought. It is a ground for rejoicing\nthat, while the science of Comparative Religion has not touched the\nunique pre-eminence of the Hebrew and Christian Faith, that science\nhas been able to recover scattered pearls of truth that lay strewn\nover the waste of the world's wide thinking. If in a few rare cases\nsome such gems had been found earlier and even set in the crown of\nIsrael, we can only be thankful that the One Spirit who is the source\nof all revelation has thus evinced the breadth of His activity. Nor\nshould it disturb our faith if it could be proved that more important\nelements of our religion did not originate among the Jews, but came\nfrom Babylonian, Persian, or Greek sources; for why should not God\nspeak through a Gentile if He chooses so to do? This is not a point of\ndogma. It is simply a question of fact to be determined by historical\ninquiry.\n\n  [134] Neh. ii. 4.\n\n  [135] Neh. ii. 20.\n\n  [136] Ezra i. 2.\n\n  [137] Ezra vi. 10.\n\n  [138] Ezra vii. 12, 21, 23.\n\n  [139] It is used by the chronicler, and it is found in Jonah and\n  Daniel, and once even in our recension of Genesis (Gen. xxiv. 7).\n\nWe cannot say for certain, however, that Nehemiah's phrase was coined\nin a Persian mint. Its novelty, its absence from earlier Hebrew\nliterature, and its repeated appearance in the edicts of Persian kings\nfavour the notion. But we know that before reaching us these edicts\nhave been more or less translated into Hebrew forms of thought, so\nthat the phrase may possibly be Jewish after all. Still even in that\ncase it seems clear that it must have been first used in the East and\nunder the Persian rule. The widening of his horizon and the elevation\nof his idea of Providence which resulted from the experience of the\nexile helped to enlarge and exalt the Jew's whole conception of God.\nJehovah could no longer be thought of as a tribal divinity. The\ngreater prophets had escaped from any such primitive notion much\nearlier, but not the bulk of the nation. Now the exiles saw that the\ndomain of their God could not be limited to the hills and valleys of\nPalestine. They perceived how His arm reached from the river to the\nends of the earth; how His might was everywhere supreme, directing the\nhistory of empires, overthrowing great monarchies, establishing new\nworld-powers.\n\nA more subtle movement of thought has been detected in the appearance\nof this suggestive phrase, \"God of heaven.\" The idea of the\ntranscendence of God is seen to be growing in the mind of the Jew. God\nappears to be receding into remote celestial regions--His greatness\nincluding distance. As yet this is only vaguely felt; but here we have\nthe beginning of a characteristic of Judaism which becomes more and\nmore marked in course of time, until it seems as though God were cut\noff from all direct connection with men on earth, and only\nadministering the world through a whole army of intermediaries, the\nangels.\n\nAfter this phrase with the Persian flavour, Nehemiah adds expressions\nborrowed from the Hebrew Book of Deuteronomy, a book with ideas and\nwords from which his prayer is saturated throughout. God is described\non the one hand as \"great and terrible.\" and on the other hand as\nkeeping \"covenant and mercy for them that love Him and observe His\ncommandments.\"[140] The Deuteronomist adds \"to a thousand\ngenerations\"--a clause not needed by Nehemiah, who is now only\nconcerned with one special occasion. The first part of the description\nis in harmony with the new and exalted title of God, and therefore it\nfits in well here. It is also suitable for the circumstances of the\nprayer, because in times of calamity we are impressed with the power\nand terror of Providence. There is another side to these attributes,\nhowever. The mention of them suggests that the sufferers have not\nfallen into the hand of man. Hanani and his fellow-Jews made no\nallusion to a Divine action; they could not see beyond the jealousy of\nneighbouring people in the whole course of events. But Nehemiah at\nonce recognised God's hand. This perception would calm him as he\nwatched the solemn movement of the drama carried up into heavenly\nregions. Then, aided by the cheering thought which came to him from\nthe book of Divine revelation on which his prayer was moulded,\nNehemiah turns to the covenant-keeping mercy of God. The covenant\nwhich he appeals to here must be that of the Book of Deuteronomy; his\nsubsequent references to the contents of that book make this quite\nclear.\n\n  [140] Neh. i. 5. See Deut. vii. 9.\n\nIt is important to see that Nehemiah recognises the relation of God's\nmercy to His covenant. He perceives that the two go together, that the\ncovenant does not dispense with the need of mercy any more than it\nforecloses the action of mercy. When the covenant people fall into\nsin, they cannot claim forgiveness as a right; nor can they ever\ndemand deliverance from trouble on the ground of their pact with God.\nGod does not bargain with His children. A Divine covenant is not a\nbusiness arrangement, the terms of which can be interpreted like those\nof a deed of partnership, and put into force by the determinate will\nof either party. The covenant is, from the first, a gracious Divine\npromise and dispensation, conditioned by certain requirements to be\nobserved on man's side. Its very existence is a fruit of God's mercy,\nnot an outcome of man's haggling, and its operation is just through\nthe continuance of that mercy. It is true a promise, a sort of pledge,\ngoes with the covenant; but that is a promise of mercy, a pledge of\ngrace. It does not dispense with the mercy of God by converting what\nwould otherwise be an act of pure grace on His part into a right which\nwe possess and act upon of our own sole will. What it does is to\nafford a channel for the mercy of God, and to assure us of His mercy,\nwhich, however, remains mercy throughout.\n\nFrom another point of view the covenant and the mercy go together. The\nmercy follows the covenant. The expression \"the uncovenanted mercies\nof God\" has been used in bitter irony, as though any hope that\ndepended on such mercies was poor indeed, a bare refuge of despair.\nBut so to treat the unknown goodness of God is to discredit that\n\"ceaseless, unexhausted love\" which has given us the latest and\nhighest and best name of God. We do not know how far the vast ocean of\nthe lovingkindness of God extends. On the other hand, certain definite\nassurances of mercy are given along the lines of a covenant. Therefore\nit is clearly wise and right for people who possess the covenant to\nfollow those lines. Other people who are outside the covenant may meet\nwith wonderful surprises in the infinite Fatherhood of God; but those\nof His children who are in the home must expect to be treated\naccording to the established order of the house. No doubt they too\nwill have their grand surprises of Divine grace, for God does not tie\nHimself to forms and rules at home while He exercises liberty abroad.\nTo do so would be to make the home a prison. But still His revelation\nof methods of grace is a clear indication that it is our duty to\nobserve those methods, and that we have no ground of complaint if we\ndo not receive the grace we seek when we wilfully neglect them. Here\nthen we see the necessity of studying the revelation of the will and\nmind of God. That prayer has most ground of hope in it which keeps\nnearest to the thought and spirit of Scripture.\n\nThe terms of the covenant quoted by Nehemiah require obedience on the\npart of those who would receive mercy under it, and this obedience is\nneeded in those who are seeking restoration and forgiveness as well as\nin those who have not fallen from the covenant throughout. The\nreference to \"mercy\" makes that clear. The penitent submits, and in\nthe surrender of his will he is made the recipient of the Divine\nmercy. But behind the obedience is the spirit of love that prompts it.\nThe mercy is for them that _love_ God and observe His commandments.\nLove is the fulfilling of the law from the first. It is expected in\nthe Old Testament as well as in the New; it is prescribed by the\nDeuteronomist as decidedly as by St. John, for it is the only ground\nof real obedience. The slavish terror of the lash which squeezes out a\nreluctant utterance of submission will not open the door for the mercy\nof God. The Divine covenant secures mercy only for those who return to\ntheir allegiance in a spirit of love.\n\nHaving thus set forth the grounds of his prayer in his address to God\nand his plea of the covenant, Nehemiah proceeds to invoke the Divine\nattention to his petition. There is an echo of the courtier, perhaps,\nin his request that God's ear should be attentive and His eyes\nopen;[141] but his whole conduct forbids the idea of servile\nobsequiousness. His prayer, he here says, is offered \"day and night\";\nso his report of it may be regarded as a sort of final summing up of a\nlong, persevering succession of prayers. The unwearying persistence of\nthe man reveals two favourable features in his character--his\nearnestness of purpose and his unflagging faith. Our Lord denounces\n\"vain repetitions\"[142]--_i.e._, repetitions the very value of which\nis thought to reside in their number, as though prayer could be\nestimated arithmetically. But the prayer that is repeated simply\nbecause the worshipper is too persistent to be satisfied till it is\nanswered does not come into the category of \"_vain_ repetitions\"; it\nis anything but empty.\n\n  [141] Neh. i. 6.\n\n  [142] Matt. vi. 7.\n\nImmediately after his invocation of God's gracious attention Nehemiah\nplunges into a confession of sin. Ezra's great prayer was wholly\noccupied with confession,[143] and this mournful exercise takes a\nlarge place in Nehemiah's prayer. But the younger man has one special\nground of confession. The startling news of the ruinous condition of\nthe recently restored city of Jerusalem rouses a sort of national\nconscience in his breast. He knows that the captivity was brought\nabout as a chastisement for the sins of the Jews. That great\nlesson--so recklessly ignored when it was insisted on by Jeremiah--had\nbeen burnt into the deepest convictions of the exiles. Therefore\nNehemiah makes no complaint of the cruel behaviour of the enemies of\nIsrael. He does not whine about the pitiable plight of the Jews. Their\nreal enemies were their sins, and the explanation of their present\ndistress was to be found in their own bad conduct. Thus Nehemiah goes\nto the root of the matter, and that without a moment's hesitation.\n\n  [143] Ezra ix. 6-15.\n\nFurther, it is interesting to see how he identifies himself with his\npeople in this confession. Living far from the seat of the evil,\nhimself a God-fearing, upright man, he might have been tempted to\ntreat the citizens of Jerusalem as Job's comforters treated the\npatriarch of Uz, and denounce their sins from the secure heights of\nhis own virtue. In declining to assume this pharisaic attitude,\nNehemiah shows that he is not thinking of recent specific sins\ncommitted by the returned exiles. The whole history of Israel's\napostasy is before him; he feels that the later as truly as the\nearlier calamities flow from this one deep, foul fountain of iniquity.\nThus he can join himself with his fathers and the whole nation in the\nutterance of confession. This is different from the confession of\nEzra, who was thinking of one definite sin which he did not share, but\nwhich he confessed in a priestly sympathy. Nehemiah is less concerned\nwith formal legal precepts. He is more profoundly moved by the wide\nand deep course of his people's sin generally. Still it is a mark of\nself-knowledge and true humility, as well as of patriotism, that he\nhonestly associates himself with his fellow-countrymen. He perceives\nthat particular sins, such as those found in the recent misconduct of\nthe Jews, are but symptoms of the underlying sinful character; and\nthat while circumstances may save the individual from the temptation\nto exhibit every one of these symptoms, they are accidental, and they\ncannot be set to his credit. The common sin is in him still; therefore\nhe may well join himself to the penitents, even though he has not\nparticipated in all their evil deeds. The solidarity of the race is,\nunhappily, never more apparent than in its sin. This sin is especially\nthe \"one touch of\" _fallen_ \"nature\" that \"makes the whole world kin.\"\nIt was to a trait of frailty that Shakespeare was alluding when he\ncoined his famous phrase, as the context proves.[144] The trail of the\nserpent is over every human life, and in this ugly mark we have a\nterrible sign of human brotherhood. Of all the elements of \"Common\nPrayer,\" confession can be most perfectly shared by every member of a\ncongregation, if only all the worshippers are in earnest and know\ntheir own hearts.\n\n  [144] _Troilus and Cressida_, Act iii., Scene 3.\n\nNehemiah does not enter much into detail with this confession. It is\nsweeping and widely comprehensive. Two points, however, may be\nnoticed. First, he refers to the Godward aspect of sin, its personal\ncharacter as an offence against God. Thus he says, \"We have dealt very\ncorruptly _against Thee_.\"[145] So the prodigal first confesses that\nhe has sinned \"against heaven.\"[146] Secondly, he makes mention more\nthan once of the commandments of Moses. The name of Moses is often\nappealed to with reverence in the history of this period of Ezra and\nNehemiah. Evidently the minds of men reverted to the great founder of\nthe nation at the time of national penitence and restoration. Under\nthese circumstances no new edition of The Law could have been adopted\nunless it was believed to have embodied the substance of the older\nteaching.\n\n  [145] Neh. i. 7\n\n  [146] Luke xv. 18.\n\nAfter his confession Nehemiah goes on to appeal to the Divine promises\nof restoration made to the penitent in the great national covenant. He\nsums them up in a definite sentence, not quoting any one utterance of\nDeuteronomy, but garnering together the various promises of mercy and\ndovetailing almost the very language of them together, so as to\npresent us with the total result. These promises recognise the\npossibility of transgression and the consequent scattering of the\npeople so often insisted on by the prophets and especially by\nJeremiah. They then go on to offer restoration on condition of\nrepentance and a return to obedient allegiance. It is to be observed\nthat this is all laid down on national lines. The nation sins; the\nnation suffers; the nation is restored to its old home. This is very\nmuch a characteristic of Judaism, and it gives a breadth to the\noperation of great religious principles which would otherwise be\nunattainable when almost all regard for a future life is left out of\naccount. Christianity dwells more on individualism, but it obtains\nspace at once by bringing the future life into prominence. In the Old\nTestament the future of the nation takes much the same place as that\noccupied by the future of the individual in the New Testament.\n\nIn reviewing the history of God's way with Israel Nehemiah lays his\nfinger on the great fact of redemption. The Jews are the \"people whom\nGod had redeemed by His great power and His strong hand.\"[147]\nUniversal usage compels us to fix upon the exodus under Moses, and not\nZerubbabel's pilgrimage, as the event to which Nehemiah here alludes.\nThat event, which was the birth of the nation, always comes out in\nHebrew literature as the supreme act of Divine grace. In some\nrespects its position in the religion of Israel may be likened to that\nof the cross of Christ in Christianity. In both cases God's great work\nof redeeming His children is the supreme proof of His mercy and the\ngrand source of assurance in praying to Him for new help. On the\nground of the great redemption Nehemiah advances to the special\npetition with which his prayer closes. This is most definite. It is on\nbehalf of his own need; it is for immediate help--\"this day\"; it is\nfor one particular need--in his proposed approach to Artaxerxes to\nplead the cause of his people. Here then is an instance of the most\nspecial prayer. It is \"to the point,\" and for most pressing present\nrequirements. We cannot but be struck with the reality of such a\nprayer. Having reached this definite petition Nehemiah closes\nabruptly.\n\n  [147] Neh. i. 10.\n\nWhen we glance back over the prayer as a whole, we are struck with its\norder and progress. As in our Lord's model prayer, the first part is\nabsorbed with thoughts of God; it is after uplifting his thoughts to\nheaven that the worshipper comes down to human need. Then a large\nplace is given to sin. This comes first in the consideration of man\nafter the worshipper has turned his eyes from the contemplation of God\nand felt the contrast of darkness after light. Lastly, the human\nsubjects of the prayer begin in the wider circle of the whole nation;\nonly at the very last, in little more than a sentence, Nehemiah brings\nforward his own personal petition. Thus the prayer gradually narrows\ndown from the Divine to the human, and from the national to the\nindividual: as it narrows it becomes more definite, till it ends in a\nsingle point; but this point is driven home by the weight and force of\nall that precedes.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n_THE PRAYER ANSWERED._\n\nNEHEMIAH ii. 1-8.\n\n\nNehemiah's prayer had commenced on celestial heights of meditation\namong thoughts of Divine grace and glory, and when it had stooped to\nearth it had swept over the wide course of his nation's history and\npoured out a confession of the whole people's sin; but the final point\nof it was a definite request for the prospering of his contemplated\ninterview with the king. Artaxerxes was an absolute despot, surrounded\nwith the semi-divine honours that Orientals associate with the regal\nstate, and yet in speaking of him before \"the God of heaven,\" \"the\ngreat and terrible God,\" Nehemiah loses all awe for his majestic pomp,\nand describes him boldly as \"this man.\"[148] In the supreme splendour\nof God's presence all earthly glory fades out of the worshipper's\nsight, like a glow-worm's spark lost in the sunlight. Therefore no one\ncan be dazzled by human magnificence so long as he walks in the light\nof God. Here, however, Nehemiah is speaking of an absent king. Now it\nis one thing to be fearless of man when alone with God in the\nseclusion of one's own chamber, and quite another to be equally\nimperturbable in the world and away from the calming influence of\nundisturbed communion with Heaven. We must remember this if we would\ndo justice to Nehemiah, because otherwise we might be surprised that\nhis subsequent action did not show all the courage we should have\nexpected.\n\n  [148] Neh. i. 11.\n\nFour months passed away before Nehemiah attempted anything on behalf\nof the city of his fathers. The Jewish travellers probably thought\nthat their visit to the court servant had been barren of all results.\nWe cannot tell how this interval was occupied, but it is clear that\nNehemiah was brooding over his plans all the time, and inwardly\nfortifying himself for his great undertaking. His ready reply when he\nwas suddenly and quite unexpectedly questioned by the king shows that\nhe had made the troubles of Jerusalem a subject of anxious thought,\nand that he had come to a clear decision as to the course which he\nshould pursue. Time spent in such fruitful thinking is by no means\nwasted. There is a hasty sympathy that flashes up at the first sign of\nsome great public calamity, eager \"to do something,\" but too blind in\nits impetuosity to consider carefully what ought to be done; and this\nis often the source of greater evils, because it is inconsiderate. In\nsocial questions especially people are tempted to be misled by a\nblind, impatient philanthropy. The worst consequence of yielding to\nsuch an influence--and one is strongly urged to yield for fear of\nseeming cold and indifferent--is that the certain disappointment that\nfollows is likely to provoke despair of all remedies, and to end in\ncynical callousness. Then, in the rebound, every enthusiastic effort\nfor the public good is despised as but the froth of sentimentality.\n\nVery possibly Nehemiah had no opportunity of speaking to the king\nduring these four months. A Persian sovereign was waited on by several\ncup-bearers, and it is likely enough that Nehemiah's terms of service\nwere intermittent. On his return to the court in due course he may\nhave had the first occasion for presenting his petition. Still it is\nnot to be denied that he found great difficulty in bringing himself to\nutter it, and then only when it was dragged out of him by the king. It\nwas a petition of no common kind. To request permission to leave the\ncourt might be misconstrued unfavourably. Herodotus says that people\nhad been put to death both by Darius and by Xerxes for showing\nreluctance to accompany their king. Then had not this very Artaxerxes\nsanctioned the raid upon Jerusalem which had resulted in the\ndevastation which Nehemiah deplored and which he desired to see\nreversed? If the king remembered his rescript to the Syrian governors,\nmight he not regard a proposal for the reversal of its policy as a\npiece of unwarrantable impertinence on the part of his household\nslave--nay, as an indication of treasonable designs? All this would be\napparent enough to Nehemiah as he handed the wine-cup on bended knee\nto the Great King. Is it wonderful then that he hesitated to speak, or\nthat he was \"very sore afraid\" when the king questioned him about his\nsadness of countenance?\n\nThere is an apparent contradiction in Nehemiah's statement concerning\nthis sad appearance of his countenance which is obscured in our\nEnglish translation by the unwarrantable insertion of the word\n\"beforetime\" in Nehemiah ii. 1, so that the sentence reads, \"Now I had\nnot been _beforetime_ sad in his presence.\" This word is a gloss of\nthe translators. What Nehemiah really says is simply, \"Now I had not\nbeen sad in his presence\"--a statement that evidently refers to the\noccasion then being described, and not to previous times nor to the\ncup-bearer's habitual bearing. Yet in the very next sentence we read\nhow the king asked Nehemiah the reason for the sadness of his\ncountenance. The contradiction would be as apparent to the writer as\nit is to us; and if he left it Nehemiah meant it to stand, no doubt\nintending to suggest by a dramatic description of the scene that he\nattempted to disguise his sorrow, but that his attempt was\nineffectual--so strong, so marked was his grief. It was a rule of the\ncourt etiquette, apparently, that nobody should be sad in the king's\npresence. A gloomy face would be unpleasant to the monarch.\nShakespeare's Caesar knew the security of cheerful associates when he\nsaid:--\n\n  \"Let me have men about me that are fat;\n  Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights:\n  Yond' Cassius has a lean and hungry look;\n  He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.\"\n\nBesides, was not the sunshine of the royal countenance enough to drive\naway all clouds of trouble from the minds of his attendants? Nehemiah\nhad drilled himself into the courtier's habitual pleasantness of\ndemeanour. Nevertheless, though passing, superficial signs of emotion\nmay be quite reined in by a person who is trained to control his\nfeatures, indications of the permanent conditions of the inner life\nare so deeply cut in the lines and curves of the countenance that the\nmost consummate art of an actor cannot disguise them. Nehemiah's grief\nwas profound and enduring. Therefore he could not hide it. Moreover,\nit is a king's business to understand men, and long practice makes\nhim an expert in it. So Artaxerxes was not deceived by the\nwell-arranged smile of his servant; it was evident to him that\nsomething very serious was troubling the man. The sickness of a\nfavourite attendant would not be unknown to a kind and observant king.\nNehemiah was not ill, then. The source of his trouble must have been\nmental. Sympathy and curiosity combined to urge the king to probe the\nmatter to the bottom. Though alarmed at his master's inquiry, the\ntrembling cup-bearer could not but give a true answer. Here was his\ngreat opportunity--thrust on him since he had not had the courage to\nfind it for himself. Artaxerxes was not to be surprised that a man\nshould grieve when the city of his ancestors was lying desolate. But\nthis information did not satisfy the king. His keen eye saw that there\nwas more behind. Nehemiah had some request which as yet he had not\nbeen daring enough to utter. With real kindness Artaxerxes invited him\nto declare it.\n\nThe critical moment had arrived. How much hangs upon the next sentence--not\nthe continuance of the royal favour only, but perhaps the very life of the\nspeaker, and, what is of far more value to a patriot, the future destiny of\nhis people! Nehemiah's perception of its intense importance is apparent in\nthe brief statement which he here inserts in his narrative: \"So I prayed to\nthe God of heaven.\"[149] He is accustomed to drop in suggestive notes on\nhis own private and behaviour along the course of his narrative. Only a few\nlines earlier we came upon one of these characteristic autobiographical\ntouches in the words, \"Now I had not been sad in his presence,\"[150] soon\nfollowed by another, \"Then I was very sore afraid.\"[151] Such remarks\nvivify the narrative, and keep up an interest in the writer. In the present\ncase the interjection is peculiarly suggestive. It was natural that\nNehemiah should be startled at the king's abrupt question, but it is an\nindication of his devout nature that as the crisis intensified his fear\npassed over into prayer. This was not a set season of prayer; the pious Jew\nwas not in his temple, nor at any _proseuche_, there was no time for a\nfull, elaborate, and orderly utterance, such as that previously recorded.\nJust at the moment of need, in the very presence of the king, with no time\nto spare, by a flash of thought, Nehemiah retires to that most lonely of\nall lonely places, \"the inner city of the mind,\" there to seek the help of\nthe Unseen God. And it is enough: the answer is as swift as the prayer; in\na moment the weak man is made strong for his great effort.\n\n  [149] Neh. ii. 4.\n\n  [150] Neh. ii. 1.\n\n  [151] Neh. ii. 2.\n\nSuch a sudden uplifting of the soul to God is the most real of all\nprayers. This at least is genuine and heartfelt, whatever may be the\ncase with the semi-liturgical composition the thought and beauty of\nwhich engaged our attention in the previous chapter. But then the man\nwho can thus find God in a moment must be in the habit of frequently\nresorting to the Divine Presence; like the patriarchs, he must be\nwalking with God. The brief and sudden prayer reaches heaven as an\narrow suddenly shot from the bow; but it goes right home, because he\nwho lets it off in his surprise is a good marksman, well practised.\nThis ready prayer only springs to the lips of a man who lives in a\ndaily habit of praying. We must associate the two kinds of prayer in\norder to account for that which is now before us. The deliberate\nexercises of adoration, confession, and petition prepare for the one\nsudden ejaculation. There we see the deep river which supplies the sea\nof devotion from which the momentary prayer is cast up as the spray of\na wave. Therefore it was in a great measure on account of his\ndeliberate and unwearying daily prayers that Nehemiah was prepared\nwith his quick cry to God in the crisis of need. We may compare his\ntwo kinds of prayer with our Lord's full and calm intercession in John\nxvii. and the short agonised cry from the cross. In each case we feel\nthat the sudden appeal to God in the moment of dire necessity is the\nmost intense and penetrating prayer. Still we must recognise that this\ncomes from a man who is much in prayer. The truth is that beneath both\nof these prayers--the calm, meditative utterance, and the simple cry\nfor help--there lies the deep, true essence of prayer, which is no\nthing of words at all, but which lives on, even when it is voiceless,\nin the heart of one of whom it can be said, as Tennyson says of\nMary,--\n\n  \"Her eyes are homes of silent prayer.\"\n\nFortified by his moment's communion with God, Nehemiah now makes known\nhis request. He asks to be sent to Jerusalem to repair its ruins and\nfortify the city. This petition contains more than lies on the surface\nof the words. Nehemiah does not say that he wishes to be appointed\nGovernor of Jerusalem in the high office which had been held by\nZerubbabel, but the subsequent narrative shows that he was assigned to\nthis position, and his report of the king's orders about the house he\nwas to dwell in at Jerusalem almost implies as much.[152] For one of\nthe royal household servants to be appointed to such a position was\ndoubtless not so strange an anomaly in the East in Nehemiah's day, as\nit would be with us now. The king's will was the fountain of all\nhonour, and the seclusion in which the Persian monarchs lived gave\nunusual opportunities for the few personal attendants who were\nadmitted into their presence to obtain great favours from them. Still\nNehemiah's attitude seems to show some self-confidence in a young man\nnot as yet holding any political office. Two or three considerations,\nhowever, will give a very different complexion to his request. In the\nfirst place, his city was in a desperate plight: deliverance was\nurgently needed; no help appeared to be forthcoming unless he stepped\ninto the breach. If he failed, things could hardly become worse than\nthey were already. Was this an occasion when a man should hold back\nfrom a sense of modesty? There is a false modesty which is really a\nproduct of the self-consciousness that is next door to vanity. The man\nwho is entirely oblivious of self will sometimes forget to be modest.\nMoreover, Nehemiah's request was at the peril of his life. When it was\ngranted he would be launched on a most hazardous undertaking. The\nambition--if we must use the word--which would covet such a career is\nat the very antipodes of that of the vulgar adventurer who simply\nseeks power in order to gratify his own sense of importance. \"Seekest\nthou great things for thyself? seek them not.\"[153] That humbling\nrebuke may be needed by many men; but it was not needed by Nehemiah,\nfor he was not seeking the great things for _himself_.\n\n  [152] Neh. ii. 8.\n\n  [153] Jer. xlv. 5.\n\nIt was a daring request; yet the king received it most favourably.\nAgain, then, we have the pleasing spectacle of a Persian monarch\nshowing kindness to the Jews. This is not the first time that\nArtaxerxes has proved himself their friend, for there can be no doubt\nthat he is the same sovereign as the Artaxerxes who despatched Ezra\nwith substantial presents to the aid of the citizens of Jerusalem some\ntwelve or thirteen years before.\n\nHere, however, a little difficulty emerges. In the interval between\nthe mission of Ezra and that of Nehemiah an adverse decree had been\nextracted from the compliant sovereign--the decree referred to in Ezra\niv. Now the semi-divinity that was ascribed to a Persian monarch\ninvolved the fiction of infallibility, and this was maintained by a\nrule making it unconstitutional for him to withdraw any command that\nhe had once issued. How then could Artaxerxes now sanction the\nbuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, which but a few years before he\nhad expressly forbidden? The difficulty vanishes on a very little\nconsideration. The king's present action was not the withdrawal of his\nearlier decree, for the royal order to the Samaritans had been just to\nthe effect that the building of the walls of Jerusalem should be\nstopped.[154] This order had been fully executed; moreover it\ncontained the significant words, \"until another decree shall be made\nby me.\"[155] Therefore a subsequent permission to resume the work,\nissued under totally different circumstances, would not be a\ncontradiction to the earlier order; and now that a trusty servant of\nthe king was to superintend the operations, no danger of insurrection\nneed be apprehended. Then the pointed notice of the fact that the\nchief wife--described as \"The Queen\"--was sitting by Artaxerxes, is\nevidently intended to imply that her presence helped the request of\nNehemiah. Orientalists have discovered her name, Damaspia, but nothing\nabout her to throw light on her attitude towards the Jews. She may\nhave been even a proselyte, or she may have simply shown herself\nfriendly towards the young cup-bearer. No political or religious\nmotives are assigned for the conduct of Artaxerxes here. Evidently\nNehemiah regarded the granting of his request as a direct result of\nthe royal favour shown towards himself. \"Put not your trust in\nprinces\"[156] is a wholesome warning, born of the melancholy\ndisappointment of the pilgrims who had placed too much hope in the\nMessianic glamour with which the career of poor Zerubbabel opened; but\nit does not mean that a man is to fling away the advantages which\naccrue to him from the esteem he has won in high places. Ever since\nthe Israelites showed no scruple in spoiling the Egyptians--and who\ncould blame them for seizing at the eleventh hour the overdue wages of\nwhich they had been defrauded for generations?--\"the people of God\"\nhave not been slow to reap harvests of advantage whenever persecution\nor cold indifference has given place to the brief, fickle favour of\nthe world. Too often this has been purchased at the price of the loss\nof liberty--a ruinous exchange. Here is the critical point. The\ndifficulty is to accept aid without any compromise of principle.\nSycophancy is the besetting snare of the courtier, and when the\nChurch turns courtier she is in imminent danger of that, in her, most\nfatal fault. But Nehemiah affords a splendid example to the contrary.\nIn his grand independence of character we have a fine instance of a\nwise, strong use of worldly advantages, entirely free from the abuses\nthat too commonly accompany them. Thus he anticipates the idea of the\nApocalypse where it is said, \"The earth helped the woman.\"[157]\n\n  [154] Ezra iv. 21.\n\n  [155] _Ibid._\n\n  [156] Psalm cxlvi. 3.\n\n  [157] Rev. xii. 16.\n\nThe interest of the king in his cup-bearer is shown by his repeated\nquestions, and by the determined manner in which he drags out of\nNehemiah all his plans and wishes. Every request is granted. The\nfavourite servant is too much valued to get his leave of absence\nwithout some limit of time, but even that is fixed in accordance with\nNehemiah's desire. He asks and obtains letters of introduction to the\ngovernors west of the Euphrates. The letters were most necessary,\nbecause these very men had bestirred themselves to obtain the adverse\ndecree but a very few years before. It is not likely that they had all\nveered round to favour the hated people against whom they had just\nbeen exhibiting the most severe antagonism. Nehemiah therefore showed\na wise caution in obtaining a sort of \"safe conduct.\" The friendliness\nof Artaxerxes went still further. The king ordered timber to be\nprovided for the building and fortifying operations contemplated by\nhis cup-bearer; this was to be furnished from a royal hunting park--a\n\"Paradise,\" to use the Persian word--probably one which formerly\nbelonged to the royal demesne of Judah, somewhere in the neighbourhood\nof Jerusalem, as the head-forester bore a Hebrew name, \"Asaph.\"[158]\nCostly cedars for the temple had to be fetched all the way from the\ndistant mountains of Lebanon, in Phoenician territory; but the city\ngates and the castle and house carpentry could be well supplied from\nthe oaks and other indigenous timber of Palestine.\n\n  [158] Neh. ii. 8.\n\nAll these details evince the practical nature of Nehemiah's\npatriotism. His last word on the happy conclusion of the interview\nwith Artaxerxes, which he had anticipated with so much apprehension,\nshows that higher thoughts were not crushed out by the anxious\nconsideration of external affairs. He concludes with a striking\nphrase, which we have met with earlier on the lips of Ezra.[159] \"And\nthe king granted me, _according to the good hand of my God upon\nme_.\"[160] Here is the same recognition of Divine Providence, and the\nsame graphic image of the \"hand\" of God laid on the writer. It looks\nas though the younger man had been already a disciple of the Great\nScribe. But his utterance is not the less genuine and heartfelt on\nthat account. He perceives that his prayer has been heard and\nanswered. The strength and beauty of his life throughout may be seen\nin his constant reference of all things to God in trust and prayer\nbefore the event, and in grateful acknowledgment afterwards.\n\n  [159] Ezra vii. 28.\n\n  [160] Neh. ii. 8.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n_THE MIDNIGHT RIDE._\n\nNEHEMIAH ii. 9-20.\n\n\nNehemiah's journey up to Jerusalem differed in many respects from\nEzra's great expedition, with a host of emigrants, rich stores, and\nall the accompaniments of a large caravan. Burdened with none of these\nencumbrances, the newly appointed governor would be able to travel in\ncomparative ease. Yet while Ezra was \"ashamed\" to ask for a military\nescort to protect his defenceless multitude and the treasures which\nwere only too likely to attract the vulture eyes of roving hordes of\nBedouin, because, as he tells us, he feared such a request might be\ntaken as a sign of distrust in his God, Nehemiah accepted a troop of\ncavalry without any hesitation. This difference, however, does not\nreflect any discredit on the faith of the younger man.\n\nIn the first place, his claims on the king were greater than those of\nEzra, who would have had to petition for the help of soldiers if he\nhad wanted it, whereas Nehemiah received his body-guard as a matter of\ncourse. Ezra had been a private subject previous to his appointment,\nand though he had subsequently been endowed with large authority of an\nindefinite character, that authority was confined to the execution of\nthe Jewish law; it had nothing to do with the general concerns of the\nPersian government in Syria or Palestine. But Nehemiah came straight\nfrom the court, where he had been a favourite servant of the king, and\nhe was now made the official governor of Jerusalem. It was only in\naccordance with custom that he should have an escort assigned him when\nhe went to take possession of his district. Then, probably to save\ntime, Nehemiah would travel by the perilous desert route through\nTadmor, and thus cover the whole journey in about two months--a route\nwhich Ezra's heavy caravan may have avoided. When he reached Syria the\nfierce animosity which had been excited by Ezra's domestic\nreformation--and which therefore had broken out after Ezra's\nexpedition--would make it highly dangerous for a Jew who was going to\naid the hated citizens of Jerusalem to travel through the mixed\npopulation.\n\nNevertheless, after allowing their full weight to these\nconsiderations, may we not still detect an interesting trait of the\nyounger man's character in Nehemiah's ready acceptance of the guard\nwith which Ezra had deliberately dispensed? In the eyes of the world\nthe idealist Ezra must have figured as a most unpractical person. But\nNehemiah, a courtier by trade, was evidently well accustomed to\n\"affairs.\" Naturally a cautious man, he was always anxious in his\npreparations, though no one could blame him for lack of decision or\npromptness at the moment of action. Now the striking thing about his\ncharacter in this relation--that which lifts it entirely above the\nlevel of purely secular prudence--is the fact that he closely\nassociated his careful habits with his faith in Providence. He would\nhave regarded the rashness which excuses itself on the plea of faith\nas culpable presumption. His religion was all the more real and\nthorough because it did not confine itself to unearthly experiences,\nor refuse to acknowledge the Divine in any event that was not visibly\nmiraculous. No man was ever more impressed with the great truth that\nGod was with him. It was this truth, deeply rooted in his heart, that\ngave him the joy which became the strength, the very inspiration of\nhis life. He was sure that his commonest secular concerns were moulded\nby the hand of his God. Therefore to his mind the detachment of\nPersian cavalry was as truly assigned to him by God as if it had been\na troop of angels sent straight from the hosts of heaven.\n\nThe highly dangerous nature of his undertaking and the necessity for\nexercising the utmost caution were apparent to Nehemiah as soon as he\napproached Jerusalem. Watchful enemies at once showed themselves\nannoyed \"that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children\nof Israel.\"[161] It was not any direct injury to themselves, it was\nthe prospect of some favour to the hated Jews that grieved these\npeople; though doubtless their jealousy was in part provoked by dread\nlest Jerusalem should regain the position of pre-eminence in Palestine\nwhich had been enjoyed during her depression by the rival city of\nSamaria. Under these circumstances Nehemiah followed the tactics which\nhe had doubtless learnt during his life among the treacherous\nintrigues of an Oriental court. He did not at first reveal his plans.\nHe spent three days quietly in Jerusalem. Then he took his famous ride\nround the ruins of the city walls. This was as secret as King Alfred's\nexploration of the camp of the Danes. Without breathing a word of his\nintention to the Jews, and taking only a horse or an ass to ride on\nhimself and a small body of trusty attendants on foot, Nehemiah set\nout on his tour in the dead of night. No doubt the primary purpose of\nthis secrecy was that no suspicion of his design should reach the\nenemies of the Jews. Had these men suspected it they would have been\nbeforehand with their plans for frustrating it; spies and traitors\nwould have been in the field before Nehemiah was prepared to receive\nthem; emissaries of the enemy would have perverted the minds even of\nloyal citizens. It would be difficult enough under any circumstances\nto rouse the dispirited people to undertake a work of great toil and\ndanger. If they were divided in counsel from the first it would be\nhopeless. Moreover, in order to persuade the Jews to fortify their\ncity, Nehemiah must be prepared with a clear and definite proposal. He\nmust be able to show them that he understands exactly in what\ncondition their ruined fortifications are lying. For his personal\nsatisfaction, too, he must see the ruins with his own eyes. Ever since\nthe travellers from Jerusalem who met him at Susa had shocked him with\ntheir evil tidings, a vision of the broken walls and charred gates had\nbeen before his imagination. Now he would really see the very ruins\nthemselves, and ascertain whether all was as bad as it had been\nrepresented.\n\n  [161] Neh. ii. 10.\n\nThe uncertainty which still surrounds much of the topography of\nJerusalem, owing to its very foundations having been turned over by\nthe ploughshare of the invader, while some of its sacred sites have\nbeen buried under huge mounds of rubbish, renders it impossible to\ntrace Nehemiah's night ride in all its details. If we are to accept\nthe latest theory, according to which the gorge hitherto regarded as\nthe _Tyropoeon_ is really the ancient Valley of Hinnom, some other\nsites will need considerable readjustment. The \"Gate of the Valley\"\nseems to be one near the head of the Valley of Hinnom; we know nothing\nof the \"Dragon Well\"; the \"Dung Port\" would be a gateway through which\nthe city offal was flung out to the fires in the Valley of Hinnom; the\n\"King's Pool\" is very likely that afterwards known as the \"Pool of\nSiloam.\" The main direction of Nehemiah's tour of inspection is fairly\ndefinite to us. He started at the western exit from the city and\npassed down to the left, to where the Valley of Hinnom joins the\nValley of the Kidron; ascending this valley, he found the masses of\nstones and heaps of rubbish in such confusion that he was compelled to\nleave the animal he had been riding hitherto and to clamber over the\nruins on foot. Reaching the north-eastern corner of the Valley of the\nKidron, he would turn round by the northern side of the city, where\nmost of the gates had been situated, because there the city, which was\ndifficult of access to the south and the east on account of the\nencircling ravines, could be easily approached.\n\nAnd what did he gain by his journey? He gained knowledge. The\nreformation that is planned by the student at his desk, without any\nreference to the actual state of affairs, will be, at best, a Utopian\ndream. But if the dreamer is also a man of resources and\nopportunities, his impracticable schemes may issue in incalculable\nmischief. \"Nothing is more terrible,\" says Goethe, \"than _active\nignorance_.\" We can smile at a knight-errant Don Quixote; but a Don\nQuixote in power would be as dangerous as a Nero. Most schemes of\nsocialism, though they spring from the brains of amiable enthusiasts,\nbreak up like empty bubbles on the first contact with the real world.\nIt is especially necessary, too, to know the worst. Optimism is very\ncheering in idea, but when it is indulged in to the neglect of truth,\nwith an impatient disregard for the shady side of life, it simply\nleads its devotees into a fools' paradise. The highest idealist must\nhave something of the realist in him if he would ever have his ideas\ntransformed into facts.\n\nFurther, it is to be noted that Nehemiah would gather his information for\nhimself; he could not be content with hearsay evidence. Here again he\nreveals the practical man. It is not that he distrusts the honesty of any\nagents he might employ, nor merely that he is aware of the deplorable\ninaccuracy of observers generally and the inability of nearly all people to\ngive an uncoloured account of what they have seen; but he knows that there\nis an impression to be obtained by personal observation which the most\ncorrect description cannot approach. No map or book will give a man a right\nidea of a place that he has never visited. If this is true of the external\nworld, much more is it the case with those spiritual realities which the\neye hath not seen, and which _therefore_ it has not entered into the heart\nof man to conceive. Wordsworth frequently refers to his sensations of\nsurprise and disappointment passing over into a new delight when he first\nbeheld scenes long ago described to him in verse of legend. He finds\n\"Yarrow visited\" very unlike \"Yarrow unvisited.\" One commonplace\ndistinction we must all have noticed under similar circumstances--viz.,\nthat the imagination is never rich and varied enough to supply us with the\ncomplications of the reality. Before we have looked at it our idea of the\nlandscape is too simple, and an invariable impression produced by the\nactual sight of it is to make us feel how much more elaborate it is. Indeed\na personal investigation of most phenomena reveals an amount of\ncomplication previously unsuspected. Where the investigation is, like\nNehemiah's, concerned with an evil we propose to attack, the result is that\nwe begin to see that the remedy cannot be so simple as we imagined before\nwe knew all the facts.\n\nBut the chief effect of Nehemiah's night ride would be to impress him\nwith an overwhelming sense of the desolation of Jerusalem. We may know\nmuch by report, but we feel most keenly that of which we have had\npersonal experience. Thus the news of a gigantic cataclysm in China\ndoes not affect us with a hundredth part of the emotion that is\nexcited in us by a simple street accident seen from our own windows.\nThe man whose heart will be moved enough for him to sacrifice himself\nseriously in relieving misery is he who will first \"_visit_ the\nfatherless and widows in their affliction.\"[162] Then the proof that\nthe impression is deep and real, and not a mere idle sentiment, will\nbe seen in the fact that it prompts action. Nehemiah was moved to\ntears by the report of the ruinous condition of Jerusalem, which\nreached him in the far-off palace beyond the Euphrates. What the scene\nmeant to him as he slowly picked his way among the huge masses of\nmasonry is seen by his conduct immediately afterwards. It must have\nstirred him profoundly. The silence of the sleeping city, broken now\nand again by the dismal howls of packs of dogs scouring the streets,\nor perhaps by the half-human shrieks of jackals on the deserted hills\nin the outlying country; the dreary solitude of the interminable heaps\nof ruins; the mystery of strange objects half-descried in the\ndistance by starlight, or, at best, by moonlight; the mournful\ndiscovery, on nearer view, of huge building stones tumbled over and\nstrewn about on mountainous heaps of dust and rubbish; the gloom, the\ndesolation, the terror,--all this was enough to make the heart of a\npatriot faint with despair. Was it possible to remedy such huge\ncalamities?\n\n  [162] James i. 27.\n\nNehemiah does not despair. He has no time to grieve. We hear no more\nof his weeping and lamentation and fasting. Now he is spurred on to\ndecisive action.\n\nFortified by the knowledge he has acquired in his adventurous night\nride, and urged by the melancholy sights he has witnessed, Nehemiah\nloses no time in bringing his plans before the oligarchy of nobles who\nheld the rule in Jerusalem previous to his coming, as well as the rest\nof the Jews. Though he is now the officially appointed governor, he\ncannot arrange matters with a high hand. He must enlist the sympathy\nand encourage the faith, both of the leaders and of the people\ngenerally.\n\nThe following points in his speech to the Jews may be noticed. First,\nhe calls attention to the desolate condition of Jerusalem.[163] This\nis a fact well known. \"Ye _see_ the evil case that we are in,\" he\nsays, \"how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned\nwith fire.\" The danger was that apathy would succeed to despair, for\nit is possible for people to become accustomed to the most miserable\ncondition. The reformer must infuse a \"Divine discontent\"; and the\npreliminary step is to get the evil plight well recognised and\nheartily disliked. In the second place, Nehemiah exhorts the nobles\nand people to join him in building the walls. So now he clearly\nreveals his plan. The charm in his utterance here is in the use of the\nfirst person plural: not the first person _singular_--he cannot do the\nwork alone, nor does he wish to; not the _second_ person--though he is\nthe authoritative governor, he does not enjoin on others a task the\ntoil and responsibility of which he will not share himself. In the\ngenuine use of this pronoun \"we\" there lies the secret of all\neffective exhortation. Next Nehemiah proceeds to adduce reasons for\nhis appeal. He calls out the sense of patriotic pride in the remark,\n\"that we be no more a reproach\"; and he goes further, for the Jews are\nthe people of God, and for them to fail is for reproach to be cast on\nthe name of God Himself. Here is the great religious motive for not\npermitting the city of God to lie in ruins, as it is to-day the\nsupreme motive for keeping all taint of dishonour from the Church of\nChrist.\n\n  [163] Neh. ii. 17, 18.\n\nBut direct encouragements are needed. A sense of shame may rouse us\nfrom our lethargy, and yet in the end it will be depressing if it does\nnot give place to the inspiration of a new hope. Now Nehemiah has two\nfresh grounds of encouragement. He first names that which he esteems\nhighest--the presence and help of God in his work. \"I told them,\" he\nsays, \"of the hand of my God which was good upon me.\" How could he\ndespair, even at the spectacle of the ruined walls and gateways, with\nthe consciousness of this great and wonderful truth glowing in his\nheart? Not that he was a mystic weaving fantastic dreams out of the\nfilmy substance of his own vague feelings. It is true he felt impelled\nby the strong urging of his patriotism, and he knew that God was in\nthat holy passion. Yet his was an objective mind and he recognised\nthe hand of God chiefly in external events--in the Providence that\nopens doors and indicates paths, that levels mountains of difficulty\nand fills up impassable chasms, that even bends the wills of great\nkings to do its bidding. This action of Providence he had himself\nwitnessed; his very presence at Jerusalem was a token of it. He, once\na household slave in the jealous seclusion of an Oriental palace, was\nnow the governor of Jerusalem, appointed to his post for the express\npurpose of restoring the miserable city to strength and safety. In all\nthis Nehemiah felt the hand of God upon him. Then it was a gracious\nand merciful Providence that had led him. Therefore he could not but\nown further that the hand of God was \"good.\" He perceived God's work,\nand that work was to him most wonderfully full of lovingkindness. Here\nindeed was the greatest of all encouragements to proceed. It was well\nthat Nehemiah had the devout insight to perceive it; a less\nspiritually minded man might have received the marvellous favour\nwithout ever discovering the hand from which it came. Following the\nexample of the miserable, worldly Jacob, some of us wake up in our\nBethel to exclaim with surprise, \"Surely the Lord is in this place;\nand I knew it not.\"[164] But even that is better than to slumber on in\ndull indifference, too dead to recognise the Presence that guides and\nblesses every footstep, provoking the melancholy lamentation: \"The ox\nknoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not\nknow, My people doth not consider.\"[165]\n\n  [164] Gen. xxviii. 16.\n\n  [165] Isa. i. 3.\n\nLastly, Nehemiah not only perceived the hand of God and took courage\nfrom his assurance of the fact; he made this glorious fact known to\nthe nobles of Jerusalem in order to rouse their enthusiasm. He had the\nsimplicity of earnestness, the openness of one who forgets self in\nadvocating a great cause. Is not reticence in religion too often a\nconsequence of the habit of turning one's thoughts inward? Such a\nhabit will vanish at the touch of a serious purpose. The man who is in\ndead earnest has no time to be self-conscious; he does not indulge in\nsickly reflections on the effect of what he says on other people's\nopinions about himself; he will not care what they think about him so\nlong as he moves them to do the thing it is laid on his soul to urge\nupon them. But it is difficult to escape from the selfish subjectivity\nof modern religion, and recover the grand naturalness of the saints\nalike of Old and of New Testament times.\n\nAfter this revelation of the Divine Presence, Nehemiah's second ground\nof encouragement is of minor interest; it can be but one link in the\nchain of providential leading. Yet for a man who had not reached his\nlofty point of view, it would have filled the whole horizon. The king\nhad given permission to the Jews to rebuild the walls; and he had\nallowed Nehemiah to visit Jerusalem for the very purpose of carrying\nout the work. This king, Artaxerxes, whose firman had stopped the\nearlier attempt and even sanctioned the devastating raid of the\nenemies of the Jews, was now proving himself the friend and champion\nof Jerusalem! Here was cheering news!\n\nIt is not surprising that such a powerful appeal as this of Nehemiah's\nwas successful. It was like the magic horn that awoke the inmates of\nthe enchanted castle. The spell was broken. The long, listless torpor\nof the Jews gave place to hope and energy, and the people braced\nthemselves to commence the work. These Jews who had been so lethargic\nhitherto were now the very men to undertake it. Nehemiah brought no\nnew labourers; but he brought what was better, the one essential\nrequisite for every great enterprise--an inspiration. He brought what\nthe world most needs in every age. We wait for better men to arise and\nundertake the tasks that seem to be too great for our strength; we cry\nfor a new race of God-sent heroes to accomplish the Herculean labours\nbefore which we faint and fail. But we might ourselves become the\nbetter men; nay, assuredly we should become God's heroes, if we would\nbut open our hearts to receive the Spirit by the breath of which the\nweakest are made strong and the most indolent are fired with a Divine\nenergy. To-day, as in the time of Nehemiah, the one supreme need is\ninspiration.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n_BUILDING THE WALLS._\n\nNEHEMIAH iii.\n\n\nThe third chapter of the Book of Nehemiah supplies a striking\nillustration of the constructive character of the history of the Jews\nin the Persian period. Nor is that all. A mechanical, Chinese industry\nmay be found side by side with indications of moral littleness. But\nthe activity displayed in the restoration of the city walls is more\nthan industrious, more than productive. We must be struck with the\nbreadth of the picture. This characteristic was manifest in the\nearlier work of building the temple, and it pervades the subsequent\nreligious movement of the shaping of Judaism and the development of\nThe Law. Here it is apparent in the fact that the Jews unite in a\ngreat common work for the good of the whole community. It was right\nand necessary that they should rebuild their private houses; but\nthough it would appear that some of these houses must have been in a\nvery ruinous condition, for this was the case even with the governor's\nresidence,[166] the great scheme now set on foot was for the public\nadvantage. There is something almost socialistic about the execution\nof it; at all events we meet with that comprehensiveness of view,\nthat elevation of tone, that sinking of self in the interests of\nsociety, which we should look for in true citizenship.\n\n  [166] Neh. ii. 8.\n\nThis is the more noteworthy because the object of the Jews in the\npresent undertaking was what is now called \"secular.\" The earlier\npublic building operations carried out by their fathers had been\nconfessedly and formally religious. Zerubbabel and Jeshua had led a\nband of pilgrims up to Jerusalem for the express purpose of rebuilding\nthe temple, and at first the returned exiles had confined their\nattention to this work and its associated sacrificial rites, without\nrevealing any political ambition, and apparently without even coveting\nany civic privileges. Subsequently some sense of citizenship had begun\nto appear in Ezra's reformation, but every expression of it had been\nsince checked by jealous and hostile influences from without. At\nlength Nehemiah succeeded in rousing the spirit of citizenship by\nmeans of the inspiration of religious faith. The new enthusiasm was\nnot directly concerned with the temple; it aimed at fortifying the\ncity. Yet it sprang from prayer and faith. Thus the Jews were feeling\ntheir way to that sacredness of civic duties which we in the freer air\nof Christianity have been so slow to acknowledge.\n\nThe special form of this activity in the public interest is also\nsignificant. The process of drawing a line round Jerusalem by\nenclosing it within the definite circuit of a wall helped to mark the\nindividuality and unity of the place as a _city_, which an amorphous\ncongerie of houses could not be, according to the ancient estimate,\nbecause the chief distinction between a city and a village was just\nthis, that the city was walled while the village was unwalled. The\nfirst privilege enjoyed by the city would be its security--its\nstrength to withstand assaults. But the walls that shut out foes shut\nin the citizens--a fact which seems to have been present to the mind\nof the poet who wrote,--\n\n  \"Our feet are standing\n  Within thy gates, O Jerusalem;\n  Jerusalem, that art builded\n  As a city that is compact together.\"[167]\n\n  [167] Psalm cxxii. 2, 3.\n\nThe city is \"compact together.\" City life is corporate life. It is not\nat all easy for us to appreciate this fact while our idea of a city is\nonly represented by a crowd of men, women, and children crammed into a\nlimited space, but with scarcely any sense of common life and aims;\nstill less when we look behind the garish splendour of the streets to\nthe misery and degradation, the disease and famine and vice, that make\ntheir nests under the very shadow of wealth and pleasure. Naturally we\nturn with loathing from such sights, and long for the fresh, quiet\ncountry life. But this accidental conglomerate of bricks and human\nbeings is in no sense a city. The true city--such a city as Jerusalem,\nor Athens, or Rome in its best days--is a focus of the very highest\ndevelopment of life known to man. The word \"civilisation\" should\nremind us that it is the city which indicates the difference between\nthe cultivated man and the savage. Originally it was the _civis_, the\ncitizen, who marched in the van of the world's progress. Nor is it\ndifficult to account for his position. Intercommunication of ideas\nsharpening intelligence--\"as iron sharpeneth iron,\"--division of\nlabour permitting the specialisation of industry, combination in work\nmaking it possible for great undertakings to be carried out, the\nnecessity for mutual considerateness among the members of a community\nand the consequent development of the social sympathies, all tend to\nprogress. And the sense of a common life realised in this way has\nweighty moral issues. The larger the social unit becomes, the more\nwill people be freed from pettiness of thought and selfishness of aim.\nThe first step in this direction is made when we regard the family\nrather than the individual as the true unit. If we pass beyond this in\nmodern times, we commonly advance straight on to the whole nation for\nour notion of a compact community. But the stride is too great. Very\nfew people are able to reach the patriotism that sinks self in the\nlarger life of a nation. With a Mazzini, and even with smaller men who\nare magnetised by the passion of such an enthusiast in times of\nexcitement, this may be possible. But with ordinary men in ordinary\ntimes it is not very attainable. How many Englishmen leave legacies\nfor the payment of the National Debt? Still more difficult is it to\nbecome really cosmopolitan, and acquire a sense of the supreme duty of\nliving for mankind. Our Lord has come to our aid here in giving us a\nnew unit--the Church; so that to be a citizen of this \"City of God\" is\nto be called out of the circle of the narrow, selfish interests into\nthe large place where great, common duties and an all-comprehensive\ngood of the whole body are set before us as the chief aims to be\npursued.\n\nIn rebuilding the city walls, then, Nehemiah was accomplishing two\ngood objects; he was fortifying the place, and he was restoring its\norganic unity. The two advantages would be mutually helpful, because\nthe weakness of Jerusalem was destroying the peculiar character of her\nlife. The aristocracy, thinking it impossible to preserve the\ncommunity in isolation, had encouraged and practised intermarriage\nwith neighbouring people, no doubt from a politic regard to the\nadvantage of foreign alliances. Although Nehemiah was not yet prepared\nto grapple with this great question, his fortification of Jerusalem\nwould help the citizens to maintain their Jewish separateness,\naccording to the principle that only the strong can be free.\n\nThe careful report which Nehemiah has preserved of the organisation of\nthis work shows us how complete it was. The whole circuit of the walls\nwas restored. Of course it was most necessary that nothing less should\nbe attempted, because, like the strength of a chain, the strength of a\nfortress is limited to that of its weakest part. And yet--obvious as\nit is--probably most failures, not only in public works, but also in\nprivate lives, are directly attributable to the neglect of this\nelementary principle of defence. The difficulty always is to reach\nthat kind of perfection which is suggested by the circle, rather than\nthe pinnacle--the perfection of completeness. Now in the present\ninstance the completion of the circuit of the walls of Jerusalem\ntestifies to the admirable organising power of Nehemiah, his tact in\nputting the right men in the right places--the most important and\ndifficult duty of a leader of men, and his perseverance in overcoming\nthe obstacles and objections that must have been thrust in his\npath--all of them what people call secular qualities, yet all\nsustained and perfected by a noble zeal and by that transparent\nunselfishness which is the most powerful solvent of the selfishness of\nother people. There are more moral qualities involved in the art of\norganisation than they would suppose who regard it as a hard,\nmechanical contrivance in which human beings are treated like parts\nof a machine. The highest form of organisation is never attained in\nthat brutal manner. Directly we approach men as persons endowed with\nrights, convictions, and feelings, an element of sympathy is called\nfor which makes the organising process a much more delicate concern.\n\nAnother point calls for remark here. Nehemiah's description of his\norganisation of the people for the purpose of building the walls links\nthe several groups of men who were responsible for the different parts\nwith their several districts. The method of division shows a\ndevolution of responsibility. Each gang had its own bit of wall or its\nown gate to see to. The rule regulating the assignment of districts\nwas that, as far as practicable, every man should undertake the work\nopposite his own house. He was literally to \"do the thing that lay\nnearest\" to him in this business. It was in every way a wise\narrangement. It would prevent the disorder and vexation that would be\nexcited if people were running about to select favourite\nsites--choosing the easiest place, or the most prominent, or the\nsafest, or any other desirable spot. Surely there is no principle of\norganisation so simple or so wise as that which directs us to work\nnear home in the first instance. With the Jews this rule would commend\nitself to the instinct of self-interest. Nobody would wish the enemy\nto make a breach opposite his own door, of all places. Therefore the\nmost selfish man would be likely to see to it that the wall near his\nhouse was solidly built. If, however, no other inducements had been\nfelt in the end, the work would have failed of any great public good,\nas all purely selfish work must ultimately fail. There would have\nbeen gaps which it was nobody's interest in particular to fill.\n\nNext it is to be observed that this building was done by \"piece work,\"\nand that with the names of the workmen attached to it, so that if any\nof them did their work ill the fact would be known and recorded to\ntheir lasting disgrace; but also so that if any put an extra amount of\nfinish on their work this too should be known and remembered to their\ncredit. The idle and negligent workman would willingly be lost in the\ncrowd; but this escape was not to be permitted, he must be dragged out\nand set in the pillory of notoriety. On the other hand, the humble and\ndevoted citizen would crave no recognition, doing his task lovingly\nfor the sake of his God and his city, feeling that the work was\neverything--the worker nothing. For his own sake one who labours in\nthis beautiful spirit seems to deserve to be sheltered from the blaze\nof admiration at the thought of which he shrinks back in dismay. And\nyet this is not always possible. St. Paul writes of the day when\n_every_ man's work shall be made manifest.[168] If the honour is\nreally offered to God, who inspires the work, the modesty which leads\nthe human agent to seek the shade may be overstrained, for the servant\nneed not blush to stand in the light when all eyes are directed to his\nMaster. But when honour is offered to the servant also, this may not\nbe without its advantages. Rightly taken it will humble him. He will\nfeel that his unworthiness would not have permitted this if God had\nnot been very gracious to him. Then he will feel also that he has a\ncharacter to maintain. If it is ruinous to lose a reputation--\"the\nbetter part of me,\" as poor Cassio exclaims in his agony of\nremorse--it must be helpful to have one to guard from reproach. \"A\ngood name is rather to be chosen than great riches,\"[169] not only\nbecause of the indirect advantages it brings from the consideration of\nthe world--its mere purchasing power in the market of human favour;\nthis is its least advantage. Its chief value is in the very possession\nof it by one whose honour is involved in living worthily of it.\n\n  [168] 1 Cor. iii. 13.\n\n  [169] Prov. xxii. 1.\n\nFrom another point of view the record of the names of people who have\nrendered good service may be valuable. It will be a stimulus to their\nsuccessors. The Early Church preserved the names of her confessors and\nmartyrs in the diptychs which were expressly provided for use in\npublic worship, that God might be praised for their noble lives, and\nthat the living might be stimulated to follow their example. Here is\none of the great uses of history. We cannot afford to forget the loyal\nservice of the past, because out of it we draw inspiration for the\npresent. The people with a great history have come into a rich\nheritage. To be a child of a really noble house, to spring from a\nfamily truly without reproach--a family all whose sons are pure and\nall whose daughters are brave--surely this is to receive a high\ncommission to cherish the good name unsullied. As the later Jews gazed\nat the towers of Jerusalem and marked well her bulwarks, with the\nthought that this massive strength was the fruit of the toil and\nsacrifice of their own forefathers--so that the very names of\nindividual ancestors were linked with exact spots on the grey\nwalls--they would hear a call to loyal service worthy of their noble\npredecessors.\n\nTo proceed, we may observe further that the groups of builders fall\ninto several classes. The first place is given to the priestly\norder--\"the high-priest and his brethren the priests.\"[170] This is\nquite in accordance with the sacerdotal spirit of the times, when the\ntheocracy was emerging into power to take the place left vacant by the\ndecay of the house of David. But the priests are not only named first.\nNehemiah states that they were the first to respond to his appeal.\n\"_Then_\"--_i.e._, after he had addressed the assembled Jews--\"Then\nEliashib the high-priest _rose up_,\" etc. This man--the grandson of\nJeshua, from whom so much was expected by Zechariah--was the first to\nset his hand to the tremendous task. First in honour, he was first in\nservice. The beauty of his action lies in its silence. Not a word is\nrecorded as spoken by him. But he was not satisfied to sanction the\nwork of humbler men. He led the people in the best possible way, by\nbeginning the work himself, by directly taking upon him his share of\nit. In this noble simplicity of service Eliashib was followed by the\npriesthood generally. These men put forth no claims to immunity from\nthe obligation of civic duties or secular occupations. It never\noccurred to them to object that such employments were in the least\ndegree inconsistent with their high office. The priestly order was\nhampered by the strictest rules of artificial separation; but the\nquaint notion--so common in the East, and not quite unknown in the\nWest--that there is something degrading in hard work did not enter\ninto them.\n\n  [170] Neh. iii. 1.\n\nThere are two points to be noticed in the special work of the priests.\nFirst, _its locality_. These ministers of the temple set up the\n\"Sheep Gate,\" which was the gate nearest to the temple. Thus they made\nthemselves responsible for their own quarters, guarding what was\nespecially entrusted to their care. This was in accordance with the\nplan observed all round the city, that the inhabitants should work in\nthe neighbourhood of their respective houses. The priests, who have\nthe honour of special connection with the temple, feel that a special\ncharge accompanies that honour; and rightly, for responsibility always\nfollows privilege. Second, _its consecration_. The priests\n\"sanctified\" their work--_i.e._, they dedicated it to God. This was\nnot in the sacred enclosure--the _Haram_ as it is now called.\nNevertheless, their gate and wall, as well as their temple, were to be\nreckoned holy. They did not hold the strange modern notion that while\nthe cemetery, the city of the dead, is to de consecrated, the city of\nthe living requires no consecration. They saw that the very stones and\ntimbers of Jerusalem belonged to God, and needed His presence to keep\nthem safe and pure. They were wise, for is He not \"the God of the\nliving\" and of all the concerns of life?\n\nThe next class of workmen is comprised of men who were taken according\nto their families. These would probably be all of them citizens of\nJerusalem, some present by right of birth as descendants of former\ncitizens, others perhaps sprung from the inhabitants of distant towns\nnot yet restored to Israel who had made Jerusalem their home. Their\nduty to fortify their own city was indubitable.\n\nBut now, as in the earlier lists, there is another class among the\nlaity, consisting of the inhabitants of neighbouring towns, who are\narranged, not according to families, but according to their residence.\nMost likely these men were living in Jerusalem at the time; and yet\nit is probable that they retained their interest in their provincial\nlocalities. But Jerusalem was the capital, the centre of the nation,\nthe Holy City. Therefore the inhabitants of other cities must care for\nher welfare. In a great scheme of religious centralisation at\nJerusalem Josiah had found the best means of establishing unity of\nworship, and so of impressing upon the worshippers the idea of the\nunity of God. The same method was still pursued. People were not yet\nripe for the larger thoughts of God and His worship which Jesus\nexpressed by Jacob's well. Until that was reached, external unity with\na visible centre was essential if a multiplex division of divinity was\nto be avoided. After these neighbours who thus helped the metropolis\nwe have two other groups--the temple servants and the trade guilds of\ngoldsmiths and merchants.\n\nNow, while on all sides ready volunteers press forward to the work,\njust one painful exception is found to mar the harmony of the scene,\nor rather to lessen its volume--for this was found in abstention, not\nin active opposition. To their shame it is recorded that the nobles of\nTekoa \"put not their necks to the work of their Lord.\"[171] The\ngeneral body of citizens from this town took part. We are not told why\nthe aristocracy held back. Did they consider the labour beneath their\ndignity? or was there a breach between them and the townsfolk? The\npeople of Tekoa may have been especially democratic. Ages before, a\nherdsman from this same town, the rough prophet Amos, had shown little\nrespect for the great ones of the earth. Possibly the Tekoites had\nvexed their princes by showing a similar spirit of independence. But\nif so, Nehemiah would regard their conduct as affording the princes no\nexcuse. For it was the Lord's work that these nobles refused to\nundertake, and there is no justification for letting God's service\nsuffer when a quarrel has broken out between His servants. Yet how\ncommon is this miserable result of divisions among men who should be\nunited in the service of God. Whatever was the cause--whether it was\nsome petty personal offence or some grave difference of opinion--these\nnobles go down the ages, like those unhappy men in the early days of\nthe Judges who earned the \"curse of Meroz,\" disgraced eternally, for\nno positive offence, but simply because they left undone what they\nought to have done. Nehemiah pronounces no curse. He chronicles the\nbare fact. But his ominous silence in regard to any explanation is\nseverely condemnatory. The man who builds his house on the sand in\nhearing Christ's words and doing them not, the servant who is beaten\nwith many stripes because he knows his lord's will and does not\nperform it, that other servant who buries his talent, the virgins who\nforget to fill their vessels with oil, the people represented by goats\non the left hand whose sole ground of accusation is that they refused\nto exercise the common charities--all these illustrate the important\nbut neglected truth that our Lord's most frequent words of\ncondemnation were expressed for what we call negative evil--the evil\nof harmless but useless lives.\n\n  [171] Neh. iii. 5.\n\nHappily we may set exceptional devotion in another quarter over\nagainst the exceptional remissness of the nobles of Tekoa. Brief as is\nhis summary of the division of the work, Nehemiah is careful to slip\nin a word of praise for one Baruch the son of Zabbai, saying that\nthis man \"_earnestly_ repaired\" his portion.[172] That one word\n\"earnestly\" is a truer stamp of worth than all the honours claimed by\nthe abstaining nobles on grounds of rank or pedigree; it goes down the\ncenturies as the patent of true nobility in the realm of industry.\n\n  [172] Neh. iii. 20.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n\"_MARK YE WELL HER BULWARKS._\"\n\nNEHEMIAH iii.\n\n\nThe Book of Nehemiah is our principal authority for the ancient\ntopography of Jerusalem. But, as we have been already reminded, the\nsieges from which the city has suffered, and the repeated destruction\nof its walls and buildings, have obliterated many of the old landmarks\nbeyond recovery. In some places the ground is now found to be raised\nsixty feet above the original surface; and in one spot it was even\nnecessary to dig down a hundred and twenty feet to reach the level of\nthe old pavement. It is therefore not at all wonderful that the\nattempt to identify the sites here named should have occasioned not a\nlittle perplexity. Still the explorations of underground Jerusalem\nhave brought some important facts to light, and others can be fairly\ndivined from a consideration of the historical record in the light of\nthe more general features of the country, which no wars or works of\nman can alter.\n\nThe first, because the most obvious, thing to be noted in considering\nthe site of Jerusalem is its mountainous character. Jerusalem is a\nmountain city, as high as a Dartmoor tor, some two thousand feet above\nthe Mediterranean, with a drop of nearly four thousand feet on the\nfarther side, beyond the Mount of Olives, towards the deep pit where\nthe Dead Sea steams in tropical heat. Looked at from the wilderness,\nthrough a gap in the hills round Bethlehem, she soars above us, with\nher white domes and towers clean-cut against the burning sky, like a\ncity of clouds. In spite of the blazing southern sunshine, the air\nbites keenly on that fine altitude. It would be only reasonable to\nsuppose that the vigour of the highlanders who dwelt in Jerusalem was\nbraced by the very atmosphere of their home. And yet we have had to\ntrace every impulse of zeal and energy after the restoration to the\nrelaxing plains of the Euphrates and the Tigris! In all history the\nmoral element counts for more than the material. Race is more than\n_habitat_; and religion is more than race.\n\nClosely associated with this mountainous character of Jerusalem is a\nsecond feature. It is clear that the site for the city was chosen\nbecause of its singularly valuable ready-made defences. Jerusalem is a\nnatural fortress. Protected on three sides by deep ravines, it would\nseem that she could be easily made impregnable. How awful, then, is\nthe irony of her destiny! This city, so rarely favoured by nature for\nsecurity against attack, has been more often assaulted and captured,\nand has suffered more of the horrors of war, than any other spot on\nearth.\n\nThe next fact to be noticed is the small size of Jerusalem. The\ndimensions of the city have varied in different ages. Under the Herods\nthe buildings extended far beyond the ancient limits, and villas were\ndotted about on the outlying hills. But in Nehemiah's day the city was\nconfined within a surprisingly contracted area. The discovery of the\n\"Siloam inscription,\" leading to the identification of the gorge known\nto the Romans as the _Tyropoeon_ with the ancient \"Valley of\nHinnom\" or \"Tophet,\" cuts off the whole of the modern Zion from the\nsite of the ancient city, and points to the conclusion that the old\nZion must have been nearer Moriah, and all Jerusalem crowded in the\nlittle space to the east of the chasm which was once thought to have\nrun up through the middle of the city. No doubt the streets were\nnarrow; the houses may have been high. Still the population was but\nslender, for after the walls had been built Nehemiah found the space\nhe had enclosed too large for the inhabitants.[173] But our interest\nin Jerusalem is in no way determined by her size, or by the number of\nher citizens. A little town in a remote province, she was politically\ninsignificant enough when viewed from the standpoint of Babylon, and\nin comparison with the many rich and populous cities of the vast\nPersian dominions. It is the more remarkable, then, that successive\nPersian sovereigns should have bestowed rare favours on her. From the\nday when Solomon built his temple, the unique glory of this city had\nbegun to appear. Josiah's reformation in concentrating the national\nworship at Jerusalem advanced her peculiar privileges, which the\nrebuilding of the temple before the restoration of the city further\npromoted. Jerusalem is the religious metropolis of the world. To be\nfirst in religious honour it was not necessary that she should be\nspacious or populous. Size and numbers count for very little in\nreligion. Its valuation is qualitative, not quantitative. Even the\nextent of its influence, even the size and mass of this, depends\nmainly on its character. Moreover, in Jerusalem, as a rule, the really\neffective religious life was confined to a small group of the\n\"pious\"; sometimes it was gathered up in a single individual--a\nJeremiah, an Ezra, a Nehemiah. This is a fact replete with\nencouragement for faith. It is an instance of the way in which God\nchooses the weak things--weak as to this world--to confound the\nstrong. If a small city could once take the unique position held by\nJerusalem, then why should not a small Church now? And if a little\nknot of earnest men within the city could be the nucleus of her\ncharacter and the source of her influence, why should not quite a\nsmall group of earnest people give a character to their Church, and,\nthrough the Church, work wonders in the world, as the grain of mustard\nseed could move a mountain? The secret of the miracle is, like the\nsecret of nature, that God is in the city and the Church, as God is in\nthe seed. When once we have discovered this truth as a certain fact of\nlife and history, our estimate of the relative greatness of things is\nrevolutionised. The map and the census then cease to answer our most\npressing questions. The excellence we look for must be spiritual--vigour\nof faith, self-abnegation of love, passion of zeal.\n\n  [173] Neh. xi. 1.\n\nAs we follow Nehemiah round the circuit of the walls the more special\nfeatures of the city are brought under our notice. He begins with the\n\"Sheep Gate,\" which was evidently near the temple, and the\nconstruction of which was undertaken by the priests as the first piece\nof work in the great enterprise. The name of this gate agrees well\nwith its situation. Opening on the Valley of the Kidron, and facing\nthe Mount of Olives and the lonely pass over the hills towards\nJericho, it would be the gate through which shepherds would bring in\ntheir flocks from the wide pasturage of the wilderness. Possibly there\nwas a market at the open space just inside. The vicinity of the\ntemple would make it easy to bring up the victims for the sacrifices\nby this way. As the Passover season approached, the whole\nneighbourhood would be alive with the bleating of thousands of lambs.\nRich associations would thus cluster round the name of this gate. It\nwould be suggestive of the pastoral life so much pursued by the men of\nJudah, whose favourite king had been a shepherd lad; and it would call\nup deeper thoughts of the mystery of sacrifice and the joy of the\nPaschal redemption of Israel. To us Christians the situation of the\n\"Sheep Gate\" has a far more touching significance. It seems to have\nstood near where the \"St. Stephen's Gate\" now stands; here, then,\nwould be the way most used by our Lord in coming to and fro between\nJerusalem and Bethany, the way by which He went out to Gethsemane on\nthe last night, and probably the way by which He was brought back \"as\na sheep\" among her shearers, \"as a lamb\" led to the slaughter.\n\nGoing round from this spot northwards, we have the part of the wall\nbuilt by the men of Jericho, which would still look east, towards\ntheir own city, so that they would always see their work when they got\ntheir first glimpse of Jerusalem as they passed over the ridge of the\nMount of Olives on their pilgrimages up to the feasts. The task of the\nmen of Jericho ended at one of the northern gates, the construction of\nwhich, together with the fitting of its ponderous bolts and bars, was\nconsidered enough for another group of builders. This was called the\n\"Fish Gate.\" Since it faced north, it would scarcely have been used by\nthe traders who came up from the sea fisheries in the Mediterranean;\nit must have received the fish supply from the Jordan, and perhaps\nfrom as far as the Sea of Galilee. Still its name suggests a wider\nrange of commerce than the \"Sheep Gate,\" which let in flocks chiefly\nfrom neighbouring hills. Jerusalem was in a singularly isolated spot\nfor the capital of a country, one chosen expressly on account of its\ninaccessibility--the very opposite requisite from that of most\ncapitals, which are planted by navigable rivers. Nevertheless she\nmaintained communication, both political and commercial, with distant\ntowns all along the ages of her chequered history.\n\nAfter passing the work of one or two Jewish families and that of the\nTekoites, memorable for the painful fact of the abstention of the\nnobles, we come to the \"Old Gate.\" That a gate should bear such a name\nwould lead us to think that once gates had not been so numerous as\nthey were at this time. Yet most probably the \"Old Gate\" was really\nnew, because very little of the original city remained above ground.\nBut men love to perpetuate memories of the past. Even what is new in\nfact may acquire a flavour of age by the force of association. The\nwise reformer will follow the example of Nehemiah in linking the new\non to the old, and preserving the venerable associations of antiquity\nwherever these do not hinder present efficiency.\n\nNext we come to the work of men from the northern Benjamite towns of\nGibeon and Mizpah,[174] whose volunteer service was a mark of their\nown brotherly spirit. It should be remembered, however, that Jerusalem\noriginally belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. Working at the northern\nwall, in accordance with the rule observed throughout that all the\nJews from outlying places should build in the direction of their own\ncities, these Benjamites carried it on as far as the districts of the\ngoldsmiths and apothecaries,[175] whose principal bazaars seem to have\noccupied the north quarter of the city--the quarter most suitable for\ntrade, because first reached by most travellers. There, however--if we\nare to accept the generally received emendation of the text mentioned\nin the margin of the Revised Version--they found a bit of wall that\nhad escaped destruction, and also probably the \"Ephraim Gate,\" which\nis not named here, although it existed in the days of Nehemiah.[176]\nInasmuch as the invasions had come from the north, and the recent\nSamaritan raid had also proceeded from the same quarter, it seems\nlikely that the city had been taken on this side. If so, the enemy,\nafter having got in through a gate which they had burnt, or through a\nbreach in the wall, did not think it necessary to waste time in the\nheavy labour of tearing down the wall in their rear. Perhaps as this\nwas the most exposed quarter, the wall was most solid here--it was\nknown as \"the _broad_ wall.\" The wealthy goldsmiths would have been\nanxious that their bazaars should not be the first parts of the city\nto entertain a marauding host through any weakness in the defences.\nThe next bit of wall was in the hands of a man of some importance,\nknown as \"the ruler of half the district of Jerusalem\";[177] _i.e._,\nhe had the management of half the land belonging to the city--either a\nsort of police supervision of private estates, or the direct control\nof land owned by the municipality, and possibly farmed for the time\nbeing on communal principles.\n\n  [174] Neh. iii. 7.\n\n  [175] Neh. iii. 8.\n\n  [176] Neh. viii. 16.\n\n  [177] Neh. iii. 9.\n\nStill following the northern wall, we pass the work of several\nJerusalem families, and so on to the potteries, as we may infer from\nthe remark about \"the tower of the _furnaces_.\"[178] Here we must be\nat the \"Corner Gate,\"[179] which, however, is not now named; \"the\ntower of the furnaces\" may have been part of its fortifications.\nEvidently this was an important position. The manager of the second\nhalf of the city estates and the villages on them--known as \"his\ndaughters\"--had the charge of the work here. It was four hundred\ncubits from the \"Ephraim Gate\" to the corner.[180] At this point the\nlong north wall ends, and the fortifications take a sharp turn\nsouthwards. Following the new direction, we pass by the course of the\nValley of Hinnom, leaving it on our right. The next gate we meet is\nnamed after this ravine of evil omen the \"Valley Gate.\" It would be\nhere that the poor children, victims to the savage Moloch worship, had\nbeen led out to their fate. The name of the gate would be a perpetual\nreminder of the darkest passage in the old city's history of sin and\nshame. The gate would face west, and, in accordance with the\narrangement throughout, the inhabitants of Zanoah, a town lying out\nfrom Jerusalem ten miles in that direction, undertook the erection of\nit. They also had charge of a thousand cubits of wall--an\nexceptionally long piece; but the gates were fewer on this side, and\nhere possibly the steepness of the cliff rendered a slighter wall\nsufficient.\n\n  [178] Neh. iii. 11.\n\n  [179] 2 Chron. xxvi. 9; Jer. xxxi. 38.\n\n  [180] 2 Kings xiv. 13.\n\nThis long, unbroken stretch of wall ends at the \"Dung Gate,\" through\nwhich the refuse of the city was flung out to the now degraded valley\nwhich once had been so famous for its pleasure gardens. Sanitary\nregulations are of course most necessary. We admire the minuteness\nwith which they are attended to in the Pentateuch, and we regard the\nfilthy condition of modern eastern cities as a sign of neglect and\ndecay. Still the adornment of a grand gateway by the temple, or the\nsolid building of a noble approach to the city along the main route\nfrom the north, would be a more popular undertaking than this\nconstruction of a \"Dung Gate.\" It is to the credit of Nehemiah's\nadmirable skill in organisation that no difficulty was found in\nfilling up the less attractive parts of his programme, and it is even\nmore to the credit of those who accepted the allotment of them that,\nas far as we know, they made no complaint. A common zeal for the\npublic good overcame personal prejudices. The just and firm\napplication of a universal rule is a great preventative of complaints\nin such a case. When the several bands of workers were to undertake\nthe districts opposite their own houses if they were inhabitants of\nthe city, or opposite their own towns if they were provincial Jews, it\nwould be difficult for any of them to frame a complaint. The builders\nof the \"Dung Gate\" came, it would seem, from the most conspicuous\neminence in the wilderness of Southern Judaea--that now known as the\n\"Frank Mountain.\" The people who would take to such an out-of-the-world\nplace of abode would hardly be such as we should look to for work requiring\nfineness of finish. Perhaps they were more suited to the unpretentious task\nwhich fell to their lot. Still this consideration does not detract from the\ncredit of their good-natured acquiescence, for self-seeking people are the\nlast to admit that they are not fit for the best places.\n\nThe next gate was in a very interesting position at the south-west\ncorner, where the _Tyropoeon_ runs down to the Valley of the Kidron.\nIt was called the \"Fountain Gate,\" perhaps after the one natural\nspring which Jerusalem possesses--that now known as the \"Virgin's\nFountain,\" and near to the Pool of Siloam, where the precious water\nfrom this spring was stored. The very name of the gate would call up\nthoughts of the value of its site in times of siege, when the fountain\nhad to be \"sealed\" or covered over, to save it from being tampered\nwith by the enemy. Close by is a flight of steps, still extant, that\nformerly led down to the king's garden. We are now near to Zion, in\nwhat was once the favourite and most aristocratic portion of the town.\nThe lowering of the top of Zion in the time of the Maccabees, that it\nmight not overlook the temple on Mount Moriah, and the filling up of\nthe ravines, considerably detract from the once imposing height of\nthis quarter of the city. Here ancient Jerusalem had looked\nsuperb--like an eagle perched on a rock. With such a fortress as Zion\nher short-sighted citizens had thought her impregnable; but Nehemiah's\ncontemporaries were humbler and wiser men than the infatuated Jews who\nhad rejected the warnings of Jeremiah.\n\nThe adjoining piece of wall brings us round to the tombs of the kings,\nwhich, according to the custom of antiquity, as we learn from a\ncuneiform inscription at Babylon, were within the city walls, although\nthe tombs of less important people were outside--just as to this day\nwe bury our illustrious dead in the heart of the metropolis. Nehemiah\nhad been moved at the first report of the ruin of Jerusalem by the\nthought that his fathers' sepulchres were there.\n\nFrom this spot it is not so easy to trace the remainder of the wall.\nThe mention of the Levites has given rise to the opinion that Nehemiah\nnow takes us at once to the temple again; but this is hardly possible\nin view of his subsequent statements. We must first work round by\nOphel, the \"Water\", the \"East,\" and the \"Horse\" Gates--all of them\napparently leading out towards the Valley of the Kidron. Levites and\nPriests, whose quarters we are gradually approaching, and other\ninhabitants of houses in this district, together with people from the\nJordan Valley and the east country, carried out this last piece of\nwork as far as a great tower standing out between Ophel and the corner\nof the temple wall, a tower so massive that some of its masonry can be\nseen still standing. But the narrative is here so obscure, and the\nsites have been so altered by the ravages of war and time, that the\nidentification of most of them in this direction baffles inquiry.\n\n\"Mark ye well her bulwarks.\" Alas! they are buried in a desolation so\nhuge that the utmost skill of engineering science fails to trace their\ncourse. The latest great discovery, which has simply revolutionised\nthe map by identifying the _Tyropoeon_ with the Old Testament\n\"Valley of Hinnom\" or \"Tophet,\" is the most striking sign of these\ntopographical difficulties. The valley itself has been filled up with\nmasses of rubbish, the sight of which to-day confirms the dreadful\ntragedy of the history of Jerusalem, the most tragic history on\nrecord. No city was ever more favoured by Heaven, and no city was ever\nmore afflicted. Hers were the most magnificent endowments, the highest\nideals, the fairest promises; hers too was the most miserable failure.\nHer beauty ravaged, her sanctity defiled, her light extinguished, her\njoy turned into bitterness, Heaven's bride has been treated as the\nscum of the streets. And now, after being abused by her own children,\nshattered by the Babylonian, outraged by the Syrian, demolished by the\nRoman, the city which stoned her prophets and clamoured successfully\nfor the death of her Saviour has again revived in poverty and\nmisery--the pale ghost of her past, still the victim of the oppressor.\nThe witchery of this wonderful city fascinates us to-day, and the very\nsyllables of her name \"JERUSALEM\" sound strangely sweet and ineffably\nsad--\n\n  \"Most musical, most melancholy.\"\n\nIt was fitting that the tenderest, most mournful lament ever uttered\nshould have been called forth by our Lord's contemplation of such a\ncity--a city which, deeming herself destined to be the joy of all the\nearth, became the plague-spot of history.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n_ON GUARD._\n\nNEHEMIAH ii. 10, 19; iv.\n\n\nAll his arrangements for rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem show that\nNehemiah was awake to the dangers with which he was surrounded. The\nsecrecy of his night ride was evidently intended to prevent a\npremature revelation of his plans. The thorough organisation, the\nmapping out of the whole line of the wall, and the dividing of the\nbuilding operations among forty-two bands of workpeople, secured equal\nand rapid progress on all sides. Evidently the idea was to \"rush\" the\nwork, and to have it fairly well advanced, so as to afford a real\nprotection for the citizens, before any successful attempts to\nfrustrate it could be carried out. Even with all these precautions,\nNehemiah was harassed and hindered for a time by the malignant devices\nof his enemies. It was only to be expected that he would meet with\nopposition. But a few years before all the Syrian colonists had united\nin extracting an order from Artaxerxes for the arrest of the earlier\nwork of building the walls, because the Jews had made themselves\nintensely obnoxious to their neighbours by sending back the wives they\nhad married from among the Gentile peoples. The jealousy of Samaria,\nwhich had taken the lead in Palestine so long as Jerusalem was in\nevidence, envenomed this animosity still more. Was it likely then that\nher watchful foes would hear with equanimity of the revival of the\nhated city--a city which must have seemed to them the very embodiment\nof the anti-social spirit?\n\nNow, however, since a favourite servant of the Great King had been\nappointed governor of Jerusalem, the Satrap of the Syrian provinces\ncould scarce be expected to interfere. Therefore the initiative fell\ninto the hands of smaller men, who found it necessary to abandon the\nmethod of direct hostility, and to proceed by means of intrigues and\nambuscades. There were three who made themselves notorious in this\nundignified course of procedure. Two of them are mentioned in\nconnection with the journey of Nehemiah up to Jerusalem.[181] The\nfirst, the head of the whole opposition, is Sanballat, who is called\nthe Horonite, seemingly because he is a native of one of the\nBeth-horons, and who appears to be the governor of the city of\nSamaria, although this is not stated. Throughout the history he comes\nbefore us repeatedly as the foe of the rival governor of Jerusalem.\nNext to him comes Tobiah, a chief of the little trans-Jordanic tribe\nof the Ammonites, some of whom had got into Samaria in the strange\nmixing up of peoples after the Babylonian conquest. He is called the\nservant, possibly because he once held some post at court, and if so\nhe may have been personally jealous of Nehemiah's promotion.\n\n  [181] Neh. ii. 10.\n\nSanballat and his supporter Tobiah were subsequently joined by an\nArabian Emir named Geshem. His presence in the group of conspirators\nwould be surprising if we had not been unexpectedly supplied with the\nmeans of accounting for it in the recently deciphered inscription\nwhich tells how Sargon imported an Arabian colony into Samaria. The\nArab would scent prey in the project of a warlike expedition.\n\nThe opposition proceeded warily. At first we are only told that when\nSanballat and his friend Tobiah heard of the coming of Nehemiah, \"it\ngrieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare\nof the children of Israel.\"[182] In writing these caustic words\nNehemiah implies that the jealous men had no occasion to fear that he\nmeant any harm to them, and that they knew this. It seems very hard to\nhim, then, that they should begrudge any alleviation of the misery of\nthe poor citizens of Jerusalem. What was that to them? Jealousy might\nforesee the possibility of future loss from the recovery of the rival\ncity, and in this they might find the excuse for their action, an\nexcuse for not anticipating which so fervent a patriot as Nehemiah may\nbe forgiven; nevertheless the most greedy sense of self-interest on\nthe part of these men is lost sight of in the virulence of their\nhatred to the Jews. This is always the case with that cruel\ninfatuation--the Anti-Semitic rage. Here it is that hatred passes\nbeyond mere anger. Hatred is actually pained at the welfare of its\nobject. It suffers from a Satanic misery. The venom which it fails to\nplant in its victim rankles in its own breast.\n\n  [182] Neh. ii. 10.\n\nAt first we only hear of this odious distress of the jealous\nneighbours. But the prosecutions of Nehemiah's immediately lead to a\nmanifestation of open hostility--verbal in the beginning. No sooner\nhad the Jews made it evident that they were responsive to their\nleader's appeal and intended to rise and build, than they were\nassailed with mockery. The Samaritan and Ammonite leaders were now\njoined by the Arabian, and together they sent a message of scorn and\ncontempt, asking the handful of poor Jews whether they were fortifying\nthe city in order to rebel against the king. The charge of a similar\nintention had been the cause of stopping the work on the previous\noccasion.[183] Now that Artaxerxes' favourite cup-bearer was at the\nhead of affairs, any suspicion of treason was absurd; but since hatred\nis singularly blind--far more blind than love--it is barely possible\nthat the malignant mockers hoped to raise a suspicion. On the other\nhand, there is no evidence to show that they followed the example of\nthe previous opposition and reported to headquarters. For the present\nthey seem to have contented themselves with bitter raillery. This is a\nweapon before which weak men too often give way. But Nehemiah was not\nso foolish as to succumb beneath a shower of poor, ill-natured jokes.\n\n  [183] Ezra iv. 13.\n\nHis answer is firm and dignified.[184] It contains three assertions.\nThe first is the most important. Nehemiah is not ashamed to confess\nthe faith which is the source of all his confidence. In the eyes of\nmen the Jews may appear but a feeble folk, quite unequal to the task\nof holding their ground in the midst of a swarm of angry foes. If\nNehemiah had only taken account of the political and military aspects\nof affairs, he might have shrunk from proceeding. But it is just the\nmark of his true greatness that he always has his eye fixed on a\nHigher Power. He knows that God is in the project, and therefore he is\nsure that it must prosper. When a man can reach this conviction,\nmockery and insult do not move him. He has climbed to a serene\naltitude, from which he can look down with equanimity on the boiling\nclouds that are now far beneath his feet. Having this sublime ground\nof confidence, Nehemiah is able to proceed to his second point--his\nassertion of the determination of the Jews to arise and build. This is\nquite positive and absolute. The brave man states it, too, in the\nclearest possible language. Now the work is about to begin there is to\nbe no subterfuge or disguise. Nehemiah's unflinching determination is\nbased on the religious confession that precedes it. The Jews are God's\nservants; they are engaged in His work; they know He will prosper\nthem; therefore they most certainly will not stay their hand for all\nthe gibes and taunts of their neighbours. Lastly, Nehemiah\ncontemptuously repudiates the claim of these impertinent intruders to\ninterfere in the work of the Jews; he tells them that they have no\nexcuse for their meddling, for they own no property in Jerusalem, they\nhave no right of citizenship or of control from without, and there are\nno tombs of _their_ ancestors in the sacred city.\n\n  [184] Neh. ii. 20.\n\nIn this message of Nehemiah's we seem to hear an echo of the old words\nwith which the temple-builders rejected the offer of assistance from\nthe Samaritans, and which were the beginning of the whole course of\njealous antagonism on the part of the irritated neighbours. But the\ncircumstances are entirely altered. It is not a friendly offer of\nco-operation, but its very opposite, a hostile and insulting message\ndesigned to hinder the Jews, that is here so proudly resented. In the\nreply of Nehemiah we hear the Church refusing to bend to the will of\nthe world, because the world has no right to trespass on her\nterritory. God's work is not to be tampered with by insolent\nmeddlers. Jewish exclusiveness is painfully narrow, at least in our\nestimation of it, when it refuses to welcome strangers or to recognise\nthe good that lies outside the sacred enclosure; but this same\ncharacteristic becomes a noble quality, with high ethical and\nreligious aims, when it firmly refuses to surrender its duty to God at\nthe bidding of the outside world. The Christian can scarcely imitate\nNehemiah's tone and temper in this matter; and yet if he is loyal to\nhis God he will feel that he must be equally decided and\nuncompromising in declining to give up any part of what he believes to\nbe his service of Christ to please men who unhappily as yet have \"no\npart, or right, or memorial\" in the New Jerusalem; although, unlike\nthe Jew of old, he will be only too glad that all men should come in\nand share his privileges.\n\nAfter receiving an annoying answer it was only natural that the\nantagonistic neighbours of the Jews should be still more embittered in\ntheir animosity. At the first news of his coming to befriend the\nchildren of Israel, as Nehemiah says, Sanballat and Tobiah were\ngrieved; but when the building operations were actually in process the\nSamaritan leader passed from vexation to rage--\"he was wroth and took\ngreat indignation.\"[185] This man now assumed the lead in opposition\nto the Jews. His mockery became more bitter and insulting. In this he\nwas joined by his friend the Ammonite, who declared that if only one\nof the foxes that prowl on the neighbouring hills were to jump upon\nthe wall the creature would break it down.[186] Perhaps he had\nreceived a hint from some of his spies that the new work that had been\nso hastily pressed forward was not any too solid. The \"Palestine\nExploration Fund\" has brought to light the foundations of what is\nbelieved to be a part of Nehemiah's wall at Ophel, and the base of it\nis seen to be of rubble, not founded on the rock, but built on the\nclay above, so that it has been possible to drive a mine under it from\none side to the other--a rough piece of work, very different from the\nbeautifully finished temple walls.[187]\n\n  [185] Neh. iv. 1.\n\n  [186] Neh. iv. 3.\n\n  [187] Conder, \"Bible Geography,\" p. 131\n\nNehemiah met the renewed shower of insults in a startling manner. He\ncursed his enemies.[188] Deploring before God the contempt that was\nheaped on the Jews, he prayed that the reproach of the enemies might\nbe turned on their own head, devoted them to the horrors of a new\ncaptivity, and even went so far as to beg that no atonement might be\nfound for their iniquity, that their sin might not be blotted out. In\na word, instead of himself forgiving his enemies, he besought that\nthey might not be forgiven by God. We shudder as we read his terrible\nwords. This is not the Christ spirit. It is even contrary to the less\nmerciful spirit of the Old Testament. Yet, to be just to Nehemiah, we\nmust consider the whole case. It is most unfair to tear his curse out\nof the history and gibbet it as a specimen of Jewish piety. Even\nstrong men who will not give way before ridicule may feel its\nstabs--for strength is not inconsistent with sensitiveness. Evidently\nNehemiah was irritated; but then he was much provoked. For the moment\nhe lost his self-possession. We must remember that the strain of his\ngreat undertaking was most exhausting, and we must be patient with the\nutterances of one so sorely tried. If lethargic people criticise\nadversely the hasty utterances of a more intense nature, they forget\nthat, though they may never lose their self-control, neither do they\never rouse themselves to the daring energy of the man whose failings\nthey blame. Then it was not any personal insults hurled against\nhimself that Nehemiah resented so fiercely. It was his work that the\nSamaritans were trying to hinder. This he believed to be really God's\nwork, so that the insults offered to the Jews were also directed\nagainst God, who must have been angry also. We cannot justify the\ncurse by the standard of the Christian law; but it is not reasonable\nto apply that standard to it. We must set it by the side of the\nMaledictory Psalms. From the standpoint of its author it can be fully\naccounted for. To say that even in this way it can be defended,\nhowever, is to go too far. We have no occasion to persuade ourselves\nthat any of the Old Testament saints were immaculate, even in the\nlight of Judaism. Nehemiah was a great and good man, yet he was not an\nOld Testament Christ.\n\n  [188] Neh. iv. 4.\n\nBut now more serious opposition was to be encountered. Such enemies as\nthose angry men of Samaria were not likely to be content with venting\ntheir spleen in idle mockery. When they saw that the keenest shafts of\ntheir wit failed to stop the work of the citizens of Jerusalem,\nSanballat and his friends found it necessary to proceed to more active\nmeasures, and accordingly they entered into a conspiracy for the\ndouble purpose of carrying on actual warfare and of intriguing with\ndisaffected citizens of Jerusalem--\"to cause confusion therein.\"[189]\nNehemiah was too observant and penetrating a statesman not to become\naware of what was going on; the knowledge that the plots existed\nrevealed the extent of his danger, and compelled him to make active\npreparations for thwarting them. We may notice several important\npoints in the process of the defence.\n\n  [189] Neh. iv. 8, 11.\n\n1. _Prayer._--This was the first, and in Nehemiah's mind the most\nessential defensive measure. We find him resorting to it in every\nimportant juncture of his life. It is his sheet-anchor. But now he\nuses the plural number. Hitherto we have met only with his private\nprayers. In the present case he says, \"_We_ made _our_ prayer unto\n_our_ God.\"[190] Had the infection of his prayerful spirit reached his\nfellow-citizens, so that they now shared it? Was it that the imminence\nof fearful danger drove to prayer men who under ordinary circumstances\nforgot their need of God? Or were both influences at work? However it\nwas brought about, this association in prayer of some of the Jews with\ntheir governor must have been the greatest comfort to him, as it was\nthe best ground for the hope that God would not now let them fall into\nthe hands of the enemy. Hitherto there had been a melancholy\nsolitariness about the earnest devotion of Nehemiah. The success of\nhis mission began to show itself when the citizens began to\nparticipate in the same spirit of devotion.\n\n  [190] Neh. iv. 9.\n\n2. _Watchfulness._--Nehemiah was not the fanatic to blunder into the\ndelusion that prayer was a substitute for duty, instead of being its\ninspiration. All that followed the prayer was really based upon it.\nThe calmness, hope, and courage won in the high act of communion with\nGod made it possible to take the necessary steps in the outer world.\nSince the greatest danger was not expected as an open assault, it was\nmost necessary that an unbroken watch should be maintained, day and\nnight. Nehemiah had spies out in the surrounding country, who reported\nto him every planned attack. So thorough was this system of espionage,\nthat though no less than ten plots were concocted by the enemy, they\nwere all discovered to Nehemiah, and all frustrated by him.\n\n3. _Encouragement._--The Jews were losing heart. The men of Judah came\nto Nehemiah with the complaint that the labourers who were at work on\nthe great heaps of rubbish were suffering from exhaustion. The\nreduction in the numbers of workmen, owing to the appointment of the\nguard, would have still further increased the strain of those who were\nleft to toil among the mounds. But it would have been fatal to draw\nback at this juncture. That would have been to invite the enemy to\nrush in and complete the discomfiture of the Jews. On Nehemiah came\nthe obligation of cheering the dispirited citizens. Even the leading\nmen, who should have rallied the people, like officers at the head of\ntheir troops, shared the general depression. Nehemiah was again\nalone--or at best supported by the silent sympathy of his companions\nin prayer. There was very nearly a panic; and for one man to stand out\nunder such circumstances as these in solitary courage, not only\nresisting the strong contagion of fear, but stemming the tide and\ncounteracting its movement, this would be indeed the sublimity of\nheroism. It was a severe test for Nehemiah; and he came out of it\ntriumphant. His faith was the inspiration of his own courage, and it\nbecame the ground for the encouragement of others. He addressed the\npeople and their nobles in a spirited appeal. First, he exhorted them\nto banish fear. The very tone of his voice must have been reassuring;\nthe presence of one brave man in a crowd of cowards often shames them\nout of their weakness. But Nehemiah proceeded to give reasons for his\nencouragement. Let the men remember their God Jehovah, how great and\nterrible He is! The cause is His, and His might and terror will defend\nit. Let them think of their people and their families, and fight for\nbrethren and children, for wives and homes! Cowardice is unbelief and\nselfishness combined. Trust in God and a sense of duty to others will\nmaster the weakness.\n\n4. _Arms._--Nehemiah gave the first place to the spiritual and moral\ndefences of Jerusalem. Yet his material defences were none the less\nthorough on account of his prayers to God or his eloquent exhortation\nof the people and their leaders. They were most complete.\n\nHis arrangements for the military protection of Jerusalem converted\nthe whole city into an armed camp. Half the citizens in turn were to\nleave their work, and stand at arms with swords and spears and bows.\nEven in the midst of the building operations the clatter of weapons\nwas heard among the stones, because the masons at work on the walls\nand the labourers while they poised on their heads baskets full of\nrubbish from the excavations had swords attached to their sashes.\nResidents of the suburbs were required to stay in the city instead of\nreturning home for the night, and no man could put off a single\narticle of clothing when he lay down to sleep. Nor was this martial\narray deemed sufficient without some special provision against a\nsurprise. Nehemiah therefore went about with a trumpeter, ready to\nsummon all hands to any point of danger on the first alarm.\n\nStill, though the Jews were hampered with these preparations for\nbattle, tired with toil and watching, and troubled by dreadful\napprehensions, the work went on. This is a great proof of the\nexcellency of Nehemiah's generalship. He did not sacrifice the\nbuilding to the fighting. The former was itself designed to produce a\npermanent defence, while the arms were only for temporary use. When\nthe walls were up the citizens could give the laugh back to their\nfoes. But in itself the very act of working was reassuring. Idleness\nis a prey to fears which industry has no time to entertain. Every man\nwho tries to do his duty as a servant of God is unconsciously building\na wall about himself that will be his shelter in the hour of peril.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n_USURY._\n\nNEHEMIAH v.\n\n\nWe open the fifth chapter of \"Nehemiah\" with a shock of pain. The\nprevious chapter described a scene of patriotic devotion in which\nnearly all the people were united for the prosecution of one great\npurpose. There we saw the priests and the wealthy citizens side by\nside with their humble brethren engaged in the common task of building\nthe walls of Jerusalem and guarding the city against assault. The\nheartiness with which the work was first undertaken, the readiness of\nall classes to resume it after temporary discouragements, and the\nmartial spirit shown by the whole population in standing under arms in\nthe prosecution of it, determined to resist any interference from\nwithout, were all signs of a large-minded zeal in which we should have\nexpected private interests to have given place to the public\nnecessities of the hour. But now we are compelled to look at the seamy\nside of city life. In the midst of the unavoidable toils and dangers\noccasioned by the animosity of the Samaritans, miserable internal\ntroubles had broken out among the Jews; and the perplexing problems\nwhich seem to be inseparable from the gathering together of a number\nof people under any known past or present social system had developed\nin the most acute form. The gulf between the rich and the poor had\nwidened ominously; for while the poor had been driven to the last\nextremity, their more fortunate fellow-citizens had taken a\nmonstrously cruel advantage of their helplessness. Famine-stricken men\nand women not only cried to Nehemiah for the means of getting corn for\nthemselves and their families; they had a complaint to make against\ntheir brethren. Some had lost their lands after mortgaging them to\nrich Jews. Others had even been forced by the money-lenders to sell\ntheir sons and daughters into slavery. They must have been on the\nbrink of starvation before resorting to such an unnatural expedient.\nHow wonderfully, then, do they exhibit the patience of the poor in\ntheir endurance of these agonies! There were no bread-riots. The\npeople simply appealed to Nehemiah, who had already proved himself\ntheir disinterested friend, and who, as governor, was responsible for\nthe welfare of the city.\n\nIt is not difficult to see how it came about that many of the citizens\nof Jerusalem were in this desperate plight. In all probability most of\nZerubbabel's and Ezra's pilgrims had been in humble circumstances. It\nis true successive expeditions had gone up with contributions to the\nJerusalem colony; but most of the stores they had conveyed had been\ndevoted to public works, and even anything that may have been\ndistributed among the citizens could only have afforded temporary\nrelief. War utterly paralyses industry and commerce. In Judaea the\nunsettled state of the country must have seriously impeded\nagricultural and pastoral occupations. Then the importation of corn\ninto Jerusalem would be almost impossible while roving enemies were on\nthe watch in the open country, so that the price of bread would rise\nas a result of scarcity. At the same time the presence of persons from\nthe outlying towns would increase the number of mouths to be fed\nwithin the city. Moreover, the attention given to the building of the\nwalls and the defence of Jerusalem from assault would prevent artisans\nand tradesmen from following the occupations by which they usually\nearned their living. Lastly, the former governors had impoverished the\npopulation by exacting grievously heavy tribute. The inevitable result\nof all this was debt and its miserable consequences.\n\nJust as in the early history of Athens and later at Rome, the troubles\nto the state arising from the condition of the debtors were now of the\nmost serious character. Nothing disorganises society more hopelessly\nthan bad arrangements with respect to debts and poverty. Nehemiah was\njustly indignant when the dreadful truth was made known to him. We may\nwonder why he had not discovered it earlier, since he had been going\nin and out among the people. Was there a certain aloofness in his\nattitude? His lonely night ride suggests something of the kind. In any\ncase his absorbing devotion to his one task of rebuilding the city\nwalls could have left him little leisure for other interests. The man\nwho is engaged in a grand scheme for the public good is frequently the\nlast to notice individual cases of need. The statesman is in danger of\nignoring the social condition of the people in the pursuit of\npolitical ends. It used to be the mistake of most governments that\ntheir foreign policy absorbed their attention to the neglect of home\ninterests.\n\nNehemiah was not slow in recognising the public need, when it was\nbrought under his notice by the cry of the distressed debtors.\nAccording to the truly modern custom of his time in Jerusalem, he\ncalled a public meeting, explained the whole situation, and appealed\nto the creditors to give back the mortgaged lands and remit the\ninterest on their loans. This was agreed to at once, the popular\nconscience evidently approving of the proposal. Nehemiah, however, was\nnot content to let the matter rest here. He called the priests, and\nput them on their oath to see that the promise of the creditors was\ncarried out. This appeal to the priesthood is very significant. It\nshows how rapidly the government was tending towards a sacerdotal\ntheocracy. But it is important to notice that it was a social and not\na purely political matter in which Nehemiah looked to the priests. The\nsocial order of the Jews was more especially bound up with their\nreligion, or rather with their law and its regulations, while as yet\nquestions of quasi-foreign policy were freely relegated to the purely\ncivil authorities, the heads of families, the nobles, and the supreme\ngovernor under the Persian administration.\n\nNehemiah followed the example of the ancient prophets in his\nsymbolical method of denouncing any of the creditors who would not\nkeep the promise he had extracted from them. Shaking out his mantle,\nas though to cast off whatever had been wrapped in its folds, he\nexclaimed, \"So God shake out every man from his house, and from his\nlabour, that performeth not this promise; even thus be he shaken out,\nand emptied.\"[191] This was virtually a threat of confiscation and\nexcommunication. Yet the _Ecclesia_ gladly assented, crying \"Amen\" and\npraising the Lord.\n\n  [191] Neh. v. 13.\n\nThe extreme position here taken up by Nehemiah and freely conceded by\nthe people may seem to us unreasonable unless we have considered all\nthe circumstances. Nehemiah denounced the conduct of the money-lenders\nas morally wrong. \"The thing that ye do is not good,\" he said. It was\nopposed to the will of God. It provoked the reproach of the heathen.\nIt was very different from his own conduct, in redeeming captives and\nsupporting the poor out of his private means. Now, wherein was the\nreal evil of the conduct of these creditors? The primitive law of the\n\"Covenant\" forbad the Jews to take interest for loans among their\nbrethren.[192] But why so? Is there not a manifest convenience in the\narrangements by which those people who possess a superfluity may lend\nto those who are temporarily embarrassed? If no interest is to be paid\nfor such loans, is it to be expected that rich people will run the\nrisk and put themselves to the certain inconvenience they involve? The\nman who saves generally does so in order that his savings may be of\nadvantage to him. If he consents to defer the enjoyment of them, must\nnot this be for some consideration? In proportion as the advantages of\nsaving are reduced the inducements to save will be diminished, and\nthen the available lending fund of the community will be lessened, so\nthat fewer persons in need of temporary accommodation will be able to\nreceive it. From another point of view, may it not be urged that if a\nman obtains the assistance of a loan he should be as willing to pay\nfor it as he would be to pay for any other distinct advantage? He does\nnot get the convenience of a coach-ride for nothing: why should he not\nexpect to pay anything for a lift along a difficult bit of his\nfinancial course? Sometimes a loan may be regarded as an act of\npartnership. The tradesman who has not sufficient capital to carry on\nhis business borrows from a neighbour who possesses money which he\ndesires to invest. Is not this an arrangement in which lending at\ninterest is mutually advantageous? In such a case the lender is really\na sort of \"sleeping partner,\" and the interest he receives is merely\nhis share in the business, because it is the return which has come\nback to him through the use of his money. Where is the wrong of such a\ntransaction? Even when the terms are more hard on the debtor, may it\nnot be urged that he does not accept them blindfold? He knows what he\nis doing when he takes upon himself the obligations of his debt and\nits accompanying interest; he willingly enters into the bond,\nbelieving that it will be for his own advantage. How then can he be\nregarded as the victim of cruelty?\n\n  [192] Exod. xxii. 25.\n\nThis is one side of the subject, and it is not to be denied that it\nexhibits a considerable amount of truth from its own point of view.\nEven on this ground, however, it may be doubted whether the advantages\nof the debtor are as great as they are represented. The system of\ncarrying on business by means of borrowed capital is answerable for\nmuch of the strain and anxiety of modern life, and not a little of the\ndishonesty to which traders are now tempted when hard pressed. The\noffer of \"temporary accommodation\" is inviting, but it may be\nquestioned whether this is not more often than not a curse to those\nwho accept it. Very frequently it only postpones the evil day.\nCertainly it is not found that the multiplication of \"pawn-shops\"\ntends to the comfort and well-being of the people among whom they\nspring up, and possibly, if we could look behind the scenes, we should\ndiscover that lending agencies in higher commercial circles were not\nmuch more beneficial to the community.\n\nStill, it may be urged, even if the system of borrowing and lending is\noften carried too far, there are cases in which it is manifestly\nbeneficial. The borrower may be really helped over a temporary\ndifficulty. In a time of desperate need he may even be saved from\nstarvation. This is not to be denied. We must look at the system as a\nwhole, however, rather than only at its favourable instances.\n\nThe strength of the case for lending money at interest rests upon\ncertain plain laws of \"Political Economy.\" Now it is absurd to\ndenounce the science of \"Political Economy\" as \"diabolical.\" No\nscience can be either good or bad, for by its nature all science deals\nonly with truth and knowledge. We do not talk of the morality of\nchemistry. The facts may be reprehensible; but the scientific\nco-ordination of them, the discovery of the principles which govern\nthem, cannot be morally culpable. Nevertheless \"Political Economy\" is\nonly a science on the ground of certain pre-suppositions. Remove those\npre-suppositions, and the whole fabric falls to the ground. It is not\nthen morally condemned; it is simply inapplicable, because its data\nhave disappeared. Now one of the leading data of this science is the\nprinciple of self-interest. It is assumed throughout that men are\nsimply producing and trading for their own advantage. If this\nassumption is allowed, the laws and their results follow with the iron\nnecessity of fate. But if the self-seeking principle can be removed,\nand a social principle be made to take its place, the whole process\nwill be altered. We see this happening with Nehemiah, who is willing\nto lend free of interest. In his case the strong pleas for the\nreasonableness, for the very necessity of the other system fall to the\nground. If the contagion of his example were universal, we should have\nto alter our books of \"Political Economy,\" and write on the subject\nfrom the new standpoint of brotherly kindness.\n\nWe have not yet reached the bottom of this question. It may still be\nurged that, though it was very gracious of Nehemiah to act as he did,\nit was not therefore culpable in others who failed to share his views\nand means not to follow suit. In some cases the lender might be\ndepending for a livelihood on the produce of his loans. If so, were he\nto decline to exact it, he himself would be absolutely impoverished.\nWe must meet this position by taking into account the actual results\nof the money-lending system practised by the Jews in Jerusalem in the\ndays of Nehemiah. The interest was high--\"the hundredth part of the\nmoney\"[193]--_i.e._, with the monthly payments usual in the East,\nequivalent to twelve per cent. annual interest. Then those who could\nnot pay this interest, having already pledged their estates, forfeited\nthe property. A wise regulation of Deuteronomy--unhappily never\npractised--had required the return of mortgaged land every seven\nyears.[194] This merciful regulation was evidently intended to prevent\nthe accumulation of large estates in the hands of rich men who would\n\"add field to field\" in a way denounced by the prophets with\nindignation.[195] Thus the tendency to inequality of lots would be\navoided, and temporary embarrassment could not lead to the permanent\nruin of a man and his children after him. It was felt, too, that there\nwas a sacred character in the land, which was the Lord's possession.\nIt was not possible for a man to whom a portion had been allotted to\nwholly alienate it; for it was not his to dispose of, it was only his\nto hold. This mystical thought would help to maintain a sturdy race of\npeasants--Naboth, for example--who would feel their duty to their land\nto be of a religious nature, and who would therefore be elevated and\nstrengthened in character by the very possession of it. All these\nadvantages were missed by the customs that were found to be prevalent\nin the time of Nehemiah.\n\n  [193] Neh. v. 11.\n\n  [194] Deut. xv. 1-6.\n\n  [195] _E.g._, Isa. v. 8.\n\nFar worse than the alienation of their estates was the selling of\ntheir children by the hard-pressed creditors. An ancient law of rude\ntimes recognised the fact and regulated it in regard to\ndaughters;[196] but it is not easy to see how in an age of\ncivilisation any parents possessed of natural feeling could bring\nthemselves to consent to such a barbarity. That some did so is a proof\nof the morally degrading effect of absolute penury. When the wolf is\nat the door, the hungry man himself becomes wolfish. The horrible\nstories of mothers in besieged cities boiling and eating their own\nchildren can only be accounted for by some such explanation as this.\nHere we have the severest condemnation of the social system which\npermits of the utter destitution of a large portion of the community.\nIt is most hurtful to the characters of its victims; it de-humanises\nthem, it reduces them to the level of beasts.\n\n  [196] Exod. xxi. 7.\n\nDid Ezra's stern reformation prepare the way for this miserable\ncondition of affairs? He had dared to tamper with the most sacred\ndomestic ties. He had attacked the sanctities of the home. May we\nsuppose that one result of his success was to lower the sense of home\nduties, and even to stifle the deepest natural affections? This is at\nleast a melancholy possibility, and it warns us of the danger of any\ninvasion of family claims and duties by the Church or the State.\n\nNow it was in face of the terrible misery of the Jews that Nehemiah\ndenounced the whole practice of usury which was the root of it. He was\nnot contemplating those harmless commercial transactions by which, in\nour day, capital passes from one hand to another in a way of business\nthat may be equally advantageous to borrower and lender. All he saw\nwas a state of utter ruin--land alienated from its old families, boys\nand girls sold into slavery, and the unfortunate debtors, in spite of\nall their sacrifices, still on the brink of starvation. In view of\nsuch a frightful condition, he naturally denounced the whole system\nthat led to it. What else could he have done? This was no time for a\nnice discrimination between the use and the abuse of the system.\nNehemiah saw nothing but abuse in it. Moreover, it was not in\naccordance with the Hebrew way ever to draw fine distinctions. If a\ncustom was found to be working badly, that custom was reprobated\nentirely; no attempt was made to save from the wreck any good elements\nthat might have been discovered in it by a cool scientific analysis.\nIn The Law, therefore, as well as in the particular cases dealt with\nby Nehemiah, lending at interest among Jews was forbidden, because as\nusually practised it was a cruel, hurtful practice. Nehemiah even\nrefers to lending on a pledge, without mentioning the interest, as an\nevil thing, because it was taken for granted that usury went with\nit.[197] But that usury was not thought to be morally wrong in itself\nwe may learn from the fact that Jews were permitted by their law to\npractise it with foreigners,[198] while they were not allowed to do\nany really wrong thing to them. This distinction between the treatment\nof the Jew and that of the Gentile throws some light on the question\nof usury. It shows that the real ground of condemnation was that the\npractice was contrary to brotherhood. Since then Christianity enlarges\nthe field of brotherhood, the limits of exactions are proportionately\nextended. There are many things that we cannot do to a man when we\nregard him as a brother, although we should have had no compunction in\nperforming them before we had owned the close relationship.\n\n  [197] Neh. v. 7, 10, where instead of \"usury\" (A.V.) we should read\n  \"pledge.\"\n\n  [198] Deut. xv. 3-6.\n\nWe see then that what Nehemiah and the Jewish law really condemned was\nnot so much the practice of taking interest in the abstract as the\ncarrying on of cruel usury among brothers. The evil that lies in that\nalso appears in dealings that are not directly financial. The world\nthinks of the Jew too much as of a Shylock who makes his money breed\nby harsh exactions practised on Christians. But when Christians grow\nrich by the ill-requited toil of their oppressed fellow-Christians,\nwhen they exact more than their pound of flesh, when drop by drop they\nsqueeze the very life-blood out of their victims, they are guilty of\nthe abomination of usury--in a new form, but with few of its evils\nlightened. To take advantage of the helpless condition of a fellow-man\nis exactly the wickedness denounced by Nehemiah in the heartless rich\nmen of his day. It is no excuse for this that we are within our\nrights. It is not always right to insist upon our rights. What is\nlegally innocent may be morally criminal. It is even possible to get\nthrough a court of justice what is nothing better than a theft in the\nsight of Heaven. It can never be right to push any one down to his\nruin.\n\nBut, it may be said, the miserable man brought his trouble upon\nhimself by his own recklessness. Be it so. Still he is our brother,\nand we should treat him as such. We may think we are under no\nobligation to follow the example of Nehemiah, who refused his pay from\nthe impoverished citizens, redeemed Israelites from slavery in foreign\nlands, lent money free of interest, and entertained a number of Jews\nat his table--all out of the savings of his old courtier days at Susa.\nAnd yet a true Christian cannot escape from the belief that there is a\nreal obligation lying on him to imitate this royal bounty as far as\nhis means permit.\n\nThe law in Deuteronomy commanded the Israelite to lend willingly to\nthe needy, and not harden his heart or shut up his hands from his\n\"poor brother.\"[199] Our Lord goes further, for He distinctly requires\nHis disciples to lend when they do not expect that the loan will ever\nbe returned--\"If ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive,\" He asks,\n\"what thanks have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again\nas much.\"[200] And St. Paul is thinking of no work of supererogation\nwhen he writes, \"Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the\n_law_ of Christ.\"[201] Yet if somebody suggests that these precepts\nshould be taken seriously and put in practice to-day, he is shouted\ndown as a fanatic. Why is this? Will Christ be satisfied with less\nthan His own requirements?\n\n  [199] Deut. xv. 7, 8.\n\n  [200] Luke vi. 34.\n\n  [201] Gal. vi. 2.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\n_WISE AS SERPENTS._\n\nNEHEMIAH vi.\n\n\nOpen opposition had totally failed. The watchful garrison had not once\npermitted a surprise. In spite of the persistent malignity of his\nenemies, Nehemiah had raised the walls all round the city till not a\nbreach remained anywhere. The doors had yet to be hung at the great\ngateways, but the fortification of Jerusalem had proceeded so far that\nit was hopeless for the enemy to attempt any longer to hinder it by\nviolence. Accordingly the leading antagonists changed their tactics.\nThey turned from force to fraud--a method of strategy which was a\nconfession of weakness. The antagonism to the Jews was now in a very\ndifferent position from that which it had attained before Nehemiah had\nappeared on the scene, and when all Syria was moved and Artaxerxes\nhimself won over to the Samaritan view. It had no support from the\nSatrap. It was directly against the policy sanctioned by the king. In\nits impotence it was driven to adopt humiliating devices of cunning\nand deceit; and even these expedients proved to be ineffectual. It has\nbeen well remarked that the rustic tricksters from Samaria were no\nmatch for a trained courtier. Nehemiah easily detected the clumsy\nsnares that were set to entrap him. Thus he illustrates that wisdom of\nthe serpent which our Lord commends to His disciples as a useful\nweapon for meeting the temptations and dangers they must be prepared\nto encounter. The serpent, repulsive and noxious, the common symbol of\nsin, to some the very incarnation of the devil, was credited with a\nquality worthy of imitation by One who could see the \"soul of goodness\nin things evil.\" The subtlety of the keen-eyed, sinuous beast appeared\nto Him in the light of a real excellence, which should be rescued from\nits degradation in the crawling reptile and set to a worthy use. He\nrejoiced in the revelation made to babes; but it would be an insult to\nthe children whom He set before us as the typical members of the\nkingdom of heaven to mistake this for a benediction of stupidity. The\nfact is, dulness is often nothing but the result of indolence; it\noften comes from negligence in the cultivation of faculties God has\ngiven to men more generously than they will acknowledge. Surely, true\nreligion, since it consists in a Divine _life_, must bring vitality to\nthe whole man, and thus quicken the intellect as well as the heart.\nSt. James refers to the highest wisdom as a gift which God bestows\nliberally and without upbraiding on those who ask for it.[202] Our\nplain duty, therefore, is not to permit ourselves to be befooled to\nour ruin.\n\n  [202] James i. 5.\n\nBut when we compare the wisdom of Nehemiah with the cunning of his\nenemies we notice a broad distinction between the two qualities.\nSanballat and his fellow-conspirator, the Arab Geshem, condescend to\nthe meanness of deceit: they try to allure their victim into their\npower; they invite him to trust himself to their hospitality while\nintending to reward his confidence with treachery; they concoct false\nreports to blacken the reputation of the man whom they dare not openly\nattack; with diabolical craft one of their agents endeavours to tempt\nNehemiah to an act of cowardice that would involve apparently a\nculpable breach of religious propriety, in order that his influence\nmay be undermined by the destruction of his reputation. From beginning\nto end this is all a policy of lies. On the other hand, there is not a\nshadow of insincerity in Nehemiah's method of frustrating it. He uses\nhis keen intelligence in discovering the plots of his foes; he never\ndegrades it by weaving counterplots. In the game of diplomacy he\noutwits his opponents at every stage. If he would lend himself to\ntheir mendacious methods, he might turn them round his finger. But he\nwill do nothing of the kind. One after another he breaks up the petty\nschemes of the dishonest men who continue to worry him with their\ndevices, and quietly hands them back the fragments, to their bitter\nchagrin. His replies are perfectly frank; his policy is clear as the\nday. Wise as the serpent, he is harmless as the dove. A man of\nastounding discernment, he is nevertheless \"an Israelite indeed, in\nwhom there is no guile.\"\n\nThe first proposal had danger written on the face of it, and the\npersistence with which so lame a device was repeated does not do much\ncredit to the ingenuity of the conspirators. Their very malignity\nseems to have blinded them to the fact that they were not deceiving\nNehemiah. Perhaps they thought that he would yield to sheer\nimportunity. Their suggestion was that he should come out of Jerusalem\nand confer with Sanballat and his friends some miles away in the\nplain of Sharon.[203] The Jews were known to be hard-pressed, weary,\nand famine-stricken, and any overtures that promised an amicable\nsettlement, or even a temporary truce, might be viewed acceptably by\nthe anxious governor on whose sole care the social troubles of the\ncitizens as well as the military protection of the city depended. Very\nlikely information gleaned from spies within Jerusalem guided the\nconspirators in choosing the opportunities for their successive\novertures. These would seem most timely when the social troubles of\nthe Jews were most serious. In another way the invitation to a parley\nmight be thought attractive to Nehemiah. It would appeal to his nobler\nfeelings. A generous man is unwilling to suspect the dishonesty of his\nneighbours.\n\n  [203] At Ono. This place has not yet been found. It cannot well be\n  _Beit Unia_, north-west of Jerusalem, near _Beitin_ (Bethel). Its\n  association with Lod (Lydda) in 1 Chron. viii. 12 and Neh. xi. 35,\n  points to the neighbourhood of the latter place.\n\nBut Nehemiah was not caught by the \"confidence trick.\" He knew the\nconspirators intended to do him mischief. Yet as this intention was\nnot actually proved against them, he put no accusation into his reply.\nThe inference from it was clear enough. But the message itself could\nnot be construed into any indication of discourtesy. Nehemiah was\ndoing a great work. Therefore he could not come down. This was a\nperfectly genuine answer. For the governor to have left Jerusalem at\nthe present crisis would have been disastrous to the city. The\nconspirators then tried another plan for getting Nehemiah to meet them\noutside Jerusalem. They pretended that it was reported that his work\nin fortifying the city was carried on with the object of rebelling\nagainst the Persian government, and that this report had gone so far\nas to convey the impression that he had induced prophets to preach his\nkingship. Some such suspicion had been hinted at before, at the time\nof Nehemiah's coming up to Jerusalem,[204] but then its own absurdity\nhad prevented it from taking root. Now the actual appearance of the\nwalls round the once ruinous city, and the rising reputation of\nNehemiah as a man of resource and energy, might give some colour to\nthe calumny. The point of the conspirators' device, however, is not to\nbe found in the actual spreading of the dangerous rumour, but in the\nalarm to be suggested to Nehemiah by the thought that it was being\nspread. Nehemiah would know very well how much mischief is wrought by\nidle and quite groundless talk. The libel may be totally false, and\nyet it may be impossible for its victim to follow it up and clear his\ncharacter in every nook and cranny to which it penetrates. A lie, like\na weed, if it is not nipped in the bud, sheds seeds which every wind\nof gossip will spread far and wide, so that it soon becomes impossible\nto stamp it out.\n\n  [204] Neh. ii. 19.\n\nIn their effort to frighten Nehemiah the conspirators suggested that\nthe rumour would reach the king. They as much as hinted that they\nwould undertake the business of reporting it themselves if he would\nnot come to terms with them. This was an attempt at extracting\nblackmail. Having failed in their appeal to his generous instincts,\nthe conspirators tried to work on his fears. For any one of less\nheroic mind than Nehemiah their diabolical threat would have been\noverwhelmingly powerful. Even he could not but feel the force of it.\nIt calls to mind the last word of the Jews that determined Pilate to\nsurrender Jesus to the death he knew was not merited: \"If thou let\nthis Man go, thou art not Caesar's friend.\" The suspicion that always\nhaunts the mind of an autocratic sovereign gives undue weight to any\ncharges of treason. Artaxerxes was not a Tiberius. But the\ngood-natured monarch was liable to persuasion. Nehemiah must have had\noccasion to witness many instances of the fatal consequences of royal\ndispleasure. Could he rely on the continuance of his master's favour\nnow he was far from the court, while lying tongues were trying to\npoison the ears of the king? Before first speaking of his project for\nhelping his people, he had trembled at the risk he was about to incur;\nhow then could he now learn with equanimity that a cruelly mendacious\nrepresentation of it was being made to Artaxerxes? His sense of the\ngravity of the situation is seen in the way in which he met it.\nNehemiah indignantly repudiated the charge. He boldly asserted that it\nhad been invented by the conspirators. To them he showed an unwavering\nfront. But we are able to look behind the scenes. It is one advantage\nof this autobiographical sketch of Nehemiah's that in it the writer\nrepeatedly lifts the veil and reveals to us the secret of his\nthoughts. Heroic in the world, before men, he still knew his real\nhuman weakness. But he knew too that his strength was in God. Such\nheroism as his is not like the stolidity of the lifeless rock. It\nresembles the strength of the living oak, which grows more massive\njust in proportion as it is supplied with fresh sap. According to his\ncustom in every critical moment of his life, Nehemiah resorted to\nprayer, and thus again we come upon one of those brief ejaculations\nuttered in the midst of the stress and strain of a busy life that\nlight up the pages of his narrative from time to time. The point of\nhis prayer is simple and definite. It is just that _his hands may be\nstrengthened_. This would have a twofold bearing. In the first place,\nit would certainly seek a revival of inward energy. Nehemiah waits on\nthe Lord that He may renew his strength. He knows that God helps him\nthrough his own exercise of energy, so that if he is to be protected\nhe must be made strong. But the prayer means more than this. For the\nhands to be strengthened is for their work to prosper. Nehemiah craves\nthe aid of God that all may go right in spite of the terrible danger\nfrom lying calumnies with which he is confronted; and his prayer was\nanswered. The second device was frustrated.\n\nThe third was managed very differently. This time Nehemiah was\nattacked within the city, for it was now apparent that no attempts to\nlure him outside the walls could succeed. A curious characteristic of\nthe new incident is that Nehemiah himself paid a visit to the man who\nwas the treacherous instrument of his enemies' devices. He went in\nperson to the house of Shemaiah the prophet--a most mysterious\nproceeding. We have no explanation of his reason for going. Had the\nprophet sent for Nehemiah? or is it possible that in the dread\nperplexity of the crisis, amid the snares that surrounded him,\noppressed with the loneliness of his position of supreme\nresponsibility, Nehemiah hungered for a Divine message from an\ninspired oracle? It is plain from this chapter that the common,\nevery-day prophets--so much below the great messengers of Jehovah\nwhose writings represent Hebrew prophecy to us to-day--had survived\nthe captivity, and were still practising divination much after the\nmanner of heathen soothsayers, as their fathers had done before them\nfrom the time when a young farmer's son was sent to Samuel to learn\nthe whereabouts of a lost team of asses. If Nehemiah had resorted to\nthe prophet of his own accord, his danger was indeed serious. In this\ncase it would be the more to his credit that he did not permit himself\nto be duped.\n\nAnother feature of the strange incident is not very clear to us.\nNehemiah tells us that the prophet was \"shut up.\"[205] What does this\nmean? Was the man ceremonially unclean? or ill? or in custody under\nsome accusation? None of these three explanations can be accepted,\nbecause Shemaiah proposed to proceed at once to the temple with\nNehemiah, and thus confessed his seclusion to be voluntary. Can we\ngive a metaphorical interpretation to the expression, and understand\nthe prophet to be representing himself as under a Divine compulsion,\nthe thought of which may give the more urgency to the advice he\ntenders to Nehemiah? In this case we should look for a more explicit\nstatement, for the whole force of his message would depend upon the\nauthority thus attributed to it. A simpler interpretation, to which\nthe language of Shemaiah points, and one in accordance with all the\nwretched, scheming policy of the enemies of Nehemiah, is that the\nprophet pretended that he was himself in personal danger as a friend\nand supporter of the governor, and that therefore he found it\nnecessary to keep himself in seclusion. Thus by his own attitude he\nwould try to work on the fears of Nehemiah.\n\n  [205] Neh. vi. 10.\n\nThe proposal that the prophet should accompany Nehemiah to the\nshelter of the temple, even into the \"Holy Place,\" was temptingly\nplausible. The heathen regarded the shrines of their gods as\nsanctuaries, and similar notions seem to have attached themselves to\nthe Jewish altar. Moreover, the massive structure of the temple was\nitself a defence--the temple of Herod was the last fortress to be\ntaken in the great final siege. In the temple, too, Nehemiah might\nhope to be safe from the surprise of a street _emeute_ among the\ndisaffected sections of the population. Above all, the presence and\ncounsel of a prophet would seem to sanction and authorise the course\nindicated. Yet it was all a cruel snare. This time the purpose was to\ndiscredit Nehemiah in the eyes of the Jews, inasmuch as his influence\ndepended largely on his reputation. But again Nehemiah could see\nthrough the tricks of his enemies. He was neither blinded by\nself-interest nor overawed by prophetic authority. The use of that\nauthority was the last arrow in the quiver of his foes. They would\nattack him through his religious faith. Their mistake was that they\ntook too low a view of that faith. This is the common mistake of the\nirreligious in their treatment of truly devout men. Nehemiah knew that\na prophet could err. Had there not been lying prophets in the days of\nJeremiah? It is a proof of his true spiritual insight that he could\ndiscern one in his pretended protector. The test is clear to a man\nwith so true a conscience as we see in Nehemiah. If the prophet says\nwhat we know to be morally wrong, he cannot be speaking from God. It\nis not the teaching of the Bible--not the teaching of the Old\nTestament any more than that of the New--that revelation supersedes\nconscience, that we are ever to take on authority what our moral\nnature abhors. The humility that would lay conscience under the heel\nof authority is false and degrading, and it is utterly contrary to the\nwhole tenor of Scripture. One great sign of the worth of a prophecy is\nits character. Thus the devout man is to try the spirits, whether they\nbe of God.[206] Nehemiah has the clear, serene conscience that detects\nsin when it appears in the guise of sanctity. He sees at a glance that\nit would be wrong for him to follow Shemaiah's advice. It would\ninvolve a cowardly desertion of his post. It would also involve a\ndesecration of the sacred temple enclosure. How could he, being such\nas he was--_i.e._, a layman--go into the temple, even to save his\nlife?[207] But did not our Lord excuse David for an analogous action\nin eating the shewbread? True. But Nehemiah did not enjoy the\nprimitive freedom of David, nor the later enlightened liberty of\nChrist. In his intermediate position, in his age of nascent\nceremonialism, it was impossible for him to see that simple human\nnecessities could ever override the claims of ritual. His duty was\nshaped to him by his beliefs. So is it with every man. To him that\nesteemeth anything sin it is sin.[208]\n\n  [206] 1 John iv. 1.\n\n  [207] Neh. vi. 11.\n\n  [208] Rom. xiv. 14.\n\nNehemiah's answer to the proposal of the wily prophet is very\nblunt--\"I will not go in.\" Bluntness is the best reply to sophistry.\nThe whole scheme was open to Nehemiah. He perceived that God had not\nsent the prophet, that this man was but a tool in the hands of the\nSamaritan conspirators. In solemnly committing the leaders of the vile\nconspiracy to the judgment of Heaven, Nehemiah includes a prophetess,\nNoadiah--degenerate successor of the patriotic Deborah!--and the whole\ngang of corrupt, traitorous prophets. Thus the wrongness of Shemaiah's\nproposal not only discredited his mission; it also revealed the\nsecret of his whole undertaking and that of his unworthy coadjutors.\nWhile Nehemiah detected the character of the false prophecy by means\nof his clear perceptions of right and wrong, those perceptions helped\nhim to discover the hidden hand of his foe. He was not to be sheltered\nin the temple, as Shemaiah suggested; but he was saved through the\nkeenness of his own conscience. In this case the wisdom of the serpent\nin him was the direct outcome of his high moral nature and the care\nwith which he kept \"conscience as the noontide clear.\"\n\nNehemiah adds two items by way of postscripts to his account of the\nbuilding of the walls.\n\nThe first is the completion of the work, with its effect on the\njealous enemies of the Jews. It was finished in fifty-two days--an\nalmost incredibly short time, especially when the hindrances of\ninternal troubles and external attacks are taken into account. The\nbuilding must have been hasty and rough. Still it was sufficient for\nits purpose. The moral effect of it was the chief result gained. The\nsense of discouragement now passed over to the enemy. It was the\nnatural reaction from the mockery with which they had assailed the\ncommencement of the work, that at the sight of the completion of it\nthey should be \"much cast down.\"[209] We can imagine the grim\nsatisfaction with which Nehemiah would write these words. But they\ntell of more than the humiliation of insulting and deceitful enemies;\nthey complete an act in a great drama of Providence, in which the\ncourage that stands to duty in face of all danger and the faith that\nlooks to God in prayer are vindicated.\n\n  [209] Neh. vi. 16.\n\nThe second postscript describes yet another source of danger to\nNehemiah--one possibly remaining after the walls were up. Tobiah, \"the\nservant,\" had not been included in the previous conspiracies. But he\nwas playing a little game of his own. The intermarriage of leading\nJewish families with foreigners was bearing dangerous fruit in his\ncase. Tobiah had married a Jewess, and his son had followed his\nexample. In each case the alliance had brought him into connection\nwith a well-known family in Jerusalem. These two families pleaded his\nmerits with Nehemiah, and at the same time acted as spies and reported\nthe words of the governor to Tobiah. The consequence was the receipt\nof alarmist letters from this man by Nehemiah. The worst danger might\nthus be found among the disaffected citizens within the walls who were\nirritated at the rigorously exclusive policy of Ezra, which Nehemiah\nhad not discouraged, although he had not yet had occasion to push it\nfurther. The stoutest walls will not protect from treason within the\nramparts. So after all the labour of completing the fortifications\nNehemiah's trust must still be in God alone.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nTHE LAW.\n\nNEHEMIAH viii. 1-8.\n\n\nThe fragmentary nature of the chronicler's work is nowhere more\napparent than in that portion of it which treats of the events\nimmediately following on the completion of the fortifications of\nJerusalem. In Nehemiah vii. we have a continuation of the governor's\npersonal narrative of his work, describing how the watch was organised\nafter the walls had been built and the gates set up.[210] This is\nfollowed by a remark on the sparseness of the city population,[211]\nwhich leads Nehemiah to insert the list of Zerubbabel's pilgrims that\nthe chronicler subsequently copies out in his account of Zerubbabel's\nexpedition.[212] Here the subject is dropped, to be resumed at\nNehemiah xi., where the arrangements for increasing the population of\nJerusalem are described. Thus we might read right on with a continuous\nnarrative--allowing for the insertion of the genealogical record, the\nreason for which is obvious--and omit the three intermediate chapters\nwithout any perceptible hiatus, but, on the contrary, with a gain in\nconsecutiveness.\n\n  [210] Neh. vii. 1-3.\n\n  [211] Neh. vii. 4.\n\n  [212] Neh. vii. 5-73 = Ezra ii.\n\nThese three chapters stand by themselves, and they are devoted to\nanother matter, and that a matter marked by a certain unity and\ndistinctive character of its own. They are written in the third\nperson, by the chronicler himself. In them Ezra suddenly reappears\nwithout any introduction, taking the leading place, while Nehemiah\nrecedes into the background, only to be mentioned once or twice, and\nthen as the loyal supporter of the famous scribe. The style has a\nstriking resemblance to that of Ezra, from whom therefore, it has been\nconjectured, the chronicler may have derived his materials.\n\nThese facts and minor points that seem to support them, have raised\nthe question whether the section Nehemiah viii.-x. is found in its\nright place; whether it should not have been joined on to the Book of\nEzra as a description of what followed immediately after the events\nthere recorded and before the advent of Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Ezra\nbrought the book of The Law with him from Babylon. It would be most\nreasonable to suppose that he would seize the first opportunity for\nmaking it known. Accordingly we find that the corresponding section in\n1 Esdras is in this position.[213] Nevertheless it is now generally\nagreed that the three chapters as they stand in the Book of Nehemiah\nare in their true chronological position. Twice Nehemiah himself\nappears in the course of the narrative they contain. He is associated\nwith Ezra and the Levites in teaching The Law,[214] and his name\nstands first in the lists of the covenanters.[215] The admission of\nthese facts is only avoided in 1 Esdras by an alteration of the text.\nIf we were to suppose that the existence of the name in our narrative\nis the result of an interpolation by a later hand, it would be\ndifficult to account for this, and it would be still more difficult\nto discover why the chronicler should introduce confusion into his\nnarrative by an aimless misplacement of it. His methods of procedure\nare sometimes curious, it must be admitted, and that we met with a\nmisplaced section in an earlier chapter cannot be reasonably\nquestioned.[216] But the motive which probably prompted that peculiar\narrangement does not apply here. In the present case it would result\nin nothing but confusion.\n\n  [213] 1 Esdras ix. 37-55.\n\n  [214] Neh. viii. 9.\n\n  [215] Neh. x. 1.\n\n  [216] Ezra iv. 7-23.\n\nThe question is of far more than literary interest. The time when The\nLaw was first made known to the people in its entirety is a landmark\nof the first importance for the History of Israel. There is a profound\nsignificance in the fact that though Ezra had long been a diligent\nstudent and a careful, loving scribe, though he had carried up the\nprecious roll to Jerusalem, and though he had been in great power and\ninfluence in the city, he had not found a fitting opportunity for\nrevealing his secret to his people before all his reforming efforts\nwere arrested, and the city and its inhabitants trampled under foot by\ntheir envious neighbours. Then came Nehemiah's reconstruction. Still\nthe consideration of The Law remained in abeyance. While Jerusalem was\nan armed camp, and while the citizens were toiling at the walls or\nmounting guard by turn, there was no opportunity for a careful\nattention to the sacred document. All this time Ezra was out of sight,\nand his name not once mentioned. Yet he was far too brilliant a star\nto have been eclipsed even by the rising of Nehemiah. We can only\naccount for the sudden and absolute vanishing of the greatest figure\nof the age by supposing that he had retired from the scene, perhaps\ngone back to Babylon alone with his grief and disappointment. Those\nwere not days for the scholar's mission. But now, with the return of\nsome amount of security and its accompanying leisure, Ezra emerges\nagain, and immediately he is accorded the front place and\nNehemiah--the \"Saviour of Society\"--modestly assumes the attitude of\nhis disciple. A higher tribute to the exalted position tacitly allowed\nto the scribe or a finer proof of the unselfish humility of the young\nstatesman cannot be imagined. Though at the height of his power,\nhaving frustrated the many evil designs of his enemies and completed\nhis stupendous task of fortifying the city of his fathers in spite of\nthe most vexatious difficulties, the successful patriot is not in the\nleast degree flushed with victory. In the quietest manner possible he\nsteps aside and yields the first place to the recluse, the student,\nthe writer, the teacher. This is a sign of the importance that ideas\nwill assume in the new age. The man of action gives place to the man\nof thought. Still more is it a hint of the coming ecclesiasticism of\nthe new Jewish order. As the civil ruler thus takes a lower ground in\nthe presence of the religious leader, we seem to be anticipating those\ndays of the triumph of the Church when a king would stand like a groom\nto hold the horse of a pope. And yet this is not officially arranged.\nIt is not formally conceded on the one side, nor is it formally\ndemanded on the other side. The situation may be rather compared with\nthat of Savonarola in Florence when by sheer moral force he overtopped\nthe power of the Medici, or that of Calvin at Geneva when the\nmunicipal council willingly yielded to the commanding spirit of the\nminister of religion because it recognised the supremacy of religion.\n\nIn such a condition of affairs the city was ripe for the public\nexposition of The Law. But even then Ezra only published it after\nhaving been requested to do so by the people. We cannot assign this\ndelay of his to any reluctance to let his fellow-countrymen know the\nlaw which he had long loved and studied in private. We may rather\nconclude that he perceived the utter inutility of any attempt to\nthrust it upon inattentive hearers--nay, the positive mischievousness\nof such a proceeding. This would approach the folly described by our\nLord when He warned His disciples against casting pearls before swine.\nVery much of the popular indifference to the Bible among large\nsections of the population to-day must be laid at the doors of those\nunwise zealots who have dinned the mere letter of it into the ears of\nunwilling auditors. The conduct of Ezra shows that, with all his\nreverence for The Law, the Great Scribe did not consider that it was\nto be imposed, like a civil code, by magisterial authority. The decree\nof Artaxerxes had authorised him to enforce it in this way on every\nJew west of the Euphrates.[217] But either the unsettled state of the\ncountry or the wisdom of Ezra had not permitted the application of the\npower thus conferred. The Law was to be voluntarily adopted. It was to\nbe received, as all true religion must be received, in living faith,\nwith the acquiescence of the conscience, judgment, and will of those\nwho acknowledged its obligations.\n\n  [217] Ezra vii. 25, 26.\n\nThe occasion for such a reception of it was found when the Jews were\nfreed from the toil and anxiety that accompanied the building of their\ncity walls. The chronicler says that this was in the seventh month;\nbut he does not give the year. Considering the abrupt way in which he\nhas introduced the section about the reading of The Law, we cannot be\ncertain in what year this took place. If we may venture to take the\nnarrative continuously, in connection with Nehemiah's story in the\nprevious chapters, we shall get this occurrence within a week after\nthe completion of the fortifications. That was on \"the twenty-fifth\nday of the month Elul\"[218]--_i.e._, the sixth month. The reading\nbegan on \"the first day of the seventh month.\"[219] That is to say, on\nthis supposition, it followed immediately on the first opportunity of\nleisure. Then the time was specially appropriate, for it was the day\nof the Feast of Trumpets, which was observed as a public holiday and\nan occasion for an assembly--\"a holy convocation.\"[220] On this day\nthe citizens met in a favourite spot, the open space just inside the\nWater Gate, at the east end of the city, close to the temple, and now\npart of the Haram, or sacred enclosure. They were unanimous in their\ndesire to have no more delay before hearing the law which Ezra had\nbrought up to Jerusalem as much as thirteen years before. Why were\nthey all on a sudden thus eager, after so long a period of\nindifference? Was it that the success of Nehemiah's work had given\nthem a new hope and confidence, a new idea, indeed? They now saw the\ncompact unity of Jerusalem established. Here was the seal and centre\nof their separateness. Accepting this as an accomplished fact, the\nJews were ready and even anxious to know that sacred law in which\ntheir distinction from other people and their consecration to Jehovah\nwere set forth.\n\n  [218] Neh. vi. 15.\n\n  [219] Neh. viii. 2.\n\n  [220] Lev. xxiii. 24.\n\nNot less striking is the manner in which Ezra met this welcome\nrequest of the Jews. The scene which follows is unique in history--the\nGreat Scribe with the precious roll in his hand standing on a\ntemporary wooden platform so that he may be seen by everybody in the\nvast crowd--seven Levites supporting him on either side[221]--other\nselect Levites going about among the people after each section of The\nLaw has been read in order to explain it to separate groups of the\nassembly[222]--the motley gathering comprising the bulk of the\ncitizens, not men only but women also, for the brutal Mohammedan\nexclusiveness that confines knowledge to one sex was not anticipated\nby the ancient Jews; not adults only, but children also, \"those that\ncould understand,\" for The Law is for the simplest minds, the religion\nof Israel is to be popular and domestic--the whole of this multitude\nassembling in the cool, fresh morning when the first level rays of the\nsun smite the city walls from over the Mount of Olives, and standing\nreverently hour after hour, till the hot autumn noon puts an end to\nthe lengthy meeting.\n\n  [221] In Neh. viii. 4 six names are given for the right-hand\n  contingent and seven for the left-hand. But since in the corresponding\n  account of 1 Esdras fourteen names occur, one name would seem to have\n  dropped out of Nehemiah. The prominence given to the Levites in all\n  these scenes and the absence of reference to the priests should be\n  noted. The Levites were still important personages, although degraded\n  from the priesthood. The priests were chiefly confined to ritual\n  functions; later they entered on the duties of civil government. The\n  Levites were occupied with teaching the people, with whom they came\n  into closer contact. Their work corresponded more to that of the\n  pastoral office. In these times, too, most of the scribes seem to have\n  been Levites.\n\n  [222] Not translating it into the Aramaic dialect. That would have\n  been a superfluous task, for the Jews certainly knew Hebrew at this\n  time. Ezra and Nehemiah and the prophets down to Malachi wrote in\n  Hebrew.\n\nIn all this the fact which comes out most prominently, accentuated by\nevery detail of the arrangements, is the popularisation of The Law.\nIts multiplex precepts were not only recited in the hearing of men,\nwomen, and children; they were carefully expounded to the people.\nHitherto it had been a matter of private study among learned men; its\nearly development had been confined to a small group of faithful\nbelievers in Jehovah; its customary practices had been privately\nelaborated through the ages almost like the mysteries of a secret\ncult; and therefore its origin had been buried in hopeless obscurity.\nSo it was like the priestly ritual of heathenism. The priest of\nEleusis guarded his secrets from all but those who were favoured by\nbeing solemnly initiated into them. Now this unwholesome condition was\nto cease. The most sacred rites were to be expounded to all the\npeople. Ezra knew that the only worship God would accept must be\noffered with the mind and the heart. Moreover, The Law concerned the\nactions of the people themselves, their own minute observance of\npurifications and careful avoidance of defilements, their own\nofferings and festivals. No priestly performances could avail as a\nsubstitute for these popular religious observances.\n\nYet much of The Law was occupied with directions concerning the\nfunctions of the priests and the sacrificial ritual. By acquainting\nthe laity with these directions, Ezra and his helpers were doing their\nbest to fortify the nation against the tyranny of sacerdotalism. The\nLevites, who at this time were probably still sore at the thought of\ntheir degradation, and jealous of the favoured line of Zadok, would\nnaturally fall in with such a policy. It was the more remarkable\nbecause the new theocracy was just now coming into power. Here would\nbe a powerful protection against the abuse of its privileges by the\nhierarchy. Priests, all the world over, have made capital out of their\nexclusive knowledge of the ritual of religion. They have jealously\nguarded their secrets from the uninitiated multitude, so as to make\nthemselves necessary to anxious worshippers who dreaded to give\noffence to their gods or to fail in their sacrifices through ignorance\nof the prescribed methods. By committing the knowledge of The Law to\nthe people, Ezra protected the Jews against this abuse. Everything was\nto be above board, in broad daylight; and the degradation of ignorant\nworship was not to be encouraged, much as a corrupt priesthood in\nlater times might desire it. An indirect consequence of this\npublication of The Law with the careful instruction of the people in\nits contents was that the element of knowledge took a more exalted\nposition in religion. It is not the magical priest, it is the logical\nscribe who really leads the people now. Ideas will mean more than in\nthe old days of obscure ritual. There is an end to the \"dim religious\nlight.\" Henceforth _Torah--Instruction_--is to be the most fundamental\nground of faith.\n\nIt is important that we should see clearly what was contained in this\nroll of The Law out of which Ezra read to the citizens of Jerusalem.\nThe distress with which its contents were received would lead us to\nsuppose that the grave minatory passages of Deuteronomy were\nespecially prominent in the reading. We cannot gather from the present\nscene any further indications of the subjects brought before the Jews.\nBut from other parts of the Book of Nehemiah we can learn for certain\nthat the whole of the Pentateuch was now introduced to the people. If\nit was not all read out in the Ecclesia, it was all in the hands of\nEzra, and its several parts were made known from time to time as\noccasion required. First, we may infer that in addition to Deuteronomy\nEzra's law contained the ancient Jehovistic narrative, because the\ntreatment of mixed marriages[223] refers to the contents of this\nportion of the Pentateuch.[224] Secondly, we may see that it included\n\"The Law of Holiness,\" because the regulations concerning the sabbatic\nyear[225] are copied from that collection of rules about defilement\nand consecration.[226] Thirdly, we may be equally sure that it did not\nlack \"The Priestly Code\"--the elaborate system of ritual which\noccupies the greater part of Numbers and Leviticus--because the law of\nthe firstfruits[227] is taken from that source.[228] Here, then, we\nfind allusions to the principal constituent elements of the Pentateuch\nscattered over the brief Book of Nehemiah. It is clear, therefore,\nthat the great accretion of customs and teachings, which only reached\ncompletion after the close of the captivity, was the treasure Ezra now\nintroduced to his people. Henceforth nothing less can be understood\nwhen the title \"The Law\" is used. From this time obedience to the\nTorah will involve subjection to the whole system of priestly and\nsacrificial regulations, to all the rules of cleanness and\nconsecration and sacrifice contained in the Pentateuch.[229]\n\n  [223] Neh. x. 30.\n\n  [224] Exod. xxxiv. 16.\n\n  [225] Neh. x. 31.\n\n  [226] Lev. xxv. 2-7.\n\n  [227] Neh. x. 35-39.\n\n  [228] Lev. xxvii. 30; Num. xv. 20 ff., xviii. 11-32.\n\n  [229] Strictly speaking, the Hexateuch, as \"Joshua\" was undoubtedly\n  included in the volume. But the familiar term Pentateuch may serve\n  here, as it is to the _legal_ requirements contained in the earlier\n  books that reference is made.\n\nA more difficult point to be determined is, how far this Pentateuch\nwas really a new thing when it was introduced by Ezra. Here we must\nseparate two very different questions. If they had always been kept\napart, much confusion would have been avoided. The first is the\nquestion of the novelty of The Law _to the Jews_. There is little\ndifficulty in answering this question. The very process of reading The\nLaw and explaining it goes on the assumption that it is not known. The\npeople receive it as something strange and startling. Moreover, this\nscene of the revelation of The Law to Israel is entirely in harmony\nwith the previous history of the nation. Whenever The Law was shaped\nas we now know it, it is clear that it was not practised in its\npresent form by the Jews before Ezra's day. We have no contemporary\nevidence of the use of it in the earlier period. We have clear\nevidence that conduct contrary to many of its precepts was carried on\nwith impunity, and even encouraged by prophets and religious leaders\nwithout any protest from priests or scribes. The complete law is new\nto Israel. But there is a second question--viz., how far was this law\n_new in itself_? Nobody can suppose that it was an absolutely novel\ncreation of the exile, with no roots in the past. Their repeated\nreferences to Moses show that its supporters relegated its origin to a\ndim antiquity, and we should belie all we know of their character if\nwe did not allow that they were acting in good faith. But we have no\nevidence that The Law had been completed, codified, and written out in\nfull before the time of Ezra. In antiquity, when writing was\neconomised and memory cultivated to a degree of accuracy that seems to\nus almost miraculous, it would be possible to hand down a considerable\nsystem of ritual or of jurisprudence by tradition. Even this\nstupendous act of memory would not exceed that of the rhapsodists who\npreserved and transmitted the unwritten _Iliad_. But we are not driven\nto such an extreme view. We do not know how much of The Law may have\nbeen committed to writing in earlier ages. Some of it was, certainly.\nIt bears evidence of its history in the several strata of which it is\ncomposed, and which must have been deposited successively.\nDeuteronomy, in its essence and original form, was certainly known\nbefore the captivity. So were the Jehovistic narrative and the Law of\nthe Covenant. The only question as regards Ezra's day turns on the\nnovelty of the Priestly Code, with the Law of Holiness, and the final\nediting and redaction of the whole. This is adumbrated in Ezekiel and\nthe degradation of the Levites, who are identified with the priests in\nDeuteronomy, but set in a lower rank in Leviticus, assigned to its\nhistorical occasion. Here, then, we see the latest part of Ezra's law\nin the making. It was not created by the scribe. It was formed out of\ntraditional usages of the priests, modified by recent directions from\na prophet. The origin of these usages was lost in antiquity, and\ntherefore it was natural to attribute them to Moses, the great founder\nof the nation. We cannot even affirm that Ezra carried out the last\nredaction of The Law with his own hand, that he codified the\ntraditional usages, the \"Common Law\" of Israel. What we know is, that\nhe published this law. That he also edited it is an inference drawn\nfrom his intimate connection with the work as student and scribe, and\nsupported by the current of later traditions. But while this is\npossible, what is indubitable is that to Ezra is due the glory of\npromulgating the law and making it pass into the life of the nation.\nHenceforth Judaism is legalism. We know this in its imperfection and\nits difference from the spiritual faith of Christ. To the\ncontemporaries of Ezra it indicated a stage of progress--knowledge in\nplace of superstitious bondage to the priesthood, conscientious\nobedience to ordinances instituted for the public welfare instead of\ncareless indifference or obstinate self-will. Therefore its appearance\nmarked a forward step in the course of Divine revelation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\n_THE JOY OF THE LORD._\n\nNEHEMIAH viii. 9-18.\n\n\n\"All the people wept when they heard the words of the law.\" Was it for\nthis mournful end that Ezra had studied the sacred law and guarded it\nthrough the long years of political unrest, until at length he was\nable to make it known with all the pomp and circumstance of a national\nfestival? Evidently the leaders of the people had expected no such\nresult. But, disappointing as it was, it might have been worse. The\nreading might have been listened to with indifference; or the great,\nstern law might have been rejected with execration, or scoffed at with\nincredulity. Nothing of the kind happened. There was no doubt as to\nthe rightness of The Law, no reluctance to submit to its yoke, no\ndisposition to ignore its requirements. This law had come with all the\nauthority of the Persian government to sanction it; and yet it is\nevidently no fear of the magistrate, but their own convictions, their\nconfirming consciences, that here influence the people and determine\ntheir attitude to it. Thus Ezra's labours were really honoured by the\nJews, though their fruits were received so sorrowfully.\n\nWe must not suppose that the Jews of Ezra's day anticipated the ideas\nof St. Paul. It was not a Christian objection to law that troubled\nthem; they did not complain of its externalism, its bondage, its\nformal requirements and minute details. To imagine that these features\nof The Law were regarded with disapproval by the first hearers of it\nis to credit them with an immense advance in thought beyond their\nleaders--Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Levites. It is clear that their grief\narose simply from their perception of their own miserable\nimperfections in contrast to the lofty requirements of The Law, and in\nview of its sombre threats of punishment for disobedience. The\ndiscovery of a new ideal of conduct above that with which we have\nhitherto been satisfied naturally provokes painful stings of\nconscience, which the old salve, compounded of the comfortable little\nnotions we once cherished, will not neutralise. In the new light of\nthe higher truth we suddenly discover that the \"robe of righteousness\"\nin which we have been parading is but as \"filthy rags.\" Then our once\nvaunted attainments become despicable in our own eyes. The eminence on\nwhich we have been standing so proudly is seen to be a wretched\nmole-hill compared with the awful snow-peak from which the clouds have\njust dispersed. Can we ever climb that? Goodness now seems to be\nhopelessly unattainable; yet never before was it so desirable, because\nnever before did it shine with so rare and fascinating a lustre.\n\nBut, it may be objected, was not the religious and moral character of\nthe teaching of the great prophets--of Hosea, Isaiah, Micah,\nJeremiah--larger and higher and more spiritual than the legalism of\nthe Pentateuch? That may be granted; but it is not to the point here.\nThe lofty prophetic teaching had never been accepted by the nation.\nThe prophets had been voices crying in the wilderness. Their great\nspiritual thoughts had never been seriously followed except by a small\ngroup of devout souls. It was the Christian Church that first built on\nthe foundation of the prophets. But in Ezra's day the Jews as a body\nfrankly accepted The Law. Whether this were higher or lower than the\nideal of prophetism does not affect the case. The significant fact is\nthat is was higher than any ideal the people had hitherto adopted in\npractice. The perception of this fact was most distressing to them.\n\nNevertheless the Israelite leaders did not share the feeling of grief.\nIn their eyes the sorrow of the Jews was a great mistake. It was even\na wrong thing for them thus to distress themselves. Ezra loved The\nLaw, and therefore it was to him a dreadful surprise to discover that\nthe subject of his devoted studies was regarded so differently by his\nbrethren. Nehemiah and the Levites shared his more cheerful view of\nthe situation. Lyrics of this and subsequent ages bear testimony to\nthe passionate devotion with which the sacred Torah was cherished by\nloyal disciples. The author of the hundred and nineteenth Psalm\nransacks his vocabulary for varying phrases on which to ring the\nchanges in praise of the law, the judgments, the statutes, the\ncommandments of God. He cries:--\n\n  \"I will delight in Thy statutes:\n  I will not forget Thy word.\n\n        *      *      *      *\n\n  \"Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold\n  Wondrous things out of Thy law.\n\n        *      *      *      *\n\n  \"Unless Thy law had been my delight,\n  I should have perished in mine affliction.\n\n        *      *      *      *\n\n  \"Great peace have they that love Thy law,\n  And they have none occasion of stumbling.\"\n\nMoreover, the student of The Law to-day can perceive that its\nintention was beneficent. It maintained righteousness; and\nrighteousness is the chief good. It regulated the mutual relations of\nmen with regard to justice; it ordained purity; it contained many\nhumane rules for the protection of men and even of animals; it\ncondescended to most wholesome sanitary directions. Then it declared\nthat he who kept its ordinances should live, not merely by reason of\nan arbitrary arrangement, but because it pointed out the natural and\nnecessary way of life and health. The Divine Spirit that had guided\nthe development of it had presided over something more inviting than\nthe forging of fetters for a host of miserable slaves, something more\nuseful than the creation of a tantalising exemplar that should be the\ndespair of every copyist. Ezra and his fellow-leaders knew the\n_intention_ of The Law. This was the ground of their joyous confidence\nin contemplation of it. They were among those who had been led by\ntheir personal religion into possession of \"the secret of the Lord.\"\nThey had acquainted themselves with Him, and therefore they were at\npeace. Their example teaches us that we must penetrate beyond the\nletter to the spirit of revelation if we would discover its hidden\nthoughts of love. When we do so even The Law will be found to enshrine\nan evangel. Not that these men of the olden times perceived the\nfanciful symbolism which many Christians have delighted to extract\nfrom the most mechanical details of the tabernacle ritual. Their eyes\nwere fixed on the gracious Divine purpose of creating a holy\nnation--separate and pure--and The Law seemed to be the best\ninstrument for accomplishing that purpose. Meanwhile its\nimpracticability did not strike them, because they thought of the\nthing in itself rather than of the relation of men to it. Religious\nmelancholy springs from habits of subjectivity. The joyous spirit is\nthat which forgets self in the contemplation of the thoughts of God.\nIt is our meditation of Him--not of self--that is sweet.\n\nOf course this would have been unreasonable if it had totally ignored\nhuman conditions and their relation to the Divine. In that case Ezra\nand his companions would have been vain dreamers, and the sorrowing\nmultitude people of common-sense perceptions. But we must remember\nthat the new religious movement was inspired by faith. It is faith\nthat bridges the vast chasm between the real and the ideal. God had\ngiven The Law in lovingkindness and tender mercy. Then God would make\nthe attainment of His will revealed in it possible. The part of brave\nand humble men was to look away from themselves to the revelation of\nGod's thought concerning them with grateful admiration of its glorious\nperfection.\n\nWhile considerations of this sort would make it possible for the\nleaders to regard The Law in a very different spirit from that\nmanifested by the rest of the Jews, other reflections led them to go\nfurther and check the outburst of grief as both unseemly and hurtful.\n\nIt was unseemly, because it was marring the beauty of a great\nfestival. The Jews were to stay their grief seeing that the day was\nholy unto the Lord.[230] This was as much as to say that sorrow was\ndefiling. The world had to wait for the religion of the cross reveal\nto it the sanctity of sorrow. Undoubtedly the Jewish festivals were\njoyous celebrations. It is the greatest mistake to represent the\nreligion of the Old Testament as a gloomy cult overshadowed by the\nthunder-clouds of Sinai. On the contrary, its greatest offices were\ncelebrated with music, dancing, and feasting. The high day was a\nholiday, sunny and mirthful. It would be a pity to spoil such an\noccasion with unseasonable lamentations. But Nehemiah and Ezra must\nhave had a deeper thought than this in their deprecation of grief at\nthe festival. To allow such behaviour is to entertain unworthy\nfeelings towards God. A day sacred to the Lord is a day in which His\npresence is especially felt. To draw near to God with no other\nfeelings than emotions of fear and grief is to misapprehend His nature\nand His disposition towards His people. Worship should be inspired\nwith the gladness of grateful hearts praising God, because otherwise\nit would discredit His goodness.\n\n  [230] Neh. viii. 9.\n\nThis leads to a thought of wider range and still more profound\nsignificance, a thought that flashes out of the sacred page like a\nbrilliant gem, a thought so rich and glad and bountiful that it speaks\nfor its own inspiration as one of the great Divine ideas of\nScripture--\"The joy of the Lord is your strength.\" Though the\nunseemliness of mourning on a feast day was the first and most obvious\nconsideration urged by the Jewish leaders in their expostulation with\nthe distressed multitude, the real justification for their rebukes and\nexhortations is to be found in the magnificent spiritual idea that\nthey here give expression to. In view of such a conviction as they now\ngladly declare they would regard the lamentation of the Jews as more\nthan unseemly, as positively hurtful and even wrong.\n\nBy the expression \"the joy of the Lord\" it seems clear that Nehemiah\nand his associates meant a joy which may be experienced by men through\ntheir fellowship with God. The phrase could be used for the gladness\nof God Himself; as we speak of the righteousness of God or the love of\nGod, so we might speak of His joy in reference to His own infinite\nlife and consciousness. But in the case before us the drift of the\npassage directs our thoughts to the moods and feelings of men. The\nJews are giving way to grief, and they are rebuked for so doing and\nencouraged to rejoice. In this situation some thoughts favourable to\njoy on their part are naturally suitable. Accordingly they are called\nto enter into a pure and lofty gladness in which they are assured they\nwill find their strength.\n\nThis \"joy of the Lord,\" then, is the joy that springs up in our hearts\nby means of our relation to God. It is a God-given gladness, and it is\nfound in communion with God. Nevertheless the other \"joy of the Lord\"\nis not to be left out of account when we think of the gladness which\ncomes to us from God, for the highest joy is possible to us just\nbecause it is first experienced by God. There could be no joy in\ncommunion with a morose divinity. The service of Moloch must have been\na terror, a perfect agony to his most loyal devotees. The feelings of\na worshipper will always be reflections from what he thinks he\nperceives in the countenance of his god. They will be gloomy if the\ngod is a sombre personage, and cheerful if he is a glad being. Now the\nrevelation of God in the Bible is the unveiling with growing clearness\nof a countenance of unspeakable love and beauty and gladness. He is\nmade known to us as \"the blessed God\"--the happy God. Then the joy of\nHis children is the overflow of His own deep gladness streaming down\nto them. This is the \"joy in the presence of the angels\" which,\nspringing from the great heart of God, makes the happiness of\nreturning penitents, so that they share in their Father's delight, as\nthe prodigal shares in the home festivities when the fatted calf is\nkilled. This same communication of gladness is seen in the life of our\nLord, not only during those early sunny days in Galilee when His\nministry opened under a cloudless sky, but even amid the darkness of\nthe last hours at Jerusalem, for in His final discourse Jesus prayed\nthat His joy might be in His disciples in order that their joy might\nbe full. A more generous perception of this truth would make religion\nlike sunshine and music, like the blooming of spring flowers and the\noutburst of woodland melody about the path of the Christian pilgrim.\nIt is clear that Jesus Christ expected this to be the case since He\ncommenced His teaching with the word \"Blessed.\" St. Paul, too, saw the\nsame possibility, as his repeated encouragements to \"Rejoice\" bear\nwitness. Religion may be compared to one of those Italian city\nchurches which are left outwardly bare and gloomy, while within they\nare replete with treasures of art. We must cross the threshold, push\naside the heavy curtain, and tread the sacred pavement, if we would\nsee the beauty of sculptured column and mural fresco and jewelled\naltar-piece. Just in proportion as we draw near to God shall we behold\nthe joy and love that ever dwell in Him, till the vision of these\nwonders kindles our love and gladness.\n\nNow the great idea that is here suggested to us connects this Divine\njoy with strength--the joy is an inspiration of energy. By the nature\nof things joy is exhilarating, while pain is depressing. Physiologists\nrecognise it as a law of animal organisms that happiness is a nerve\ntonic. It would seem that the same law obtains in spiritual\nexperience. On the other hand, nothing is more certain than that there\nare enervating pleasures, and that the free indulgence in pleasure\ngenerally weakens the character; with this goes the equally certain\ntruth that men may be braced by suffering, that the east wind of\nadversity may be a real stimulant. How shall we reconcile these\ncontradictory positions? Clearly there are different kinds and grades\nof delight, and different ways of taking and using every form of\ngladness. Pure hedonism cannot but be a weak system of life. It is the\nSpartan, not the Sybarite, who is capable of heroic deeds. Even\nEpicurus, whose name has been abused to shelter low pleasure-seeking,\nperceived, as clearly as \"The Preacher,\" the melancholy truth that the\nlife that is given over to the satisfaction of personal desires is but\n\"vanity of vanities.\" The joy that exhilarates is not sought as a\nfinal goal. It comes in by the way when we are pursuing some objective\nend. Then this purest joy is as far above the pleasure of the\nself-indulgent as heaven is above hell. It may even be found side by\nside with bodily pain, as when martyrs exult in their flames, or when\nstricken souls in more prosaic circumstances awake to the wonderful\nperception of a rare Divine gladness. It is this joy that gives\nstrength. There is enthusiasm in it. Such a joy not being an end in\nitself is a means to a great practical end. God's glad children are\nstrong to do and bear His will, strong in their very gladness.\n\nThis was good news to the Jews, outwardly but a feeble flock and a\nprey to the ravening wolves from neighbouring lands. They had\nrecovered hope after building their walls; but these hastily\nconstructed fortifications did not afford them their most secure\nstronghold. Their refuge was God. They carried bows and spears and\nswords; but the strength with which they wielded these weapons\nconsisted in the enthusiasm of a Divine gladness--not the orgiastic\nfury of the heathen, but the deep, strong joy of men who knew the\nsecret of their Lord, who possessed what Wordsworth calls \"inward\nglee.\" This joy was essentially a moral strength. It bestowed the\npower wherewith to keep the law. Here was the answer to the\ndiscouragement of the people in their dawning perception of the lofty\nrequirements of God's holy will. The Christian can best find energy\nfor service, as well as the calm strength of patience, in that still\nricher Divine gladness which is poured into his heart by the grace of\nChrist. It is not only unfortunate for anybody to be a mournful\nChristian; it is dangerous, hurtful, even wrong. Therefore the gloomy\nservant of God is to be rebuked for missing the Divine gladness.\nSeeing that the source of it is in God, and not in the Christian\nhimself, it is attainable and possible to the most sorrowful. He who\nhas found this \"pearl of great price\" can afford to miss much else in\nlife and yet go on his way rejoicing.\n\nIt was natural that the Jews should have been encouraged to give\nexpression to the Divine joy at a great festival. The final\nharvest-home of the year, the merry celebration of the vintage, was\nthen due. No Jewish feast was more cheerful than this, which expressed\ngratitude for \"wine that maketh glad the heart of man.\" The\nsuperiority of Judaism over heathenism is seen in the tremendous\ncontrast between the simple gaiety of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles\nand the gross debauchery of the Bacchanalian orgies which disgraced a\nsimilar occasion in the pagan world. It is to our shame in modern\nChristendom that we dare not imitate the Jews here, knowing too well\nthat if we tried to do so we should only sink to the heathen level.\nOur Feast of Tabernacles would certainly become a Feast of Bacchus,\nbestial and wicked. Happily the Jews did not feel the Teutonic danger\nof intemperance. Their festival recognised the Divine bounty in\nnature, in its richest, ripest autumn fruitfulness, which was like the\nsmile of God breaking out through His works to cheer His children.\nBivouacking in greenwood bowers, the Jews did their best to return to\nthe life of nature and share its autumn gladness. The chronicler\ninforms us that since the days of Joshua the Jews had never observed\nthe feast as they did now--never with such great gladness and never so\ntruly after the directions of their law. Although the actual words he\ngives as from The Law[231] are not to be found in the Pentateuch, they\nsum up the regulations of that work. This then is the first\napplication of The Law which the people have received with so much\ndistress. It ordains a glad festival. So much brighter is religion\nwhen it is understood and practised than when it is only contemplated\nfrom afar! Now the reading of The Law can go on day by day, and be\nreceived with joy.\n\n  [231] Neh. viii. 14, 15\n\nFinally, like the Christians who collected food and money at the\n_Agape_ for their poorer brethren and for the martyrs in prison, the\nJews were to \"send portions\" to the needy.[232] The rejoicing was not\nto be selfish; it was to stimulate practical kindness. Here was its\nsafeguard. We shrink from accepting joy too freely lest it should be\nfollowed by some terrible Nemesis; but if, instead of gloating over it\nin secret, selfishly and greedily, we use it as a talent, and\nendeavour to lessen the sorrows of others by inviting them to share\nit, the heathenish dread is groundless. He who is doing his utmost to\nhelp his brother may dare to be very happy.\n\n  [232] Neh. viii. 12.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\n_THE RELIGION OF HISTORY._\n\nNEHEMIAH ix.\n\n\nAfter the carnival--Lent. This Catholic procedure was anticipated by\nthe Jews in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. The merry feast of\nTabernacles was scarcely over, when, permitting an interval of but a\nsingle day, the citizens of Jerusalem plunged into a demonstration of\nmourning--fasting, sitting in sackcloth, casting dust on their heads,\nabjuring foreign connections, confessing their own and their fathers'\nsins. Although the singular revulsion of feeling may have been quite\nspontaneous on the part of the people, the violent reaction to which\nit gave rise was sanctioned by the authorities. In an open-air meeting\nwhich lasted for six hours--three of Bible-reading and three of\nconfession and worship--the Levites took the lead, as they had done at\nthe publication of The Law a few weeks earlier. But these very men had\nrebuked the former outburst of lamentation. Must we suppose that their\nonly objection on that occasion was that the mourning was then\nuntimely, because it was indulged in at a festival, whereas it ought\nto have been postponed to a fast day? If that were all, we should have\nto contemplate a miserably artificial condition of affairs. Real\nemotions refuse to come and go at the bidding of officials\npedantically set on regulating their alternate recurrence in\naccordance with a calendar of the church year. A theatrical\nrepresentation of feeling may be drilled into some such orderly\nprocession. But true feeling itself is of all things in the universe\nthe most restive under direct orders.\n\nWe must look a little deeper. The Levites had given a great spiritual\nreason for the restraint of grief in their wonderful utterance, \"The\njoy of the Lord is your strength.\" This noble thought is not an elixir\nto be administered or withheld according to the recurrence of\necclesiastical dates. If it is true at all, it is eternally true.\nAlthough the application of it is not always a fact of experience, the\nreason for the fluctuations in our personal relations to it is not to\nbe looked for in the almanack; it will be found in those dark passages\nof human life which, of their own accord, shut out the sunlight of\nDivine gladness. There is then no absolute inconsistency in the action\nof the Levites. And yet perhaps they may have perceived that they had\nbeen hasty in their repression of the first outburst of grief; or at\nall events that they did not then see the whole truth of the matter.\nThere was some ground for lamentation after all, and though the\nexpression of sorrow at a festival seemed to them untimely, they were\nbound to admit its fitness a little later. It is to be observed that\nanother subject was now brought under the notice of the people. The\ncontemplation of the revelation of God's will should not produce\ngrief. But the consideration of man's conduct cannot but lead to that\nresult. At the reading of Divine law the Jews' lamentation was\nrebuked; at the recital of their own history it was encouraged. Yet\neven here it was not to be abject and hopeless. The Levites exhorted\nthe people to shake off the lethargy of sorrow, to _stand up_ and\nbless the Lord their God. Even in the very act of confessing sin we\nhave a special reason for praising God, because the consciousness of\nour guilt in His sight must heighten our appreciation of His\nmarvellous forbearance.\n\nThe Jews' confession of sin led up to a prayer which the Septuagint\nascribes to Ezra. It does so, however, in a phrase that manifestly breaks\nthe context, and thus betrays its origin in an interpolation.[233]\nNevertheless the tone of the prayer, and even its very language, remind us\nforcibly of the Great Scribe's outpouring of soul over the mixed marriages\nof his people recorded in Ezra ix. No one was more fitted to lead the Jews\nin the later act of devotion, and it is only reasonable to conclude that\nthe work was undertaken by the one man to whose lot it would naturally\nfall.\n\n  [233] LXX. Ezra ix. 6-15.\n\nThe prayer is very like some of the historical psalms. By pointing to\nthe variegated picture of the History of Israel, it shows how God\nreveals Himself through events. This suggests the probability that the\nthree hours' reading of the fast day had been taken from the\nhistorical parts of the Pentateuch. The religious teachers of Israel\nknew what riches of instruction were buried in the history of their\nnation, and they had the wisdom to unearth those treasures for the\nbenefit of their own age. It is strange that we English have made so\nlittle use of a national history that is not a whit less providential,\nalthough it does not glitter with visible miracles. God has spoken to\nEngland as truly through the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the Puritan\nWars, and the Revolution, as ever He spoke to Israel by means of the\nExodus, the Captivity, and the Return.\n\nThe arrangement and method of the prayer lend themselves to a\nsingularly forcible presentation of its main topics, with heightening\neffect as it proceeds in a recapitulation of great historical\nlandmarks. It opens with an outburst of praise to God. In saying that\nJehovah is God alone, it makes more than a cold pronouncement of\nJewish monotheism; it confesses the practical supremacy of God over\nHis universe, and therefore over His people and their enemies. God is\nadored as the Creator of heaven; and, perhaps with an allusion to the\nprevalent Gentile title \"God of heaven,\" as even the Maker of the\nheaven of heavens, of that higher heaven of which the starry firmament\nis but the gold-sprinkled floor. There, in those far-off, unseen\nheights, He is adored. But earth and sea, with all that inhabit them,\nare also God's works. From the highest to the lowest, over great and\nsmall, He reigns supreme. This glowing expression of adoration\nconstitutes a suitable exordium. It is right and fitting that we\nshould approach God in the attitude of pure worship, for the moment\nentirely losing ourselves in the contemplation of Him. This is the\nloftiest act of prayer, far above the selfish shriek for help in dire\ndistress to which unspiritual men confine their utterance before God.\nIt is also the most enlightening preparation for those lower forms of\ndevotion that cannot be neglected so long as we are engaged on earth\nwith our personal needs and sins, because it is necessary for us first\nof all to know what God is, and to be able to contemplate the thought\nof His being and nature, if we would understand the course of His\naction among men, or see our sins in the only true light--the light of\nHis countenance. We can best trace the course of low-lying valleys\nfrom a mountain height. The primary act of adoration illumines and\ndirects the thanksgiving, confession, and petition that follow. He who\nhas once seen God knows how to look at the world and his own heart,\nwithout being misled by earthly glamour or personal prejudice.\n\nIn tracking the course of revelation through history, the author of\nthe prayer follows two threads. First one and then the other is\nuppermost, but it is the interweaving of them that gives the definite\npattern of the whole picture. These are God's grace and man's sin. The\nmethod of the prayer is to bring them into view alternately, as they\nare illustrated in the History of Israel. The result is like a drama\nof several acts, and three scenes in each act. Although we see\nprogress and a continuous heightening of effect, there is a startling\nresemblance between the successive acts, and the relative characters\nof the scenes remain the same throughout. In the _first_ scene we\nalways behold the free and generous favour of God offered to the\npeople He condescends to bless, altogether apart from any merits or\nclaims on their part. In the _second_ we are forced to look at the\nugly picture of Israel's ingratitude and rebellion. But this is\ninvariably followed by a _third_ scene, which depicts the wonderful\npatience and long-suffering of God, and His active aid in delivering\nHis guilty people from the troubles they have brought on their own\nheads by their sins, whenever they turn to Him in penitence.\n\nThe recital opens where the Jews delighted to trace their origin, in\nUr of the Chaldees. These returned exiles from Babylon are reminded\nthat at the very dawn of their ancestral history the same district was\nthe starting-point. The guiding hand of God was seen in bringing up\nthe Father of the Nation in that far-off tribal migration from Chaldaea\nto Canaan. At first the Divine action did not need to exhibit all the\ntraits of grace and power that were seen later, because Abraham was\nnot a captive. Then, too, there was no rebellion, for Abraham was\nfaithful. Thus the first scene opens with the mild radiance of early\nmorning. As yet there is nothing tragic on either side. The chief\ncharacteristic of this scene is its promise, and the author of the\nprayer anticipates some of the later scenes by interjecting a grateful\nrecognition of the faithfulness of God in keeping His word. \"For Thou\nart righteous,\" he says.[234] This truth is the keynote to the prayer.\nThe thought of it is always present as an undertone, and it emerges\nclearly again towards the conclusion, where, however, it wears a very\ndifferent garb. There we see how in view of man's sin God's\nrighteousness inflicts chastisement. But the intention of the author\nis to show that throughout all the vicissitudes of history God holds\non to His straight line of righteousness, unwavering. It is just\nbecause He does not change that His action must be modified in order\nto adjust itself to the shifting behaviour of men and women. It is the\nvery immutability of God that requires Him to show Himself froward\nwith the froward, although He is merciful with the merciful.\n\n  [234] Neh. ix. 8.\n\nThe chief events of the Exodus are next briefly recapitulated, in\norder to enlarge the picture of God's early goodness to Israel. Here\nwe may discern more than promise; the fulfilment now begins. Here,\ntoo, God is seen in that specific activity of deliverance which comes\nmore and more to the front as the history proceeds. While the\ncalamities of the people grow worse and worse, God reveals Himself\nwith ever-increasing force as the Redeemer of Israel. The plagues of\nEgypt, the passage of the Red Sea, the drowning of the Egyptians, the\ncloud-pillar by day and the pillar of fire by night, the descent on\nSinai for the giving of The Law--in which connection the one law of\nthe Sabbath is singled out, a point to be noted in view of the great\nprominence given to it later on--the manna, and the water from the\nrock, are all signs and proofs of God's exceeding kindness towards His\npeople.\n\nBut now we are directed to a very different scene. In spite of all\nthis never-ceasing, this ever-accumulating goodness of God, the\ninfatuated people rebel, appoint a captain to take them back to Egypt,\nand relapse into idolatry. This is the human side of the history,\nshown up in its deep blackness against the luminous splendour of the\nheavenly background.\n\nThen comes the marvellous third scene, the scene that should melt the\nhardest heart. God does not cast off His people. The privileges\nenumerated before are carefully repeated, to show that God has not\nwithdrawn them. Still the cloud-pillar guides by day and the\nfire-pillar by night. Still the manna and the water are supplied. But\nthis is not all. Between these two pairs of favours a new one is now\ninserted. God gives His \"good Spirit\" to instruct the people. The\nauthor does not seem to be referring to any one specific event, as\nthat of the Spirit falling on the elders, or the incident of the\nunauthorised prophet, or the bestowal of the Spirit on the artists of\nthe tabernacle. We should rather conclude from the generality of his\nterms that he is thinking of the gift of the Spirit in each of these\ncases, and also in every other way in which the Divine Presence was\nfelt in the hearts of the people. Prone to wander, they needed and\nthey received this inward monitor. Thus God showed His great\nforbearance, by even extending His grace and giving more help because\nthe need was greater.\n\nFrom this picture of the wilderness life we are led on to the conquest\nof the Promised Land. The Israelites overthrow the kings east of the\nJordan, and take possession of their territories. Growing in numbers,\nafter a time they are enough to cross the Jordan, seize the land of\nCanaan, and subdue the aboriginal inhabitants. Then we see them\nsettling down in their new home and inheriting the products of the\nlabours of their more civilised predecessors. All this is a further\nproof of the favour of God. Yet again the dreadful scene of\ningratitude is repeated, and that in an aggravated form. A wild fury\nof rebellion takes hold of the wicked people. They rise up against\ntheir God, fling His Torah behind their backs, murder the prophets He\nsends to warn them, and sink down into the greatest wickedness. The\nhead and front of their offence is the rejection of the sacred Torah.\nThe word Torah--law or instruction--must here be taken in its widest\nsense to comprehend both the utterances of the prophets and the\ntradition of the priests, although it is represented to the\ncontemporaries of Ezra by its crown and completion, the Pentateuch. In\nthis second act of heightened energy on both sides, while the\ncharacters of the actors are developing with stronger features, we\nhave a third scene--forgiveness and deliverance from God.\n\nThen the action moves more rapidly. It becomes almost confused. In\ngeneral terms, with a few swift strokes, the author sketches a\nsuccession of similar movements--indeed he does little more than hint\nat them. We cannot see how often the threefold process was repeated;\nonly we perceive that it always recurred in the same form. Yet the\nvery monotony deepens the impression of the whole drama--so madly\npersistent was the backsliding habit of Israel, so grandly continuous\nwas the patient long-suffering of God. We lose all count of the\nalternating scenes of light and darkness as we look at them down the\nlong vista of the ages. And yet it is not necessary that we should\nassort them. The perspective may escape us; all the more must we feel\nthe force of the process which is characterised by so powerful a unity\nof movement.\n\nComing nearer to his own time, the author of the prayer expands into\ndetail again. While the kingdom lasted God did not cease to plead with\nhis people. They disregarded His voice, but His Spirit was in the\nprophets, and the long line of heavenly messengers was a living\ntestimony to the Divine forbearance. Heedless of this greatest and\nbest means of bringing them back to their forsaken allegiance, the\nJews were at length given over to the heathen. Yet that tremendous\ncalamity was not without its mitigations. They were not utterly\nconsumed. Even now God did not forsake them. He followed them into\ntheir captivity. This was apparent in the continuous advent of\nprophets--such as the Second Isaiah and Ezekiel--who appeared and\ndelivered their oracles in the land of exile; it was most gloriously\nmanifest in the return under Cyrus. Such long-continued goodness,\nbeyond the utmost excess of the nation's sin, surpassed all that could\nhave been hoped for. It went beyond the promises of God; it could not\nbe wholly comprehended in His faithfulness. Therefore another Divine\nattribute is now revealed. At first the prayer made mention of God's\nrighteousness, which was seen in the gift of Canaan as a fulfilment of\nthe promise to Abraham, so that the author remarked, in regard to the\nperformance of the Divine word, \"for Thou art righteous.\" But now he\nreflects on the greater kindness, the uncovenanted kindness of the\nExile and the Return; \"for Thou art a gracious and merciful God.\"[235]\nWe can only account for such extended goodness by ascribing it to the\ninfinite love of God.\n\n  [235] Neh. ix. 31.\n\nHaving thus brought his review down to his own day, in the concluding\npassage of the prayer the author appeals to God with reference to the\npresent troubles of His people. In doing so he first returns to his\ncontemplation of the nature of God. Three Divine characteristics rise\nup before him,--first, _majesty_ (\"the great, the mighty, the terrible\nGod\"); second, _fidelity_ (keeping \"covenant\"); third, _compassion_\n(keeping \"mercy\").[236] On this threefold plea he beseeches God that\nall the national trouble which has been endured since the first\nAssyrian invasion may not \"seem little\" to Him. The greatness of God\nmight appear to induce disregard of the troubles of His poor human\nchildren, and yet it would really lead to the opposite result. It is\nonly the limited faculty that cannot stoop to small things because its\nattention is confined to large affairs. Infinity reaches to the\ninfinitely little as readily as to the infinitely great. With the\nappeal for compassion goes a confession of sin, which is national\nrather than personal. All sections of the community on which the\ncalamities have fallen--with the significant exception of the prophets\nwho had possessed God's Spirit, and who had been so grievously\npersecuted by their fellow-countrymen--all are united in a common\nguilt. The solidarity of the Jewish race is here apparent. We saw in\nthe earlier case of the sin-offering that the religion of Israel was\nnational rather than personal. The punishment of the captivity was a\nnational discipline; now the confession is for national sin. And yet\nthe sin is confessed distributively, with regard to the several\nsections of society. We cannot feel our national sin in the bulk. It\nmust be brought home to us in our several walks of life.\n\n  [236] Neh. ix. 32.\n\nAfter this confession the prayer deplores the present state of the\nJews. No reference is now made to the temporary annoyance occasioned\nby the attacks of the Samaritans. The building of the walls has put an\nend to that nuisance. But the permanent evil is more deeply rooted.\nThe Jews are mournfully conscious of their subject state beneath the\nPersian yoke. They have returned to their city; but they are no more\nfree men than they were in Babylon. Like the _fellaheen_ of Syria\nto-day, they have to pay heavy tribute, which takes the best of the\nproduce of their labour. They are subject to the conscription, having\nto serve in the armies of the Great King--Herodotus tells us that\nthere were \"Syrians of Palestine\" in the army of Xerxes.[237] Their\ncattle are seized by the officers of the government, arbitrarily, \"at\ntheir pleasure.\" Did Nehemiah know of this complaint? If so, might\nthere not be some ground for the suspicion of the informers after all?\nWas that suspicion one reason for his recall to Susa? We cannot answer\nthese questions. As to the prayer, this leaves the whole case with\nGod. It would have been dangerous to have said more in the hearing of\nthe spies who haunted the streets of Jerusalem. And it was needless.\nIt is not the business of prayer to try to move the hand of God. It is\nenough that we lay bare our state before Him, trusting His wisdom as\nwell as His grace--not dictating to God, but confiding in Him.\n\n  [237] Herodotus, vii. 89.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\n_THE COVENANT._\n\nNEHEMIAH x.\n\n\nThe tenth chapter of \"Nehemiah\" introduces us to one of the most vital\ncrises in the History of Israel. It shows us how the secret cult of\nthe priests of Jehovah became a popular religion. The process was\nbrought to a focus in the public reading of The Law; it was completed\nin the acceptance of The Law which the sealing of the covenant\nratified. This event may be compared with the earlier scene, when the\nlaw-book discovered in the temple by Hilkiah was accepted and enforced\nby Josiah. Undoubtedly that book is included in Ezra's complete\nedition of The Law. Generations before Ezra, then, though nothing more\nthan Deuteronomy may have been forthcoming, that vital section of The\nLaw, containing as it did the essential principles of Judaism, was\nadopted. But how was this result brought about? Not by the intelligent\nconviction, nor by the voluntary action of the nation. It was the work\nof a king, who thought to drive his ideas into his subjects. No doubt\nJosiah acted in a spirit of genuine loyalty to Jehovah; and yet the\nmethod he followed could not lead to success. The transient character\nof his spasmodic attempt to save his people at the eleventh hour,\nfollowed by the total collapse of the fabric he had built up, shows\nhow insecure a foundation he had obtained. It was a royal reformation,\nnot a revival of religion on the part of the nation. We have an\ninstance of a similar course of action in the English reformation\nunder Edward VI., which was swept away in a moment when his Catholic\nsister succeeded to the throne, because it was a movement originating\nin the court and not supported by the country, as was that under\nElizabeth when Mary had opened the eye of the English nation to the\ncharacter of Romanism.\n\nBut now a very different scene presents itself to our notice. The\nsealing of the covenant signifies the voluntary acceptance of The Law\nby the people of Israel, and their solemn promise to submit to its\nyoke. There are two sides to this covenant arrangement. The first is\nseen in the conduct of the people in entering into the covenant. This\nis absolutely an act of free will on their part. We have seen that\nEzra never attempted to force The Law upon his fellow-countrymen--that\nhe was slow in producing it; that when he read it he only did so at\nthe urgent request of the people; and that even after this he went no\nfurther, but left it with the audience for them to do with it as they\nthought fit. It came with the authority of the will of God, which to\nreligious men is the highest authority; but it was not backed by the\nsecular arm, even though Ezra possessed a _firman_ from the Persian\ncourt which would have justified him in calling in the aid of the\ncivil government. Now the acceptance of The Law is to be in the same\nspirit of freedom. Of course somebody must have started the idea of\nforming a covenant. Possibly it was Nehemiah who did so. Still this\nwas when the people were ripe for entering into it, and the whole\nprocess was voluntary on their part. The only religion that can be\nreal to us is that which we believe in with personal faith and\nsurrender ourselves to with willing obedience. Even when the law is\nrecorded on parchment, it must also be written on the fleshy table of\nthe heart if it is to be effective.\n\nBut there is another side to the covenant-sealing. The very existence\nof a covenant is significant. The word \"covenant\" suggests an\nagreement between two parties, a mutual arrangement to which each is\npledged. So profound was the conviction of Israel that in coming to an\nagreement with God it was not possible for man to bargain with his\nMaker on equal terms, that in translating the Hebrew name for covenant\ninto Greek the writers of the Septuagint did not use the term that\nelsewhere stands for an agreement among equals\n({~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}),\nbut employed one indicative of an arrangement made by one party to the\ntransaction and submitted to the other ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}). The\ncovenant, then, is a Divine disposition, a Divine ordinance. Even\nwhen, as in the present instance, it is formally made by men, this is\nstill on lines laid down by God; the covenanting is a voluntary act of\nadhesion to a law which comes from God. Therefore the terms of the\ncovenant are fixed, and not to be discussed by the signatories. This\nis of the very essence of Judaism as a religion of Divine law. Then\nthough the sealing is voluntary, it entails a great obligation;\nhenceforth the covenant people are bound by the covenant which they\nhave deliberately entered into. This, too, is a characteristic of the\nreligion of law. It is a bondage, though a bondage willingly submitted\nto by those who stoop to its yoke. To St. Paul it became a crushing\nslavery. But the burden was not felt at first, simply because neither\nthe range of The Law, nor the searching force of its requirements,\nnor the weakness of men to keep their vows, was yet perceived by the\nsanguine Jews who so unhesitatingly surrendered to it. As we look back\nto their position from the vantage ground of Christian liberty, we are\nastounded at the Jewish love of law, and we rejoice in our freedom\nfrom its irksome restraints. And yet the Christian is not an\nantinomian; he is not a sort of free lance, sworn to no obedience. He\ntoo has his obligation. He is bound to a lofty service--not to a law,\nindeed, but to a personal Master; not in the servitude of the letter,\nbut, though with the freedom of the spirit, really with far higher\nobligations of love and fidelity than were ever recognised by the most\nrigorous covenant-keeping Jews. Thus he has a new covenant, sealed in\nthe blood of his Saviour; and his communion with his Lord implies a\nsacramental vow of loyalty. The Christian covenant, however, is not\nvisibly exhibited, because a formal pledge is scarcely in accordance\nwith the spirit of the gospel. We find it better to take a more\nself-distrustful course, one marked by greater dependence of faith on\nthe preserving grace of God, by turning our vows into prayers. While\nthe Jews \"entered into a curse and into an oath\" to keep the law, we\nshrink from anything so terrible; yet our duty is not the less because\nwe limit our professions of it.\n\nThe Jews were prepared for their covenant by two essential\npreliminaries. The first was knowledge. The reading of The Law\npreceded the covenant, which was entered into intelligently. There is\nno idea of what is called \"implicit faith.\" The whole situation is\nclearly surveyed, and The Law is adopted with a consciousness of what\nit means as far as the understanding of its requirements by the people\nwill yet penetrate into its signification. It is necessary to count\nthe cost before entering on a course of religious service. With a view\nto this our Lord spoke of the \"narrow way\" and the \"cross,\" much to\nthe disappointment of His more sanguine disciples, but as a real\nsecurity for genuine loyalty. With religion, of all things, it is\nfoolish to take a leap in the dark. Judaism and Christianity\nabsolutely contradict the idea that \"Ignorance is the mother of\ndevotion.\"\n\nThe second preparation consisted in the moral effect on the Jews of\nthe review of their history in the light of religion, and their\nconsequent confession of sin and acknowledgment of God's goodness.\nHere was the justification for the written law. The old methods had\nfailed. The people had not kept the desultory _Torah_ of the prophets.\nThey needed a more formal system of discipline. Here too were the\nmotives for adopting the covenant. Penitence for the nation's\nmiserable past prompted the desire for a better future, and gratitude\nfor the overwhelming goodness of God roused an enthusiasm of devotion.\nNothing urges us to surrender ourselves to God so much as these two\nmotives--our repentance and His goodness. They are the two powerful\nmagnets that draw souls to Christ.\n\nThe chronicler--always delighting in any opportunity to insert his\nlists of names--records the names of the signatories of the covenant.\nThe seals of these men were of importance so long as the original\ndocument to which they were affixed was preserved, and so long as any\nrecognised descendants of the families they represented were living.\nTo us they are of interest because they indicate the orderly\narrangement of the nation and the thoroughness of procedure in the\nratification of the covenant. Nehemiah, who is again called by his\nPersian title Tirshatha, appears first. This fact is to be noted as a\nsign that as yet even in a religious document the civil ruler takes\nprecedence of the hierarchy. At present it is allowed for a layman to\nhead the list of leading Israelites. We might have looked for Ezra's\nname in the first place, for he it was who had taken the lead in the\nintroduction of The Law, while Nehemiah had retreated into the\nbackground during the whole month's proceedings. But the name of Ezra\ndoes not appear anywhere on the document. The probable explanation of\nits absence is that only heads of houses affixed their seals, and that\nEzra was not accounted one of them. Nehemiah's position in the\ndocument is official. The next name, Zedekiah, possibly stands for\nZadok the Scribe mentioned later,[238] who may have been the writer of\nthe document, or perhaps Nehemiah's secretary. Then come the priests.\nIt was not the business of these men to assist in the reading of The\nLaw. While the Levites acted as scribes and instructors of the people,\nthe priests were chiefly occupied with the temple ritual and the\nperformance of the other ceremonies of religion. The Levites were\nteachers of The Law; the priests were its administrators. In the\nquestion of the execution of The Law, therefore, the priests have a\nprominent place, and after remaining in obscurity during the previous\nengagements, they naturally come to the front when the national\nacceptance of the Pentateuch is being confirmed. The hierarchy is so\nfar established that, though the priests follow the lay ruler of\nJerusalem, they precede the general body of citizens, and even the\nnobility. No doubt many of the higher families were in the line of the\npriesthood. But this was not the case with all of them, and therefore\nwe must see here a distinct clerical precedence over all but the very\nhighest rank.\n\n  [238] Neh. xiii. 13.\n\nMost of the names in this list of priests occur again in a list of\nthose who came up with Zerubbabel and Jeshua,[239] from which fact we\nmust infer that they represent families, not individuals. But some of\nthe names in the other list are missing here. A most significant\nomission is that of the high-priest. Are we merely to suppose that\nsome names have dropped out in course of transcription? Or was the\nhigh-priest, with some of his brethren, unwilling to sign the\ncovenant? We have had earlier signs that the high-priest did not enjoy\nthe full confidence of Ezra.[240] The heads of the hierarchy may have\nresented the popularising of The Law. Since formerly, while the people\nwere often favoured with the moral Torah of the prophets, the\nceremonial Torah of the priests was kept among the _arcana_ of the\ninitiated, the change may not have been pleasing to its old\ncustodians. Then these conservatives may not have approved of Ezra's\nlatest recension of The Law. A much more serious difficulty lay with\nthose priests who had contracted foreign marriages, and who had\nfavoured the policy of alliance with neighbouring peoples which Ezra\nhad so fiercely opposed. Old animosities from this source were still\nsmouldering in the bosoms of some of the priests. But apart from any\nspecific grounds of disaffection, it is clear that there never was\nmuch sympathy between the scribes and the priests. Putting all these\nconsiderations together, it is scarcely too much to conjecture that\nthe absentees were designedly holding back when the covenant was\nsigned. The only wonder is that the disaffected minority was so small.\n\n  [239] Neh. xii. 1-7.\n\n  [240] _E.g._, Ezra viii. 33; where the high-priest is passed over in\n  silence.\n\nAccording to the new order advised by Ezekiel and now established, the\nLevites take the second place and come after the priests, as a\nseparate and inferior order of clergy. Yet the hierarchy is so far\nhonoured that even the lowest of the clergy precede the general body\nof the laity. We come down to the porters, the choristers, and the\ntemple-helots before we hear of the mass of the people. When this lay\nelement is reached, the whole of it is included. Men, women, and\nchildren are all represented in the covenant. The Law had been read to\nall classes, and now it is accepted by all classes. Thus again the\nrights and duties of women and children in religion are recognised,\nand the thoroughly domestic character of Judaism is provided for.\nThere is a solidity in the compact. A common obligation draws all who\nare included in it together. The population generally follows the\nexample of the leaders. \"They clave to their brethren, their\nnobles,\"[241] says the chronicler. The most effective unifying\ninfluence is a common enthusiasm in a great cause. The unity of\nChristendom will only be restored when the passion of loyalty to\nChrist is supreme in every Christian, and when every Christian\nacknowledges that this is the case with all his brother-Christians.\n\n  [241] Neh. x. 29.\n\nIt is clear that the obligation of the covenant extended to the whole\nlaw. This is called \"God's law, which was given by Moses the servant\nof God.\"[242] Nothing can be clearer than that in the eyes of the\nchronicler, at all events, it was the Mosaic law. We have seen many\nindications of this view in the chroniclers narrative. Can we resist\nthe conclusion that it was held by the contemporaries of Ezra and\nNehemiah? We are repeatedly warned against the mistake of supposing\nthat the Pentateuch was accepted as a brand-new document. On the\ncontrary, it was certainly received on the authority of the Mosaic\norigin of its contents, and because of the Divine authority that\naccompanied this origin. By the Jews it was viewed as the law of\nMoses, just as in Roman jurisprudence every law was considered to be\nderived from the \"Twelve Tables.\" No doubt Ezra also considered it to\nbe a true interpretation of the genius of Mosaism adapted to modern\nrequirements. If we keep this clearly before our minds, the\nPentateuchal controversy will lose its sharpest points of conflict.\nThe truth here noted once more is so often disregarded that it needs\nto be repeatedly insisted on at the risk of tautology.\n\n  [242] _Ibid._\n\nAfter the general acceptance of the whole law, the covenant specifies\ncertain important details. First comes the separation from the\nheathen--the burning question of the day. Next we have Sabbath\nobservance--also made especially important, because it was distinctive\nof Judaism as well as needful for the relief of poor and oppressed\nlabourers. But the principal part of the schedule is occupied with\npledges for the provision of the temple services. Immense supplies of\nfuel would be required for the numerous sacrifices, and therefore\nconsiderable prominence was given to the collecting of wood;\nsubsequently a festival was established to celebrate this action.\nAccording to a later tradition, Nehemiah kindled the flames on the\ngreat altar of the burnt-offerings with supernatural fire.[243] Like\nthe Vestal virgins at Rome, the temple officials were to tend the\nsacred fire as a high duty, and never let it go out. \"Fire shall be\nkept burning upon the altar continually,\"[244] was the Levitical rule.\nThus the very greatest honour was given to the rite of sacrifice. As\nthe restoration of the religion of Israel began with the erection of\nthe altar before the temple was built, so the preservation of that\nreligion was centred in the altar fire--and so, we may add, its\ncompletion was attained in the supreme sacrifice of Christ.\n\n  [243] 2 Macc. i. 19-22.\n\n  [244] Lev. vi. 13.\n\nFinally, special care was taken for what we may call \"Church finance\"\nin the collection of the tithes. This comes last; yet it has its\nplace. Not only is it necessary for the sake of the work that is to be\ncarried on; it is also important in regard to the religious obligation\nof the worshipper. The cry for a cheap religion is irreligious,\nbecause real religion demands sacrifices, and, indeed, necessarily\npromotes the liberal spirit from which those sacrifices flow. But if\nthe contributions are to come within the range of religious duties,\nthey must be voluntary. Clearly this was the case with the Jewish\ntithes, as we may see for two reasons. First, they were included in\nthe covenant; and adhesion to this was entirely voluntary. Secondly,\nMalachi rebuked the Jews for withholding the payment of tithes as a\nsin against God,[245] showing that the payment only rested on a sense\nof moral obligation on the part of the people. It would have been\ndifficult to go further while a foreign government was in power, even\nif the religious leaders had desired to do so. Moreover, God can only\naccept the offerings that are given freely with heart and will, for\nall He cares for is the spirit of the gift.\n\n  [245] Mal. iii. 8-12.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n_THE HOLY CITY._\n\nNEHEMIAH vii. 1-4; xi.\n\n\nWe have seen that though the two passages that deal with the sparsity\nof the population of Jerusalem are separated in our Bibles by the\ninsertion of the section on the reading of The Law and the formation\nof the covenant, they are, in fact, so closely related that, if we\nskip the intermediate section, the one runs on into the other quite\nsmoothly, as by a continuous narrative;[246] that is to say, we may\npass from Nehemiah vii. 4 to Nehemiah xi. 1 without the slightest sign\nof a junction of separate paragraphs. So naive and crude is the\nchronicler's style, that he has left the raw edges of the narrative\njagged and untrimmed, and thereby he has helped us to see distinctly\nhow he has constructed his work. The foreign matter which he has\ninserted in the great gash is quite different in style and contents\nfrom that which precedes and follows it. This is marked with the Ezra\nstamp, which indicates that in all probability it is founded on notes\nleft by the scribe; but the broken narrative in the midst of which it\nappears is derived from Nehemiah, the first part consisting of\nmemoirs written by the statesman himself, and the second part being\nan abbreviation of the continuation of Nehemiah's writing. The\nbeginning of this second part directly links it on to the first part,\nfor the word \"and\" has no sort of connection with the immediately\npreceding Ezra section, while it exactly fits into the broken end of\nthe previous Nehemiah section; only with his characteristic\nindifference to secular affairs, in comparison with matters touching\nThe Law and the temple worship, the chronicler abbreviates the\nconclusion of Nehemiah's story. It is easy to see how he constructs\nhis book in this place. He has before him two documents--one written\nby Nehemiah, the other written either by Ezra or by one of his close\nassociates. At first he follows Nehemiah, but suddenly he discovers\nthat he has reached the date when the Ezra record should come in.\nTherefore, without any concern for the irregularity of style that he\nis perpetrating, he suddenly breaks off Nehemiah's narrative to insert\nthe Ezra material, at the end of which he simply goes back to the\nNehemiah document, and resumes it exactly where he has left it, except\nthat now, after introducing it in the language of the original writer,\nhe compresses the fragment, so that the composition passes over into\nthe third person. It is not to be supposed that this is done\narbitrarily or for no good reason. The chronicler here intends to tell\nhis story in chronological order. He shows that the course of events\nreferred to at the opening of the seventh chapter really was broken by\nthe occurrences the record of which then follows. The interruptions in\nthe narrative just correspond to the real interruptions in the\nhistorical facts. History is not a smooth-flowing river; its course is\nrepeatedly broken by rocks and shoals, and sometimes entirely\ndeflected by impassable cliffs. In the earlier part of the narrative\nwe read of Nehemiah's anxiety on account of the sparsity of the\npopulation of Jerusalem; but before he was able to carry out any plans\nfor the increase of the number of inhabitants the time of the great\nautumn festivals was upon him, and the people were eager to take\nadvantage of the public holidays that then fell due in order to induce\nEzra to read to them the wonderful book he had brought up from Babylon\nyears before, and of which he had not yet divulged the contents. This\nwas not waste time as regards Nehemiah's project. Though the civil\ngovernor stood in the background during the course of the great\nreligious movement, he heartily seconded the clerical leaders of it in\ntheir efforts to enlighten and encourage the people, and he was the\nfirst to seal the covenant which was its fruit. Then the people who\nhad been instructed in the principles of their faith and consecrated\nto its lofty requirements were fitted to take their places as citizens\nof the Holy City.\n\n  [246] Pages 271-273.\n\nThe \"population question\" which troubled Nehemiah at this time is so\nexactly opposite to that which gives concern to students of social\nproblems in our own day, that we need to look into the circumstances\nin which it emerged in order to understand its bearings. The powerful\nsuction of great towns, depleting the rural districts and gorging the\nurban, is a source of the greatest anxiety to all who seriously\ncontemplate the state of modern society; and consequently one of the\nmost pressing questions of the day is how to scatter the people over\nthe land. Even in new countries the same serious condition is\nexperienced--in Australia, for instance, where the crowding of the\npeople into Melbourne is rapidly piling up the very difficulties\nsanguine men hoped the colonies would escape. If we only had these\nmodern facts to draw upon, we might conclude that a centripetal\nmovement of population was inevitable. That it is not altogether a\nnovelty we may learn from the venerable story of the Tower of Babel,\nfrom which we may also gather that it is God's will that men should\nspread abroad and replenish the earth.\n\nIt is one of the advantages of the study of history that it lifts us\nout of our narrow grooves and reveals to us an immense variety of\nmodes of life, and this is not the least of the many elements of\nprofit that come to us from the historical embodiment of revelation as\nwe have it in the Bible. The width of vision that we may thus attain\nto will have a double effect. It will save us from being wedded to a\nfixed policy under all circumstances; and it will deliver us from the\ndespair into which we should settle down, if we did not see that what\nlooks to us like a hopeless and interminable drift in the wrong\ndirection is not the permanent course of human development. It is\nnecessary to consider that if the dangers of a growing population are\nserious, those of a dwindling population are much more grave.\n\nNehemiah was in a position to see the positive advantages of city\nlife, and he regarded it as his business to make the most of them for\nthe benefit of his fellow-countrymen. We have seen that each of the\nthree great expeditions from Babylon up to Jerusalem had its separate\nand distinctive purpose. The aim of the first, under Zerubbabel and\nJeshua, was the rebuilding of the temple; the object of the second,\nunder Ezra, was the establishment of The Law; and the end of the\nthird, under Nehemiah, was the fortification and strengthening of the\ncity. This end was before the patriotic statesman's mind from the very\nfirst moment when he was startled and grieved at hearing the report of\nthe ruinous condition of the walls of Jerusalem which his brother\nbrought to him in the palace at Susa. We may be sure that with so\npractical a man it was more than a sentimental reverence for venerated\nsites that led Nehemiah to undertake the great work of fortifying the\ncity of his fathers' sepulchres. He had something else in view than to\nconstruct a huge mausoleum. His aim had too much to do with the living\npresent to resemble that of Rizpah guarding the corpses of her sons\nfrom the hovering vultures. Nehemiah believed in the future of\nJerusalem, and therefore he would not permit her to remain a city of\nruins, unguarded, and a prey to every chance comer. He saw that she\nhad a great destiny yet to fulfil, and that she must be made strong if\never she was to accomplish it. It is to the credit of his keen\ndiscernment that he perceived this essential condition of the firm\nestablishment of Israel as a distinctive people in the land of\nPalestine. Ezra was too literary, too abstract, too much of an\nidealist to see it, and therefore he struggled on with his teaching\nand exhorting till he was simply silenced by the unlooked-for logic of\nfacts. Nehemiah perfectly comprehended this logic, and knew how to\nturn it to the advantage of his own cause.\n\nThe fierce antagonism of the Samaritans is an indirect confirmation of\nthe wisdom of Nehemiah's plans. Sanballat and his associates saw\nclearly enough that, if Jerusalem were to become strong again, the\nmetropolitan pre-eminence--which had shifted from this city to Samaria\nafter the Babylonian conquest--would revert to its old seat among the\nhills of Judah and Benjamin. Now this pre-eminence was of vital\nimportance to the destinies of Israel. It was not possible for the\npeople in those early days to remain separate and compact, and to work\nout their own peculiar mission, without a strong and safe centre. We\nhave seen Judaism blossoming again as a distinctive phenomenon in the\nlater history of the Jews, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the\nRomans. But this most wonderful fact in ethnology is indirectly due to\nthe work of Ezra and Nehemiah. The readiness to intermarry with\nforeigners shown by the contemporaries of the two great reformers\nproves conclusively that, unless the most stringent measures had been\ntaken for the preservation of its distinctive life, Israel would have\nmelted away into the general mass of amalgamated races that made up\nthe Chaldaean and Persian empires. The military protection of Jerusalem\nenabled her citizens to maintain an independent position in defiance\nof the hostile criticism of her neighbours, and the civil importance\nof the city helped to give moral weight to her example in the eyes of\nthe scattered Jewish population outside her walls. Then the worship at\nthe temple was a vital element in the newly modelled religious\norganisation, and it was absolutely essential that this should be\nplaced beyond the danger of being tampered with by foreign influences,\nand at the same time that it should be adequately supported by a\nsufficient number of resident Jews. Something like the motive that\ninduces the Pope to desire the restoration of the temporal power of\nthe Papacy--perfectly wise and reasonable from his point of\nview--would urge the leaders of Judaism to secure as far as possible\nthe political independence of the centre of their religion.\n\nIt is to be observed that Nehemiah desired an increase of the\npopulation for the immediate purpose of strengthening the garrison of\nJerusalem. The city had been little better than \"a lodge in a garden\nof cucumbers\" till her new governor had put forth stupendous efforts\nwhich resulted in converting her into a fortress. Now the fortress\nrequired to be manned. Everything indicates anxiety about the means of\ndefence. Nehemiah placed two men at the head of this vital\nfunction--his own brother Hanani, whose concern about the city had\nbeen evinced in his report of its condition to Nehemiah at Susa, and\nHananiah the commandant of the citadel. This Hananiah was known to be\n\"faithful\"--a great point while traitors in the highest places were\nintriguing with the enemy. He was also exceptionally God-fearing,\ndescribed as one who \"feared God above many\"--another point recognised\nby Nehemiah as of supreme importance in a military officer. Here we\nhave an anticipation of the Puritan spirit which required the\nCromwellian soldiers to be men of sterling religious character.\nNehemiah would have had no hesitation if he had been placed in the\ndilemma of the Athenians when they were called to choose between\nAristides the good and Themistocles the clever. With him--much as\nbrains were needed, and he showed this in his own sleepless\nastuteness--integrity and religion were the first requisites for an\noffice of responsibility.\n\nThe danger of the times is further indicated by the new rule with\nregard to the opening of the gates. Oriental custom would have\npermitted this at dawn. Nehemiah would not allow it before the full\ndaytime, \"until the sun be hot.\" Levites were to mount guard by\nday--an indication of the partially ecclesiastical character of the\ncivil government. The city was a sort of extended temple, and its\ncitizens constituted a Church watched over by the clergy. At night the\ncitizens themselves were to guard the walls, as more watchers would be\nneeded during the hours of darkness to protect the city against an\nassault by surprise. Now these facts point to serious danger and\narduous toil. Naturally many men would shrink from the yoke of\ncitizenship under such circumstances. It was so much pleasanter, so\nmuch easier, so much quieter for people to live in the outlying towns\nand villages, near to their own farms and vineyards. Therefore it was\nnecessary to take a tenth of the rural population in order to increase\nthat of the town. The chronicler expressly notes that \"the rulers of\nthe people\" were already dwelling in Jerusalem. These men realised\ntheir responsibility. The officers were to the fore; the men who\nneeded to be urged to their duty were the privates. No doubt there was\nmore to attract the upper classes to the capital, while their\nagricultural occupations would naturally draw many of the poorer\npeople into the country, and we must not altogether condemn the latter\nas less patriotic than the former. We cannot judge the relative merits\nof people who act differently till we know their several\ncircumstances. Still it remains true that it is often the man with the\none talent who buries his charge, because with him the sense of\npersonal insignificance becomes a temptation to the neglect of duty.\nHence arises one of the most serious dangers to a democracy. When this\ndanger is not mastered, the management of public affairs falls into\nthe hands of self-seeking politicians, who are ready to wreck the\nstate for their private advantage. It is most essential, therefore,\nthat a public conscience should be aroused and that people should\nrealise their duty to their community--to the town in which they\nlive, the country to which they belong.\n\nNehemiah's simple expedient succeeded, and praise was earned by those\nJews who yielded to the sacred decision of the lot and abandoned their\npleasant rustic retreats to take up the more trying posts of sentinels\nin a garrison. According to his custom, the chronicler proceeds to\nshow us how the people were organised. His many names have long ceased\nto convey the living interest that must have clustered round them when\nthe families they represented were still able to recognise their\nancestors in the roll of honour. But incidentally he imports into his\nregister a note about the Great King's concern for the temple worship,\nfrom which we learn that Artaxerxes made special provision for the\nsupport of the choristers, and that he entertained a Jewish\nrepresentative in his court to keep him informed on the condition of\nthe distant city. Thus we have another indication of the royal\npatronage which was behind the whole movement for the restoration of\nthe Jews. Nevertheless the piteous plaint of the Jews on their great\nfast day shows us that their servitude galled them sorely. Men who\ncould utter that cry would not be bribed into a state of cheerful\nsatisfaction by the kindness of their master in subscribing to their\nchoir fund, although doubtless the contribution was made in a spirit\nof well-meaning generosity. The ideal City of God had not yet\nappeared, and the hint of the dependence of Jerusalem on royal\npatronage is a significant reminder of the sad fact. It never did\nappear, even in the brightest days of the earthly Jerusalem. But God\nwas teaching His people through the history of that unhappy city how\nhigh the true ideal must be, and so preparing them for the heavenly\ncity, the New Jerusalem.\n\nNow we may take the high ideal that was slowly emerging throughout the\nages, and see how God intends to have it realised in the City of God\nwhich, from the days of Saint Augustine, we have learnt to look for in\nthe Church of Christ. The two leading thoughts connected with the Holy\nCity in the phase of her history that is now passing under our notice\nare singularly applicable to the Christian community.\n\nFirst, _the characteristic life of the city_. Enclosed within walls\nthe city gained a peculiar character and performed a distinctive\nmission of her own. Our Lord was not satisfied to rescue stray sheep\non the mountains only to brand them with His mark and then turn them\nout again to graze in solitude. He drew them as a flock after Himself,\nand His disciples gathered them into the fold of Church fellowship.\nThis is of as vital importance to the cause of Christianity as the\ncivic organisation of Jerusalem was to that of Judaism. The Christian\nCity of God stands out before the world on her lofty foundation, the\nRock of Ages--a beacon of separation from sin, a testimony to the\ngrace of God, a centre for the confession of faith, a home for social\nworship, a rallying point for the forces of holy warfare, a sanctuary\nfor the helpless and oppressed.\n\nSecond, _the public duty of a citizenship_. The reluctance of\nChristians to accept the responsibilities of Church membership may be\ncompared to the backwardness of the Jews to dwell in their metropolis.\nLike Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah, the City of God to-day is an\noutpost in the battle-field, a fortress surrounded by the enemy's\nterritory. It is traitorous to retire to the calm cultivation of one's\nprivate garden-plot in the hour of stress and strain when the citadel\nis threatened on all sides. It is the plain duty of the people of God\nto mount guard and take their turn as watchmen on the walls of the\nHoly City.\n\nMay we carry the analogy one step further? The king of Persia, though\nhis realm stretched from the Tigris to the AEgean, could not give much\neffectual help to the true City of God. But the Divine King of kings\nsends her constant supplies, and she too, like Jerusalem, has her\nRepresentative at court, One who ever lives to make intercession for\nher.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\n_BEGINNINGS._\n\nNEHEMIAH xii. 27-47.\n\n\nA curious feature of the history of the restoration of Israel already\nmet with several times is postponement. Thus in the days of Cyrus\nZerubbabel leads up an expedition for the express purpose of building\nthe temple at Jerusalem; but the work is not executed until the reign\nof Darius. Again, Ezra brings the book of The Law with him when he\ncomes to the city; yet he does not find an opportunity for publishing\nit till some years later. Once more, Nehemiah sets to work on the\nfortifications with the promptitude of a practical man and executes\nhis task with astonishing celerity; still, even in his case the usual\nbreach of sequence occurs; here, too, we have interruption and the\nintrusion of alien matters, so that the crowning act of the dedication\nof the walls is delayed.\n\nIn this final instance we do not know how long a postponement there\nwas. Towards the end of his work the chronicler is exceptionally\nabrupt and disconnected. In the section xii. 27-43 he gives us an\nextract from Nehemiah's memoirs, but without any note of time. The\npreservation of another bit of the patriot's original writing is\ninteresting, not only because of its assured historicity, but further\nbecause exceptional importance is given to the records that have been\njudged worthy of being extracted and made portions of permanent\nscripture, although other sources are only used by the chronicler as\nmaterials out of which to construct his own narrative in the third\nperson. While we cannot assign its exact date to the subject of this\nimportant fragment, one thing is clear from its position in the story\nof the days of Nehemiah. The reading of The Law, the great fast, the\nsealing of the covenant, the census, and the regulations for peopling\nJerusalem, all came between the completion of the fortifications and\nthe dedication of them. The interruption and the consequent delay were\nnot without meaning and object. After what had occurred in the\ninterval, the people were better prepared to enter into the ceremony\nof dedication with intelligence and earnestness of purpose. This act,\nalthough it was immediately directed to the wall, was, as a matter of\nfact, the re-consecration of the city; because the walls were built in\norder to preserve the distinct individuality, unique integrity of what\nthey included. Now the Jews needed to know The Law in order to\nunderstand the destiny of Jerusalem; they needed to devote themselves\npersonally to the service of God, so that they might carry out that\ndestiny; and they needed to recruit the forces of the Holy City, for\nthe purpose of giving strength and volume to its future. Thus the\npostponement of the dedication made that event, when it came about, a\nmuch more real thing than it would have been if it had followed\nimmediately on the building of the walls. May we not say that in every\nsimilar case the personal consecration must precede the material? The\ncity is what its citizens make it. They, and not its site or its\nbuildings, give it its true character. Jerusalem and Babylon, Athens\nand Rome, are not to be distinguished in their topography and\narchitecture in anything approaching the degree in which they are\nindividualised by the manners and deeds of their respective peoples.\nMost assuredly the New Jerusalem will just reflect the characters of\nher citizens. This City of God will be fair and spotless only when\nthey who tread her streets are clad in the beauty of holiness. In\nsmaller details, too, and in personal matters, we can only dedicate\naright that which we are handling in a spirit of earnest devotion. The\nmiserable superstition that clouds our ideas of this subject rises out\nof the totally erroneous notion that it is possible to have holy\nthings without holy persons, that a mystical sanctity can attach\nitself to any objects apart from an intelligent perception of some\nsacred purpose for which they are to be used. This materialistic\nnotion degrades religion into magic; it is next door to fetichism.\n\nIt is important, then, that we should understand what we mean by\ndedication. Unfortunately in our English Bible the word \"dedicate\" is\nmade to stand for two totally distinct Hebrew terms, one[247] of which\nmeans to \"consecrate,\" to make holy, or set apart for God; while the\nother[248] means to \"initiate,\" to mark the beginning of a thing. The\nfirst is used of functions of ritual, priestly and sacrificial; but\nthe second has a much wider application, one that is not always\ndirectly connected with religion. Thus we meet with this second word\nin the regulations of Deuteronomy which lay down the conditions on\nwhich certain persons are to be excused from military service. The man\nwho has built a new house but who has not \"dedicated\" it is placed\nside by side with one who has planted a vineyard and with a third who\nis on the eve of his marriage.[249] Now the first word--that\ndescribing real consecration--is used of the priests' action in regard\nto their portion of the wall, and in this place our translators have\nrendered it \"sanctified.\"[250] But in the narrative of the general\ndedication of the walls the second and more secular word is used. The\nsame word is used, however, we must notice, in the account of the\ndedication of the temple.[251] In both these cases, and in all other\ncases of the employment of the word, the chief meaning conveyed by it\nis just initiation.[252] It signalises a commencement. Therefore the\nceremony at the new walls was designed in the first instance to direct\nattention to the very fact of their newness, and to call up those\nthoughts and feelings that are suitable in the consideration of a time\nof commencement. We must all acknowledge that such a time is one for\nvery earnest thought. All our beginnings in life--the birth of a\nchild, a young man's start in the world, the wedding that founds the\nhome, the occupation of a new house, the entrance on a fresh line of\nbusiness--all such beginnings come to rouse us from the indifference\nof routine, to speak to us with the voice of Providence, to bid us\nlook forward and prepare ourselves for the future. We have rounded a\ncorner, and a new vista has opened up to our view. As we gaze down the\nlong aisle we must be heedless indeed if we can contemplate the vision\nwithout a thrill of emotion, without a thought of anticipation. The\nnew departure in external affairs is an opportunity for a new turn in\nour inner life, and it calls for a reconsideration of our resources\nand methods.\n\n  [247] {~HEBREW LETTER QOF~}{~HEBREW LETTER DALET~}{~HEBREW LETTER SHIN~}\n        Piel of {~HEBREW LETTER QOF~}{~HEBREW LETTER DALET~}\n        {~HEBREW LETTER SHIN~}\n\n  [248] {~HEBREW LETTER HET~}{~HEBREW POINT QAMATS~}{~HEBREW LETTER NUN~}\n        {~HEBREW POINT PATAH~}{~HEBREW LETTER FINAL KAF~}\n        {~HEBREW POINT SHEVA~}\n\n  [249] Deut. xx. 5-7.\n\n  [250] Neh, iii. 1.\n\n  [251] Ezra vi. 16.\n\n  [252] Still in the earlier scene, the dedication of the temple, the\n  sacred use of the building makes the act of initiation to be\n  equivalent to consecration. There the connection gives the special\n  association.\n\nOne of the charms of the Bible is that, like nature, it is full of\nfresh starts. Inasmuch as a perennial breath of new life plays among\nthe pages of these ancient scriptures, we have only to drink it in to\nfeel what inspiration there is here for every momentous beginning.\nJust as the fading, dank autumn gives way to the desolation of winter\nin order that in due time the sleeping seeds and buds may burst out in\nthe birth of spring with the freshness of Eden, God has ordained that\nthe decaying old things of human life shall fall away and be\nforgotten, while He calls us into the heritage of the new--giving a\nnew covenant, creating a new heart, promising a new heaven and a new\nearth. The mistake of our torpor and timidity is that we will cling to\nthe rags of the past and only patch them with shreds of the later age,\ninstead of boldly flinging them on to clothe ourselves in the new\ngarment of praise which is to take the place of the old spirit of\nheaviness.\n\nThe method in which a new beginning was celebrated by the Jews in\nrelation to their restored walls is illustrative of the spirit in\nwhich such an event should always be contemplated.\n\nIn the first place, as a preparation for the whole of the subsequent\nceremonies, the priests and Levites carried out a great work of\npurification. They began with themselves, because the men who are\nfirst in any dealings with religion must be first in purity. Judged by\nthe highest standard, the only real difference of rank in the Church\nis determined by varying degrees of holiness; merely official\ndistinctions and those that arise from the unequal distribution of\ngifts cannot affect anybody's position of honour in the sight of God.\nThe functions of the recognised ministry, in particular, demand purity\nof character for their right discharge. They that bear the vessels of\nthe Lord must be clean. And not only so in general; especially in the\nmatter of purification is it necessary that those who carry out the\nwork should first be pure themselves. What here applied to priests and\nLevites ceremonially applies in prosaic earnest to all who feel called\nto purge society in the interest of true morality. Who can bring a\nclean thing out of an unclean? The leaders of moral reforms must be\nthemselves morally clean. Only regenerate men and women can regenerate\nsociety. If the salt has lost its savour it will not arrest corruption\nin the sacrifice that is salted with it. But the purification does not\ncease with the leaders. In ceremonial symbolism all the people and\neven the very walls are also cleansed. This is done in view of the new\ndeparture, the fresh beginning. Such an occasion calls for much\nheart-searching and spiritual cleansing--a truth which must have been\nsuggested to the minds of thoughtful people by the Levitical\nceremonies. It is a shame to bring the old stains into the new scenes.\nThe fresh, clean start calls for a new and better life.\n\nNext, it is to be observed, there was an organised procession round\nthe walls, a procession that included citizens of every rank--princes,\npriests, Levites, and representatives of the general community,\ndescribed as \"Judah and Benjamin.\" Starting at the west end of the\ncity, these people were divided into two sections, one led by Nehemiah\ngoing round by the north, and the other conducted by Ezra proceeding\nby the south, so that they met at the eastern side of the city; where\nopposite the Mount of Olives and close to the temple, they all united\nin an enthusiastic outburst of praise. This arrangement was not\ncarried out for any of the idle ends of a popular pageant--to glorify\nthe processionists, or to amuse the spectators. It was to serve an\nimportant practical purpose. By personal participation in the ceremony\nof initiation, all sections of the community would be brought to\nperceive its real significance. Since the walls were in the keeping of\nthe citizens, it was necessary that the citizens should acknowledge\ntheir privileges and responsibilities. Men and women need to come\nindividually and directly face to face with new conditions of life.\nMere dulness of imagination encourages the lazy sense of indifference\nwith which so many people permit themselves to ignore the claims of\nduty, and the same cause accounts for a melancholy failure to\nappreciate the new blessings that come from the untiring bounty of\nGod.\n\nIn the third place, the behaviour of the processionists invites our\nattention. The whole ceremony was one of praise and gratitude. Levites\nwere called in from the outlying towns and villages where they had got\nthemselves homes, and even from that part of the Jordan valley that\nlay nearest to Jerusalem. Their principal function was to swell the\nchorus of the temple singers. Musical instruments added emphasis to\nthe shout of human voices; clashing cymbals and finer toned harps\nsupported the choral song with a rich and powerful orchestral\naccompaniment, which was augmented from another quarter by a young\nband of trumpeters consisting of some of the priests' sons. The\nimmediate aim of the music and singing was to show forth the praises\nof God. The two great companies were to give thanks while they went\nround the walls. Sacrifices of thanksgiving completed the ceremony\nwhen the processions were united and brought to a standstill near the\ntemple. The thanksgiving would arise out of a grateful acknowledgment\nof the goodness of God in leading the work of building the walls\nthrough many perils and disappointments to its present consummation.\nRarely does anything new spring up all of a sudden without some\nrelation to our own past life and action; but even that which is the\ngreatest novelty and wonder to us must have a cause somewhere. If we\nhave done nothing to prepare for the happy surprise, God has done\nmuch. Thus the new start is an occasion for giving thanks to its great\nOriginator. But the thankfulness also looks forward. The city was now\nin a very much more hopeful condition than when Nehemiah took his\nlonely night ride among its ghostly ruins. By this time it was a\ncompact and strongly fortified centre, with solid defences and a good\nbody of devoted citizens pledged to do their part in pursuing its\nunique destiny. The prospect of a happy future which this wonderful\ntransformation suggested afforded sufficient reasons for the greatest\nthankfulness. The spirit of praise thus called forth would be one of\nthe best guarantees of the fulfilment of the high hopes that it\ninspired. There is nothing that so surely foredooms people to failure\nas a despairing blindness to any perception of their advantages. The\ngrateful soul will always have most ground for a renewal of gratitude.\nIt is only just and reasonable that God should encourage those of His\nchildren who acknowledge His goodness, with fresh acts of favour over\nand above what He does for all in making His sun to shine and His rain\nto fall on the bad as well as the good. But apart from considerations\nof self-interest, the true spirit of praise will delight to pour\nitself out in adoration of the great and good Father of all blessings.\nIt is a sign of sin or selfishness or unbelief when the element of\npraise fails in our worship. This is the purest and highest part of a\nreligious service, and it should take the first place in the\nestimation of the worshippers. It will do so directly a right sense of\nthe goodness of God is attained. Surely the best worship is that in\nwhich man's needs and hopes and fears are all swallowed up in the\nvision of God's love and glory, as the fields and woods are lost in a\ndim purple haze when the sky is aglow with the rose and saffron of a\nbrilliant sunset.\n\nFurther, it is to be observed that a note of gladness rings through\nthe whole ceremony. The account of the dedication concludes with the\nperfectly jubilant verse, \"And they offered great sacrifices that day,\nand rejoiced; for God had made them rejoice with great joy; and the\nwomen also and the children rejoiced: so that the joy of Jerusalem was\nheard even afar off.\"[253] The joy would be mingled with the praise,\nbecause when people see the goodness of God enough to praise Him from\ntheir hearts they cannot but rejoice; and then the joy would react on\nthe praise, because the more blessedness God sends the more heartily\nmust His grateful children thank Him. Now the outburst of joy was\naccompanied with sacrifices. In the deepest sense, a sense almost\nunknown till it was revealed by Christ, there is a grand, solemn joy\nin sacrifice. But even to those who have only reached the Jewish\nstandpoint, the self-surrender expressed by a ceremonial sacrifice as\na symbol of glad thankfulness in turn affects the offerer so as to\nheighten his gladness. No doubt there were mundane and secular\nelements in this joy of a jubilant city. A laborious and dangerous\ntask had been completed; the city had been fortified and made able to\ndefend itself against the horrors of an assault; there was a fair\nprospect of comfort and perhaps even honour for the oppressed and\ndespised citizens of Jerusalem. But beyond all this and beneath it,\ndoubtless many had discovered Nehemiah's great secret for themselves;\nthey had found their strength in the joy of the Lord. In face of\nheathenish pleasures and superstitious terrors it was much to know\nthat God expected His holy people to be happy, and more, to find that\nthe direct road to happiness was holiness. This was the best part of\nthe joy which all the people experienced with more or less thought and\nappreciation of its meaning. Joy is contagious. Here was a city full\nof gladness. Nehemiah expressly takes note of the fact that the women\nand children shared in the universal joy. They must have been among\nthe most pitiable sufferers in the previous calamities; and they had\ntaken their place in the great _Ecclesia_ when The Law was read, and\nagain when the sad confession of the nation's sin was poured forth. It\nwas well that they should not be left out of the later scene, when joy\nand praise filled the stage. For children especially who would not\ncovet this gladness in religion? It is only a miserable\nshort-sightedness that allows any one to put before children ideas of\nGod and spiritual things which must repel, because of their gloom and\nsternness. Let us reserve these ideas for the castigation of\nPharisees. A scene of joyous worship is truly typical of the perfect\nCity of God of which children are the typical citizens--the New\nJerusalem of whose inhabitants it is said, \"God shall wipe away all\ntears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither\nsorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the\nformer things are passed away.\"\n\n  [253] Neh. xii. 43.\n\nLastly, following his extract from the memoirs of Nehemiah, the\nchronicler shows how the glad spirit of this great day of dedication\nflowed out and manifested itself in those engagements to which he was\nalways delighted to turn--the Levitical services. Thus the tithe\ngathering and the temple psalmody were helped forward. The gladness of\nreligion is not confined to set services of public worship; but when\nthose services are held it must flood them with the music of praise.\nIt is impossible for the worship of God's house to be limp and\ndepressed when the souls of His children are joyous and eager. A\nhalf-hearted, melancholy faith may be content with neglected churches\nand slovenly services--but not a joyous religion which men and women\nlove and glory in. While \"The joy of the Lord\" has many happy effects\non the world, it also crowds churches, fills treasuries, sustains\nvarious ministries, inspires hymns of praise, and brings life and\nvigour into all the work of religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\n_THE RIGOUR OF THE REFORMER._\n\nNEHEMIAH xiii.\n\n\nThere is no finality in history. The chapter that seems to be rounded\non with a perfect conclusion always leaves room for an appendix, which\nin its turn may serve as an introduction to another chapter. Ezra's\nand Nehemiah's work seemed to have reached its climax in the happy\nscene of the dedication of the walls. All difficulties had vanished;\nthe new order had been greeted with widespread enthusiasm; the future\npromised to be smooth and prosperous. If the chronicler had laid down\nhis pen at this point, as any dramatist before Ibsen who was not bound\nby the exigencies of prosaic facts would have done, his work might\nhave presented a much more artistic appearance than it now wears. And\nyet it would have been artificial, and therefore false to the highest\nart of history. In adding a further extract from Nehemiah's memoirs\nthat discloses a revival of the old troubles, and so shows that the\nevils against which the reformers contended had not been stamped out,\nthe writer mars the literary effect of his record of their triumph;\nbut, at the same time, he satisfies us that he is in contact with real\nlife, its imperfections and its disappointments.\n\nIt is not easy to settle the time of the incident mentioned in\nchapter xiii. 1-3. The phrase \"on that day\" with which the passage\nopens seems to point back to the previous chapter. If so it cannot be\ntaken literally, because what it describes must be assigned to a later\nperiod than the contents of the paragraph that follows it. It forms an\nintroduction to the extract from Nehemiah's memoirs, and its\nchronological position is even later than the date of the first part\nof the extract, because that begins with the words \"And before\nthis,\"[254] _i.e._, before the incident that opens the chapter. Now it\nis clear that Nehemiah's narrative here refers to a time considerably\nafter the transactions of the previous chapter, inasmuch as he states\nthat when the first of the occurrences he now records happened he was\naway in the court of Artaxerxes.[255] Still later, then, must that\nevent be placed _before_ which this new incident occurred. We might\nperhaps suppose that the phrase \"at that day\" is carried over directly\nfrom the chronicler's original source and belongs to its antecedents\nin that document; but so clumsy a piece of joinery is scarcely\nadmissible. It is better to take the phrase quite generally. Whatever\nit meant when first penned, it is clear that the events it introduces\nbelong only indefinitely to the times previously mentioned. We are\nreally landed by them in a new state of affairs. Here we must notice\nthat the introductory passage is immediately connected with the\nNehemiah record. It tells how the law from Deuteronomy requiring the\nexclusion of the Ammonite and the Moabite was read and acted on. This\nis to be remembered when we are studying the subsequent events.\n\n  [254] Neh. xiii. 4.\n\n  [255] Neh. xiii. 6.\n\nWhen Nehemiah's extended leave of absence had come to an end, or when\nperhaps he had been expressly summoned back by Artaxerxes, his return\nto Babylon was followed by a melancholy relapse in the reformed city\nof Jerusalem. This is not by any means astonishing. Nothing so hinders\nand distresses the missionary as the repeated outbreak of their old\nheathen vices among his converts. The drunkard cannot be reckoned safe\ndirectly he has signed the pledge. Old habits may be damped down\nwithout being extinguished, and when this is the case they will flame\nup again as soon as the repressive influence is removed. In the\npresent instance there was a distinct party in the city, consisting of\nsome of the most prominent and influential citizens, which disapproved\nof the separatist, puritanical policy of the reformers and advocated a\nmore liberal course. Some of its members may have been conscientious\nmen, who honestly deplored what they would regard as the disastrous\nstate of isolation brought about by the action of Ezra and Nehemiah.\nAfter having been silenced for a time by the powerful presence of the\ngreat reformers, these people would come out and declare themselves\nwhen the restraining influences were removed. Meanwhile we hear no\nmore of Ezra. Like Zerubbabel in the earlier period, he drops out of\nthe history without a hint as to his end. He may have returned to\nBabylon, thinking his work complete; possibly he had been recalled by\nthe king.\n\nIt is likely that some rumours of the declension of Jerusalem reached\nNehemiah at the Persian court. But he did not discover the whole\nextent of this retrograde movement until he was once more in the city,\nwith a second leave of absence from Artaxerxes. Then there were four\nevils that he perceived with great grief.\n\nThe first was that Tobiah had got a footing in the city. In the\nearlier period this \"servant\" had been carrying on intrigues with some\nmembers of the aristocracy. The party of opposition had done its best\nto represent him in a favourable light to Nehemiah, and all the while\nthis party had been traitorously keeping Tobiah informed of the state\nof affairs in the city. But now a further step was taken. Though one\nof the three leading enemies of Nehemiah, the ally and supporter of\nthe Samaritan governor Sanballat, this man was actually permitted to\nhave a lodging in the precincts of the temple. The locality was\nselected, doubtless, because it was within the immediate jurisdiction\nof the priests, among whom the Jewish opponents of Nehemiah were\nfound. It is as though, in his quarrel with Henry, Thomas a Becket had\nlodged a papal envoy in the cathedral close at Canterbury. To a Jew\nwho did not treat the ordinances of religion with the Sadducean laxity\nthat was always to be found in some of the leading members of the\npriesthood, this was most abhorrent. He saw in it a defilement of the\nneighbourhood of the temple, if not of the sacred enclosure itself, as\nwell as an insult to the former governor of the city. Tobiah may have\nused his room for the purpose of entertaining visitors in state; but\nit may only have been a warehouse for trade stores, as it had\npreviously been a place in which the bulky sacrificial gifts were\nstowed away. Such a degradation of it, superseding its previous sacred\nuse, would aggravate the evil in the sight of so strict a man as\nNehemiah.\n\nThe outrage was easily accounted for. Tobiah was allied by marriage to\nthe priest who was the steward of this chamber. Thus we have a clear\ncase of trouble arising out of the system of foreign marriages which\nEzra had so strenuously opposed. It seems to have opened the eyes of\nthe younger reformer to the evil of these marriages, for hitherto we\nhave not found him taking any active part in furthering the action of\nEzra with regard to them. Possibly he had not come across an earlier\ninstance. But now it was plain enough that the effect was to bring a\npronounced enemy of all he loved and advocated into the heart of the\ncity, with the rights of a tenant, too, to back him up. If \"evil\ncommunications corrupt good manners,\" this was most injurious to the\ncause of the reformation. The time had not arrived when a generous\nspirit could dare to welcome all-comers to Jerusalem. The city was\nstill a fortress in danger of siege. More than that, it was a Church\nthreatened with dissolution by reason of the admission of unfit\nmembers. Whatever we may say to the social and political aspects of\nthe case, ecclesiastically regarded, laxity at the present stage would\nhave been fatal to the future of Judaism, and the mere presence of\nsuch a man as Tobiah, openly sanctioned by a leading priest, was a\nglaring instance of laxity; Nehemiah was bound to stop the mischief.\n\nThe second evil was the neglect of the payments due to the Levites. It\nis to be observed again that the Levites are most closely associated\nwith the reforming position. Religious laxity and indifference had had\nan effect on the treasury for which these men were the collectors. The\nfinancial thermometer is a very rough test of the spiritual condition\nof a religious community, and we often read it erroneously, not only\nbecause we cannot gauge the amount of sacrifice made by people in very\ndifferent circumstances, nor just because we are unable to discover\nthe motives that prompt the giving of alms \"before men\"; but also,\nwhen every allowance is made for these causes of uncertainty, because\nthe gifts which are usually considered most generous rarely involve\nenough strain and effort to bring the deepest springs of life into\nplay. And yet it must be allowed that a declining subscription list is\nusually to be regarded as one sign of waning interest on the part of\nthe supporters of any public movement. When we consider the matter\nfrom the other side, we must acknowledge that the best way to improve\nthe pecuniary position of any religious enterprise is not to work the\nexhausted pump more vigorously, but to drive the well deeper and tap\nthe resources of generosity that lie nearer the heart--not to beg\nharder, but to awaken a better spirit of devotion.\n\nThe third indication of backsliding that vexed the soul of Nehemiah\nwas Sabbath profanation. He saw labour and commerce both proceeding on\nthe day of rest--Jews treading the winepress, carrying the sheaves,\nlading their asses, and bringing loads of wine, grapes, and figs, and\nall sorts of wares, into Jerusalem for sale; and fishmongers and\npedlars from Tyre--not, of course, themselves to be blamed for failing\nto respect the festival of a people whose religion they did not\nshare--pouring into the city, and opening their markets as on any\nweekday. Nehemiah was greatly alarmed. He went at once to the nobles,\nwho seem to have been governing the city, as a sort of oligarchy,\nduring his absence, and expostulated with them on their danger of\nprovoking the wrath of God again, urging that Sabbath-breaking had\nbeen one of the offences which had called down the judgment of Heaven\non their fathers. Then he took means to prevent the coming of foreign\ntraders on the Sabbath, by ordering the gates to be kept closed from\nFriday evening till the sacred day was over. Once or twice these\npeople came up as usual, and camped just outside the city; but as this\nwas disturbing to the peace of the day, Nehemiah threatened that if\nthey repeated the annoyance he would lay hands on them. Lastly, he\ncharged the Levites, first to cleanse themselves that they might be\nready to undertake a work of purification, and then to take charge of\nthe gates on the Sabbath and see that the day was hallowed in the\ncessation of all labour. Thus both by persuasion and by vigorous\nactive measures Nehemiah put an end to the disorder.\n\nThe importance attached to this matter is a sign of the prominence\ngiven to Sabbath-keeping in Judaism. The same thing was seen earlier\nin the selection of the law of the Sabbath as one of the two or three\nrules to be specially noted, and to which the Jews were to\nparticularly pledge themselves in the covenant.[256] Reference was\nthen made to the very act of the Tyrians now complained of, the\noffering of wares and food for sale in Jerusalem on the Sabbath day.\nPutting these two passages together, we can see where the\nSabbath-breaking came from. It was the invasion of a foreign\ncustom--like the dreaded introduction of the \"Continental Sunday\" into\nEngland. Now to Nehemiah the fact of the foreign origin of the custom\nwould be a heavy condemnation for it. Next to circumcision,\nSabbath-keeping was the principal mark of the Jew. In the days of our\nLord it was the most highly prized feature of the ancient faith. This\nwas then so obvious that it was laid hold of by Roman satirists, who\nknew little about the strange traders in the _Ghetto_ except that\nthey \"sabbatised.\" Nehemiah saw that if the sacred day of rest were to\nbe abandoned, one of his bulwarks of separation would be lost. Thus\nfor him, with his fixed policy, and in view of the dangers of his age,\nthere was a very urgent reason for maintaining the Sabbath, a reason\nwhich of course does not apply to us in England to-day. We must pass\non to the teaching of Christ to have this question put on a wider and\nmore permanent basis. With that Divine insight of His which penetrated\nto the root of every matter, our Lord saw through the miserable\nformalism that made an idol of a day, and in so doing turned a boon\ninto a burden; at the same time He rescued the sublimely simple truth\nwhich contains both the justification and the limitation of the\nSabbath, when He declared, \"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man\nfor the Sabbath.\" In resisting the rigour of legal-minded\nSabbatarianism, the modern mind seems to have confined its attention\nto the second clause of this great utterance, to the neglect of its\nfirst clause. Is it nothing, then, that Jesus said, \"The Sabbath was\nmade for man\"--not for the _Jew_ only, but for _man_? Although we may\nfeel free from the religion of law in regard to the observance of days\nas much as in other external matters, is it not foolish for us to\nminimise a blessing that Jesus Christ expressly declared to be for the\ngood of the human race? If the rest day was needed by the Oriental in\nthe slow-moving life of antiquity, is it any less requisite for the\nWestern in the rush of these later times? But if it is necessary to\nour welfare, the neglect of it is sinful. Thus not because of the\ninherent sanctity of seasons, but on our Lord's own ground of the\nhighest utilitarianism--a utilitarianism which reaches to other\npeople, and even to animals, and affects the soul as well as the\nbody--the reservation of one day in seven for rest is a sacred duty.\n\"The world is too much with us\" for the six days. We can ill afford to\nlose the recurrent escape from its blighting companionship originally\nprovided by the seventh and now enjoyed on our Sunday.\n\n  [256] Neh. x. 31.\n\nLastly, Nehemiah was confronted by the social effects of foreign\nmarriage alliances. These alliances had been contracted by Jews\nresident in the south-western corner of Judaea, who may not have come\nunder the influence of Ezra's drastic reformation in Jerusalem, and\nwho probably were not married till after that event. They afford\nanother evidence of the counter current that was running so strongly\nagainst the regulations of the party of rigour while Nehemiah was\naway. The laxity of the border people may be accounted for without\ncalling in any subtle motives. But their fault was shared by a member\nof the _gens_ of the high-priest, who had actually wedded the daughter\nof Nehemiah's arch-enemy Sanballat! Clearly this was a political\nalliance, and it indicated a defiant reversal of the policy of the\nreformers in the very highest circles. The offender, after being\nexpelled from Jerusalem, is said to have been the founder of the\nSamaritan temple on Mount Gerizim.\n\nThen the social mischief of the mixed marriages was showing itself in\nthe corruption of the Hebrew language. The Philistine language was not\nallied to the Egyptian, as some have thought, nor was it\nIndo-Germanic, as others have supposed, but it was Semitic, and only a\ndifferent dialect from the Hebrew; and yet the difficulty persons from\nthe south of England feel in understanding the speech of Yorkshiremen\nin remote parts of the county will help us to account for a practical\nloss of mutual intelligence between people of different dialects,\nwhen these dialects were still more isolated by having grown up in two\nseparate and hostile nations. For the children of Jewish parents to be\ntalking with the tones and accents of the hereditary enemies of Israel\nwas intolerable. When he heard the hated sounds, Nehemiah simply lost\nhis temper. With a curse on his lips he rushed at the fathers,\nstriking them and tearing their hair. It was the rage of bitter\ndisappointment; but behind it lay the grim set purpose in holding to\nwhich with dogged tenacity Ezra and Nehemiah saved Judaism from\nextinction. Separatism is never gracious; yet it may be right. The\nreformer is not generally of a mild temperament. We may regret his\nharshness; but we should remember that the world has only seen one\nperfectly meek and yet thoroughly effective Revolutionist, only one\n\"Lamb of God\" who could be also named \"the Lion of the tribe of\nJudah.\"\n\nThe whole situation was disappointing to Nehemiah, and his memoir ends\nin a prayer beneath which we can detect an undertone of melancholy.\nThree times during this last section he appeals to God to remember\nhim--not to wipe out his good deeds,[257] to spare him according to\nthe greatness of the Divine mercy,[258] and finally to remember him\nfor good.[259] The memories of the Jerusalem covenanters had been\nbrief; during the short interval of their leader's absence they had\nforgotten his discipline and fallen back into negligent ways. It was\nvain to trust to the fickle fancies of men. With a sense of weary\nloneliness, taught to feel his own insignificance in that great tide\nof human life that flows on in its own course though the most\nprominent figures drop out of notice, Nehemiah turned to his God, the\none Friend who never forgets. He was learning the vanity of the\nworld's fame; yet he shrank from the idea of falling into oblivion.\nTherefore it was his prayer that he might abide in the memory of God.\nThis was by itself a restful thought. It is cheering to think that we\nmay dwell in the memory of those we love. But to be held in the\nthought of God is to have a place in the heart of infinite love. And\nyet this was not the conclusion of the whole matter to Nehemiah. It is\nreally nothing better than a frivolous vanity, that can induce any one\nto be willing to sacrifice the prospect of a real eternal life in\nexchange for the pallid shadow of immortality ascribed to the \"choir\ninvisible\" of those who are only thought of as living in the memory of\nthe world they have influenced enough to win \"a niche in the temple of\nfame.\" What is fame to a dead man mouldering in his coffin? Even the\nhigher thought of being remembered by God is a poor consolation in\nprospect of blank non-existence. Nehemiah expects something better,\nfor he begs God to remember him in _mercy_ and for _good_. It is a\nvery narrow, prosaic interpretation of this prayer to say that he only\nmeans that he desires a blessing during the remainder of his life in\nthe court at Susa. On the other hand, it may be too much to ascribe\nthe definite hope of a future life to this Old Testament saint. And\nyet, vague as his thought may be, it is the utterance of a profound\nyearning of the soul that breaks out in moments of disappointment with\nan intensity never to be satisfied within the range of our cramped\nmortal state. In this utterance of Nehemiah we have, at least, a seed\nthought that should germinate into the great hope of immortality. If\nGod could forget His children, we might expect them to perish, swept\naside like the withered leaves of autumn. But if He continues to\nremember them, it is not just to His Fatherhood to charge Him with\npermitting such a fate to fall upon His offspring. No human father who\nis worthy of the name would willingly let go the children whom he\ncherishes in mind and heart. Is it reasonable to suppose that the\nperfect Divine Father, who is both almighty and all-loving, would be\nless constant? But if He _remembers_ His children, and remembers them\n_for good_, He will surely preserve them. If His memory is unfading,\nand if His love and power are eternal, those who have a place in His\nimmortal thought must also have a share in His immortal life.\n\n  [257] Neh. xiii. 14.\n\n  [258] Neh. xiii. 22.\n\n  [259] Neh. xiii. 31.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\n_THE BOOK OF ESTHER: INTRODUCTORY._\n\n\nThere is a striking contrast between the high estimation in which the\nBook of Esther is now cherished among the Jews and the slighting\ntreatment that is often meted out to it in the Christian Church.\nAccording to the great Maimonides, though the Prophets and the\nHagiographa will pass away when the Messiah comes, this one book will\nshare with The Law in the honour of being retained. It is known as\n\"The Roll\" _par excellence_, and the Jews have a proverb, \"The\nProphets may fail, but not The Roll.\" The peculiar importance attached\nto the book may be explained by its use in the Feast of Purim--the\nfestival which is supposed to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews\nfrom the murderous designs of Haman, and their triumph over their\nGentile enemies--for it is then read through in the synagogue. On the\nother hand, the grave doubts which were once felt by some of the Jews\nhave been retained and even strengthened in the Christian Church.\nEsther was omitted from the Canon by some of the Oriental Fathers.\nLuther, with the daring freedom he always manifested in pronouncing\nsentence on the books of the Bible, after referring to the Second Book\nof Maccabees, says, \"I am so hostile to this book and that of Esther,\nthat I wish they did not exist; they are too Judaising, and contain\nmany heathenish improprieties.\" In our own day two classes of\nobjections have been raised.\n\nThe first is historical. By many the Book of Esther is regarded as a\nfantastic romance; by some it is even relegated to the category of\nastronomical myths; and by others it is considered to be a mystical\nallegory. Even the most sober criticism is troubled at its contents.\nThere can be no question that the Ahasuerus (_Ahashverosh_) of Esther\nis the well-known Xerxes of history, the invader of Greece who is\ndescribed in the pages of Herodotus. But then, it is asked, what room\nhave we for the story of Esther in the life of that monarch? His wife\nwas a cruel and superstitious woman, named Amestris. We cannot\nidentify her with Esther, because she was the daughter of one of the\nPersian generals, and also because she was married to Xerxes many\nyears before the date of Esther's appearance on the scene. Two of her\nsons accompanied the expedition to Greece, which must have preceded\nthe introduction of Esther to the harem. Moreover, it was contrary to\nlaw for a Persian sovereign to take a wife except from his own family,\nor from one of five noble families. Can Amestris be identified with\nVashti? If so, it is certain that she must have been restored to\nfavour, because Amestris held the queen's place in the later years of\nXerxes, when the uxorious monarch came more and more under her\ninfluence. Esther, it is clear, can only have been a secondary wife in\nthe eyes of the law, whatever position she may have held for a season\nin the court of the king. The predecessors of Xerxes had several\nwives; our narrative makes it evident that Ahasuerus followed the\nOriental custom of keeping a large harem. To Esther, at best,\ntherefore, must be assigned the place of a favourite member of the\nseraglio.\n\nThen it is difficult to think that Esther would not have been\nrecognised as a Jewess by Haman, since the nationality of Mordecai,\nwhose relationship to her had not been hidden, was known in the city\nof Susa. Moreover, the appalling massacre of \"their enemies\" by the\nJews, carried on in cold blood, and expressly including \"women and\nchildren,\" has been regarded as highly improbable. Finally, the whole\nstory is so well knit together, its successive incidents arrange\nthemselves so perfectly and lead up to the conclusion with such neat\nprecision, that it is not easy to assign it to the normal course of\nevents. We do not expect to meet with this sort of thing outside the\nrealm of fairy tales. Putting all these facts together, we must feel\nthat there is some force in the contention that the book is not\nstrictly historical.\n\nBut there is another side to the question. This book is marvellously\ntrue to Persian manners. It is redolent of the atmosphere of the court\nat Susa. Its accuracy in this respect has been traced down to the most\nminute details. The character of Ahasuerus is drawn to the life; point\nafter point in it may be matched in the Xerxes of Herodotus. The\nopening sentence of the book shows that it was written some time after\nthe date of the king in whose reign the story is set, because it\ndescribes him in language only suited to a later period--\"this is\nAhasuerus which reigned from India unto Ethiopia,\" etc. But the writer\ncould not have been far removed from the Persian period. The book\nbears evidence of having been written in the heart of Persia, by a man\nwho was intimately acquainted with the scenery he described. There\nseems to be some reason for believing in the substantial accuracy of\na narrative that is so true to life in these respects.\n\nThe simplest way out of the dilemma is to suppose that the story of\nEsther stands upon a historical basis of fact, and that it has been\nworked up into its present literary form by a Jew of later days who\nwas living in Persia, and who was perfectly familiar with the records\nand traditions of the reign of Xerxes. It is only an unwarrantable, _a\npriori_ theory that can be upset by our acceptance of this conclusion.\nWe have no right to demand that the Bible shall not contain anything\nbut what is strictly historical. The Book of Job has long been\naccepted as a sublime poem, founded on fact perhaps, but owing its\nchief value to the divinely inspired thoughts of its author. The Book\nof Jonah is regarded by many cautious and devout readers as an\nallegory replete with important lessons concerning a very ugly aspect\nof Jewish selfishness. These two works are not the less valuable\nbecause men are coming to understand that their places in the library\nof the Hebrew Canon are not among the strict records of history. And\nthe Book of Esther need not be dishonoured when some room is allowed\nfor the play of the creative imagination of its author. In these days\nof the theological novel we are scarcely in a position to object to\nwhat may be thought to partake of the character of a romance, even if\nit is found in the Bible. No one asks whether our Lord's parable of\nthe Prodigal Son was a true story of some Galilean family. The\nPilgrim's Progress has its mission, though it is not to be verified by\nany authentic Annals of Elstow. It is rather pleasing than otherwise\nto see that the compilers of the Jewish Canon were not prevented by\nProvidence from including a little anticipation of that work of the\nimagination which has blossomed so abundantly in the highest and best\nculture of our own day.\n\nA much more serious objection is urged on religious and moral grounds.\nIt is indisputable that the book is not characterised by the pure and\nlofty spirit that gives its stamp to most of the other contents of the\nBible. The absence of the name of God from its pages has been often\ncommented on. The Jews long ago recognised this fact, and they tried\nto discover the sacred name in acrostic form at one or two places\nwhere the initial letters of a group of words were found to spell it.\nBut quite apart from all such fantastic trifling, it has been\ncustomary to argue that, though unnamed, the presence of God is felt\nthroughout the story in the wonderful Providence that protects the\nJews and frustrates the designs of their arch-enemy Haman. The\ndifficulty, however, is wider and deeper. There is no reference to\nreligion, it is said, even where it is most called for; no reference\nto prayer in the hour of danger, when prayer should have been the\nfirst resource of a devout soul; in fact no indication of devoutness\nof thought or conduct. Mordecai fasts; we are not told that he prays.\nThe whole narrative is immersed in a secular atmosphere. The religious\ncharacter of apocryphal additions that were inserted by later hands is\na tacit witness to a deficiency felt by pious Jews.\n\nThese charges have been met by the hypothesis that the author found it\nnecessary to disguise his religious beliefs in a work that was to come\nunder the eyes of heathen readers. Still we cannot imagine that an\nIsaiah or an Ezra would have treated his subject in the style of our\nauthor. It must be admitted that we have a composition on a lower\nplane than that of the prophetic and priestly histories of Israel. The\ntheory that all parts of the Bible are inspired with an equal measure\nof the Divine Spirit halts at this point. But what was to prevent a\ncomposition analogous to secular literature taking its place in the\nHebrew Scriptures? Have we any evidence that the obscure scribes who\narranged the Canon were infallibly inspired to include only devotional\nworks? It is plain that the Book of Esther was valued on national\nrather than on religious grounds. The Feast of Purim was a social and\nnational occasion of rejoicing, not a solemn religious ceremony like\nthe Passover; and this document obtains its place of honour through\nits connection with the feast. The book, then, stands to the Hebrew\nPsalms somewhat as Macaulay's ballad of the Armada stands to the hymns\nof Watts and the Wesleys. It is mainly patriotic rather than\nreligious; its purpose is to stir the soul of national enthusiasm\nthrough the long ages of the oppression of Israel.\n\nIt is not just, however, to assert that there are no evidences of\nreligious faith in the story of Esther. Mordecai warns his cousin that\nif she will not exert herself to defend her people, \"then shall there\nrelief and deliverance arise to the Jews _from another place_.\"[260]\nWhat can this be but a reserved utterance of a devout man's faith in\nthat Providence which has always followed the \"favoured people\"?\nMoreover, Mordecai seems to perceive a Divine destiny in the\nexaltation of Esther when he asks, \"And who knoweth whether thou art\ncome to the kingdom for such a time as this?\"[261] The old\ncommentators were not wrong when they saw the hand of Providence in\nthe whole story. If we are to allow some licence to the imagination of\nthe author in the shaping and arrangement of the narrative, we must\nassign to him also a real faith in Providence, for he describes a\nwonderful interlinking of events all leading up to the deliverance of\nthe Jews. Long before Haman has any quarrel with Mordecai, the\ndisgusting degradation of a drinking bout issues in an insult offered\nto a favourite queen. This shameful occurrence is the occasion of the\nselection of a Jewess, whose high position at court thus acquired\nenables her to save her people. But there is a secondary plot.\nMordecai's discovery of the conspirators who would have assassinated\nAhasuerus gives him a claim on the king's generosity, and so prepares\nthe way, not only for his escape from the clutches of Haman, but also\nfor his triumph over his enemy. And this is brought about--as we\nshould say--\"by accident.\" If Xerxes had not had a sleepless night\njust at the right time, if the part of his state records selected for\nreading to him in his wakefulness had not been just that which told\nthe story of Mordecai's great service, the occasion for the turn in\nthe tide of the fortune of the Jews would not have arisen. But all was\nso fitted together as to lead step by step on to the victorious\nconclusion. No Jew could have penned such a story as this without\nhaving intended his co-religionists to recognise the unseen presence\nof an over-ruling Providence throughout the whole course of events.\n\n  [260] Esther iv. 14.\n\n  [261] _Ibid._\n\nBut the gravest charge has yet to be considered. It is urged against\nthe Book of Esther that the moral tone of it is unworthy of Scripture.\nIt is dedicated to nothing higher than the exaltation of the Jews.\nOther books of the Bible reveal God as the Supreme, and the Jews as\nHis servants, often His unworthy and unfaithful servants. This book\nsets the Jews in the first place; and Providence, even if tacitly\nrecognised, is quite subservient to their welfare. Israel does not\nhere appear as living for the glory of God, but all history works for\nthe glory of Israel. In accordance with the spirit of the story,\neverything that opposes the Jews is condemned, everything that favours\nthem is honoured. Worst of all, this practical deification of Israel\npermits a tone of heartless cruelty. The doctrine of separatism is\nmonstrously exaggerated. The Jews are seen to be surrounded by their\n\"enemies.\" Haman, the chief of them, is not only punished as he richly\ndeserves to be punished, but he is made the recipient of unrestrained\nscorn and rage, and his sons are impaled on their father's huge stake.\nThe Jews defend themselves from threatened massacre by a legalised\nslaughter of their \"enemies.\" We cannot imagine a scene more foreign\nto the patience and gentleness inculcated by our Lord. Yet we must\nremember that the quarrel did not begin with the Jews; or if we must\nsee the origin of it in the pride of a Jew, we must recollect that his\noffence was slight and only the act of one man. As far as the\nnarrative shows, the Jews were engaged in their peaceable occupations\nwhen they were threatened with extinction by a violent outburst of the\nmad _Judenhetze_ that has pursued this unhappy people through all the\ncenturies of history. In the first instance, their act of vengeance\nwas a measure of self-defence. If they fell upon their enemies with\nfierce anger, it was after an order of extermination had driven them\nto bay. If they indulged in a wholesale bloodshed, not even sparing\nwomen or children, exactly the same doom had been hanging over their\nown heads, and their own wives and children had been included in its\nferocious sentence. This fact does not excuse the savagery of the\naction of the Jews; but it amply accounts for their conduct. They were\nwild with terror, and they defended their homes with the fury of\nmadmen. Their action did not go beyond the prayer of the Psalmist who\nwrote, in trim metrical order, concerning the hated Babylon--\n\n  \"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones\n  Against the rock.\"[262]\n\n  [262] Psalm cxxxvii. 9.\n\nIt is more difficult to account for the responsible part taken by\nMordecai and Esther in begging permission for this awful massacre. The\nlast pages of the Book of Esther reek with blood. A whole empire is\nconverted into shambles for human slaughter. We turn with loathing\nfrom this gigantic horror, glad to take refuge in the hope that the\nauthor has dipped his brush in darker colours than the real events\nwould warrant. Nevertheless such a massacre as this is unhappily not\nat all beyond the known facts of history on other occasions--not in\nits extent; the means by which it is here carried out are doubtless\nexceptional. Xerxes himself was so heartless and so capricious that\nany act of folly or wickedness could be credited of him.\n\nAfter all that can be said for it, clearly this Book of Esther cannot\nclaim the veneration that we attach to the more choice utterances of\nOld Testament literature. It never lifts us with the inspiration of\nprophecy; it never commands the reverence which we feel in studying\nthe historical books. Yet we must not therefore assume that it has not\nits use. It illustrates an important phase in the development of\nJewish life and thought. It also introduces us to characters and\nincidents that reveal human nature in very various lights. To\ncontemplate such a revelation should not be without profit. After the\nBible, what book should we regard as, on the whole, most serviceable\nfor our enlightenment and nurture? Since next to the knowledge of God\nthe knowledge of man is most important, might we not assign this\nsecond place of honour to the works of Shakespeare rather than to any\ntheological treatise? And if so may we not be grateful that something\nafter the order of a Shakespearian revelation of man is contained even\nin one book of the Bible?\n\nIt may be best to treat a book of this character in a different manner\nfrom the weighty historical work that precedes it, and, instead of\nexpounding its chapters seriatim, to gather up its lessons in a series\nof brief character studies.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\n_AHASUERUS AND VASHTI._\n\nESTHER i.\n\n\nThe character of Ahasuerus illustrates the Nemesis of absolutism, by\nshowing how unlimited power is crushed and dissolved beneath the\nweight of its own immensity. The very vastness of his domains\noverwhelms the despot. While he thinks himself free to disport\naccording to his will, he is in reality the slave of his own machinery\nof government. He is so entirely dependent for information on\nsubordinates, who can deceive him to suit their own private ends, that\nhe often becomes a mere puppet of the political wire-pullers. In the\nfury of his passion he issues his terrible mandates, with the\nconfidence of a master whose slightest whim is a law to the nations,\nand yet that very passion has been cleverly worked up by some of his\nservants, who are laughing in their sleeves at the simplicity of their\ndupe, even while they are fawning on him with obsequious flattery. In\nthe story of Esther Ahasuerus is turned about hither and thither by\nhis courtiers, according as one or another is clever enough to obtain\na temporary hearing. In the opening scene he is the victim of a harem\nplot which deprives him of his favourite consort. Subsequently Haman\npoisons his mind with calumnies about a loyal, industrious section of\nhis subjects. He is only undeceived by another movement in the harem.\nEven the jealously guarded women of the royal household know more of\nthe actual state of affairs in the outside world than the bewildered\nmonarch. The king is so high above his realm that he cannot see what\nis going on in it; and all that he can learn about it passes through\nsuch a variety of intermediary agents that it is coloured and\ndistorted in the process.\n\nBut this is not all. The man who is exalted to the pedestal of a god\nis made dizzy by his own altitude. Absolutism drove the Roman Emperor\nCaligula mad; it punished the Xerxes of Herodotus with childishness.\nThe silly monarch who would decorate a tree with the jewellery of a\nprince in reward for its fruitfulness, and flog and chain the\nHellespont as a punishment for its tempestuousness, is not fit to be\nlet out of the nursery. Such conduct as his discovers an ineptitude\nthat is next door to idiocy. When the same man appears on the pages of\nScripture under the name of Ahasuerus, his weakness is despicable. The\nmost keen-sighted ruler of millions is liable to be misinformed; the\nstrongest administrator of a gigantic empire is compelled to move with\ndifficulty in the midst of the elaborate organisation of his\ngovernment. But Ahasuerus is neither keen-sighted nor strong. He is a\nvictim of the last court intrigue, a believer in the idlest gossip;\nand he is worse, for even on the suppositions presented to him he\nbehaves with folly and senseless fury. His conduct to Vashti is first\ninsulting and then ungrateful; for fidelity to her worthless husband\nwould prompt her to decline to risk herself among a crew of drunken\nrevellers. His consent to the diabolical proposal of his grand vizier\nfor a massacre, without an atom of proof that the victims are guilty,\nexhibits a hopeless state of mental feebleness. His equal readiness to\ntransfer the mandate of wholesale murder to persons described\nindefinitely as the \"enemies\" of these people shows how completely he\nis twisted about by the latest breeze. As the palace plots develop we\nsee this great king in all his pride and majesty tossed to and fro\nlike a shuttle-cock. And yet he can sting. It is a dangerous game for\nthe players, and the object of it is to get the deadly venom of the\nroyal rage to light on the head of the opposite party. We could not\nhave a more certain proof of the vanity of \"ambition that o'erleaps\nitself\" than this conversion of immeasurable power into helpless\nweakness on the part of the Persian sovereign.\n\nWe naturally start with this glaring exhibition of the irony of fate\nin our study of Ahasuerus, because it is the most pronounced factor in\nhis character and career. There are other elements of the picture,\nhowever, which are not, like this, confined to the abnormal experience\nof solitary rulers. Next to the revenge of absolutism on its\npossessor, the more vulgar effects of extravagant luxury and\nself-indulgence are to be seen in the degraded Persian court life.\nVery likely the writer of our Book of Esther introduces these matters\nwith the primary object of enhancing the significance of his main\ntheme by making us feel how great a danger the Jews were in, and how\nmagnificent a triumph was won for them by the heroic Jewess of the\nharem. But the scene that he thus brings before us throws light on the\nsituation all round. Xerxes' idea of unbridled power is that it admits\nof unlimited pleasure. Our author's picture of the splendid palace,\nwith its richly coloured awnings stretched across from marble pillars\nto silver rods over the tesselated pavement, where the most exalted\nguests recline in the shade on gold and silver seats, while they feast\nhugely and drink heavily day after day, shows us how the provinces\nwere being drained to enrich the court, and how the royal treasury was\nbeing lavished on idle festivity. That was bad enough, but its effects\nwere worse. The law was licence. \"The drinking was according to the\nlaw,\" and this law was that there should be no limit to it, everybody\ntaking just as much wine as he pleased. Naturally such a rule\nostentatiously paraded before a dissolute company led to a scene of\ndownright bestial debauchery. According to Herodotus, the Persians\nwere addicted to drunkenness, and the incident described in the first\nchapter of Esther is quite in accordance with the Greek historian's\naccount of the followers of Xerxes.\n\nThe worst effect of this vice of drunkenness is its degrading\ninfluence on the conduct and character of men. It robs its victims of\nself-respect and manliness, and sends them to wallow in the mire with\nswinish obscenity. What they would not dream of stooping to in their\nsober moments, they revel in with shameless ostentation when their\nbrains are clouded with intoxicating drink. Husbands, who are gentle\nand considerate at other times, are then transformed into brutes, who\ncan take pleasure in trampling on their wives. It is no excuse to\nplead that the drunkard is a madman unaccountable for his actions; he\nis accountable for having put himself in his degraded condition. If he\nis temporarily insane, he has poisoned his own intellect by swallowing\na noxious drug with his eyes open. He is responsible for that action,\nand therefore he must be held to be responsible for its consequences.\nIf he had given due consideration to his conduct, he might have\nforeseen whither it was tending. The man who has been foolish enough\nto launch his boat on the rapids cannot divert its course when he is\nstartled by the thunder of the falls he is approaching; but he should\nhave thought of that before leaving the safety of the shore.\n\nThe immediate consequence of the disgusting degradation of\ndrunkenness, in the case of Ahasuerus, is that the monarch grossly\ninsults his queen. A moment's consideration would have suggested the\ndanger as well as the scandal of his behaviour. But in his heedless\nfolly the debauchee hurls himself over the precipice, from the height\nof his royal dignity down to the very pit of ignominy, and then he is\nonly enraged that Vashti refuses to be dragged down with him. It is a\nrevolting scene, and one to show how the awful vice of drunkenness\nlevels all distinctions; here it outrages the most sacred rules of\nOriental etiquette. The seclusion of the harem is to be violated for\nthe amusement of the dissolute king's boon companions.\n\nIn the story of Esther poor Vashti's fall is only introduced in order\nto make way for her Hebrew rival. But after ages have naturally sided\nwith the wronged queen. Was it true modesty that prompted her daring\nrefusal, or the lawful pride of womanhood? If so, all women should\nhonour Vashti as the vindicator of their dues. Whatever \"woman's\nrights\" may be maintained in the field of politics, the very existence\nof the home, the basis of society itself, depends on those more\nprofound and inalienable rights that touch the character of pure\nwomanliness. The first of a woman's rights is the right to her own\nperson. But this right is ignored in Oriental civilisation. The sweet\nEnglish word \"home\" is unknown in the court of such a king as\nAhasuerus. To think of it in this connection is as incongruous as to\nimagine a daisy springing up through the boards of a dancing saloon.\nThe unhappy Vashti had never known this choicest of words; but she may\nhave had a due conception of a woman's true dignity, as far as the\nperverted ideas of the East permitted. And yet even here a painful\nsuspicion obtrudes itself on our notice. Vashti had been feasting with\nthe women of the harem when she received the brutal mandate from her\nlord. Had she too lost her balance of judgment under the bewitching\ninfluence of the wine-cup? Was she rendered reckless by the excitement\nof her festivities? Was her refusal the result of the factitious\ncourage that springs from an unwholesome excitement or an equally\neffective mental stupor? Since one of the commonest results of\nintoxication is a quarrelsomeness of temper, it must be admitted that\nVashti's flat refusal to obey may have some connection with her\nprevious festivities. In that case, of course, something must be\ndetracted from her glory as the martyr of womanliness. A horrible\npicture is this--a drunken king quarrelling with his drunken queen;\nthese two people, set in the highest places in their vast realm,\ndescending from the very pinnacle of greatness to grovel in debased\nintemperance! It would not be fair to the poor, wronged queen to\nassert so much without any clear evidence in support of the darker\nview of her conduct. Still it must be admitted that it is difficult\nfor any of the members of a dissolute society to keep their garments\nclean. Unhappily it is only too frequently the case that, even in a\nChristian land, womanhood is degraded by becoming the victim of\nintemperance. No sight on earth is more sickening. A woman may be\nloaded with insults, and yet she may keep her soul white as the soul\nof St. Agnes. It is not an outrage on her dignity, offered by the\ndrunken king to his queen, that really marks her degradation. To all\nfair judgments, that only degrades the brute who offers it; but the\nwhite lily is bruised and trampled in the dust when she who wears it\nherself consents to fling it away.\n\nThe action of Ahasuerus on receipt of his queen's refusal reveals\nanother trait in his weak character. Jealous eyes--always watching the\nfavourite of the harem--discover an opportunity for a gleeful triumph.\nThe advisers of the king are cunning enough to set the action of\nVashti in the light of a public example. If a woman in so exalted a\nposition is permitted to disobey her husband with impunity, other\nwives will appeal to her case and break out of bounds. It is a mean\nplea, the plea of weakness on the part of the speaker, Memucan, the\nlast of the seven princes. Is this man only finding an excuse for the\nking? or may it be supposed that his thoughts are travelling away to a\nshrew in his own home? The strange thing is that the king is not\ncontent wreaking his vengeance on the proud Vashti. He is persuaded to\nutilise the occasion of her act of insubordination in order to issue a\ndecree commanding the subjection of all wives to their husbands. The\nqueen's conduct is treated as an instance of a growing spirit of\nindependence on the part of the women of Persia, which must be crushed\nforthwith. One would think that the women were slaves, and that the\nprinces were acting like the Romans when they issued repressive\nmeasures from dread of a \"Servile War.\"\n\nIf such a law as this had ever been passed, we might well understand\nthe complaint of those who say it is unjust that the function of\nlegislation should be monopolised by one sex. Even in the West, where\nwomen are comparatively free and are supposed to be treated on an\nequality with men, wrong is often done because the laws which concern\nthem more especially are all made by men. In the East, where they are\nregarded as property, like their husbands' camels and oxen, cruel\ninjustice is inevitable. But this injustice cannot go unpunished. It\nmust react on its perpetrators, blunting their finer feelings,\nlowering their better nature, robbing them of those sacred confidences\nof husband and wife which never spring up on the territory of the\nslave-driver.\n\nBut we have only to consider the domestic edict of Ahasuerus to see\nits frothy vanity. When it was issued it must have struck everybody\nwho had the faintest sense of humour as simply ridiculous. It is not\nby the rough instrumentality of the law that difficult questions of\nthe relations between the sexes can be adjusted. The law can see that\na formal contract is not violated with impunity. The law can protect\nthe individual parties to the contract from the most brutal forms of\ncruelty--though even this is very difficult between husband and wife.\nBut the law cannot secure real justice in the home. This must be left\nto the working of principles of righteousness and to the mutual\nconsiderateness of those who are concerned. Where these elements are\nwanting, no legislation on matrimony can restore the peace of a\nshattered home.\n\nThe order of Ahasuerus, however, was too indefinite to have very\nserious results. The tyrannical husband would not have waited for any\nsuch excuse as it might afford him for exacting obedience from his\noppressed household drudge. The strong-minded woman would mock at the\nking's order, and have her own way as before who could hinder her?\nCertainly not her husband. The yoke of years of meek submission was\nnot to be broken in a day by a royal proclamation. But wherever the\ntrue idea of marriage was realised--and we must have sufficient faith\nin human nature to be assured that this was sometimes the case even in\nthe realm of Xerxes--the husband and wife who knew themselves to be\none, united by the closest ties of love and sympathy and mutual\nconfidence, would laugh in their happiness and perhaps spare a thought\nof pity for the poor, silly king who was advertising his domestic\ntroubles to the world, and thereby exhibiting his shallow notions of\nwedded life--blind, absolutely blind, to the sweet secret that was\nheaven to them.\n\nWe may be sure that the singular edict remained a dead letter. But the\nking would be master in his own palace. So Vashti fell. We hear no\nmore of her but we can guess too well what her most probable fate must\nhave been.[263] The gates of death are never difficult to find in an\nOriental palace; there are always jealous rivals eager to triumph over\nthe fall of a royal favourite. Still Ahasuerus had been really fond of\nthe queen who paid so dearly for her one act of independence.\nRepenting of his drunken rage, the king let his thoughts revert to his\nformer favourite, a most dangerous thing for those who had hastened\nher removal. The easiest escape for them was to play on his coarse\nnature by introducing to his notice a bevy of girls from whom he might\nselect a new favourite. This was by no means a dignified proceeding\nfor Esther, the maiden to whom the first prize in the exhibition of\nbeauty was awarded by the royal fancier. But it gave her the place of\npower from which to help her people in their hour of desperate need.\nAnd here we come to some redeeming features in the character of the\nking. He is not lacking in generosity; and he owns to a certain sense\nof justice. In the crowd of royal cares and pleasures, he has\nforgotten how an obscure Jew saved his life by revealing one of the\nmany plots that make the pleasures of a despot as hollow a mockery as\nthe feast of Damocles. On the chance discovery of his negligence,\nAhasuerus hastens to atone for it with ostentatious generosity. Again,\nno sooner does he find that he has been duped by Haman into an act of\ncruel injustice than he tries to counteract the mischief by an equally\nsavage measure of retaliation. A strange way of administering justice!\nYet it must be admitted that in this the capricious, blundering king\nmeans honestly. The bitter irony of it all is that so awful a power of\nlife and death should be lodged in the hands of one who is so totally\nincapacitated for a wise use of it.\n\n  [263] On the supposition that the writer is not here recording\n  historical facts in the life of Amestris, the real queen of Xerxes,\n  who we know was not murdered.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\n_HAMAN._\n\nESTHER iii. 1-6; v. 9-14; vii. 5-10.\n\n\nHaman is the Judas of Israel. Not that his conduct or his place in\nhistory would bring him into comparison with the traitor apostle, for\nhe was an open foe and a foreigner. But he is treated by popular\nJudaism as the Arch-Enemy, just as Judas is treated by popular\nChristianity. Like Judas, he has assigned to him a solitary\npre-eminence in wickedness, which is almost inhuman. As in the case of\nJudas, there is thought to be no call for charity or mercy in judging\nHaman. He shares with Judas the curse of Cain. Boundless execration is\nheaped on his head. Horror and hatred have almost transformed him into\nSatan. He is called The \"Agagite,\" an obscure title which is best\nexplained as a later Jewish nickname derived from a reference to the\nking of Amalek who was hewn in pieces before the Lord. In the\nSeptuagint he is surnamed \"The Macedonian,\" because when that version\nwas made the enemies of Israel were the representatives of the empire\nof Alexander and his successors. During the dramatic reading of the\nBook of Esther in a Jewish synagogue at the Feast of Purim, the\ncongregation may be found taking the part of a chorus and exclaiming\nat every mention of the name of Haman, \"May his name be blotted out,\"\n\"Let the name of the ungodly perish,\" while boys with mallets will\npound stones and bits of wood on which the odious name is written.\nThis frantic extravagance would be unaccountable but for the fact that\nthe people whose \"badge is sufferance\" has summed up under the name of\nthe Persian official the malignity of their enemies in all ages. Very\noften this name has served to veil a dangerous reference to some\ncontemporary foe, or to heighten the rage felt against an\nexceptionally odious person by its accumulation of traditional hatred,\njust as in England on the fifth of November the \"Guy\" may represent\nsome unpopular person of the day.\n\nWhen we turn from this unamiable indulgence of spiteful passion to the\nstory that lies behind it, we have enough that is odious without the\nconception of a sheer monster of wickedness, a very demon. Such a\nbeing would stand outside the range of human motives, and we could\ncontemplate him with unconcern and detachment of mind, just as we\ncontemplate the destructive forces of nature. There is a common\ntemptation to clear ourselves of all semblance to the guilt of very\nbad people by making it out to be inhuman. It is more humiliating to\ndiscover that they act from quite human motives--nay, that those very\nmotives may be detected, though with other bearings, even in our own\nconduct. For see what were the influences that stirred in the heart of\nHaman. He manifests by his behaviour the intimate connection between\nvanity and cruelty.\n\nThe first trait in his character to reveal itself is vanity, a most\ninordinate vanity. Haman is introduced at the moment when he has been\nexalted to the highest position under the king of Persia; he has just\nbeen made grand vizier. The tremendous honour turns his brain. In the\nconsciousness of it he swells out with vanity. As a necessary\nconsequence he is bitterly chagrined when a porter does not do homage\nto him as to the king. His elation is equally extravagant when he\ndiscovers that he is to be the only subject invited to meet Ahasuerus\nat Esther's banquet. When the king inquires how exceptional honour is\nto be shown to some one whose name is not yet revealed, this\ninfatuated man jumps to the conclusion that it can be for nobody but\nhimself. In all his behaviour we see that he is just possessed by an\nabsorbing spirit of vanity.\n\nThen at the first check he suffers an annoyance proportionate to the\nboundlessness of his previous elation. He cannot endure the sight of\nindifference or independence in the meanest subject. The slender fault\nof Mordecai is magnified into a capital offence. This again is so huge\nthat it must be laid to the charge of the whole race to which the\noffender belongs. The rage which it excites in Haman is so violent\nthat it will be satisfied with nothing short of a wholesale massacre\nof men, women, and children. \"Behold how great a matter a little fire\nkindleth\"--when it is fanned by the breath of vanity. The cruelty of\nthe vain man is as limitless as his vanity.\n\nThus the story of Haman illustrates the close juxtaposition of these\ntwo vices, vanity and cruelty; it helps us to see by a series of lurid\npictures how fearfully provocative the one is of the other. As we\nfollow the incidents, we can discover the links of connection between\nthe cause and its dire effects.\n\nIn the first place, it is clear that vanity is a form of magnified\negotism. The vain man thinks supremely of himself, not so much in the\nway of self-interest, but more especially for the sake of\nself-glorification. When he looks out on the world, it is always\nthrough the medium of his own vastly magnified shadow. Like the\nBroecken Ghost, this shadow becomes a haunting presence standing out\nbefore him in huge proportions. He has no other standard of\nmeasurement. Everything must be judged according as it is related to\nhimself. The good is what gives him pleasure; evil is what is noxious\nto him. This self-centred attitude, with the distortion of vision that\nit induces, has a double effect, as we may see in the case of Haman.\n\nEgotism utilises the sufferings of others for its own ends. No doubt\ncruelty is often a consequence of sheer callousness. The man who has\nno perception of the pain he is causing or no sympathy with the\nsufferers will trample them under foot on the least provocation. He\nfeels supremely indifferent to their agonies when they are writhing\nbeneath him, and therefore he will never consider it incumbent on him\nto adjust his conduct with the least reference to the pain he gives.\nThat is an entirely irrelevant consideration. The least inconvenience\nto himself outweighs the greatest distress of other people, for the\nsimple reason that that distress counts as nothing in his calculation\nof motives. In Haman's case, however, we do not meet with this\nattitude of simple indifference. The grand vizier is irritated, and he\nvents his annoyance in a vast explosion of malignity that must take\naccount of the agony it produces, for in that agony its own thirst for\nvengeance is to be slaked. But this only shows the predominant\nselfishness to be all the greater. It is so great that it reverses the\nengines that drive society along the line of mutual helpfulness, and\nthwarts and frustrates any amount of human life and happiness for the\nsole purpose of gratifying its own desires.\n\nThen the selfishness of vanity promotes cruelty still further by\nanother of its effects. It destroys the sense of proportion. Self is\nnot only regarded as the centre of the universe; like the sun\nsurrounded by the planets, it is taken to be the greatest object, and\neverything else is insignificant when compared to it. What is the\nslaughter of a few thousand Jews to so great a man as Haman, grand\nvizier of Persia? It is no more than the destruction of as many flies\nin a forest fire that the settler has kindled to clear his ground. The\nsame self-magnification is visibly presented by the Egyptian\nbas-reliefs, on which the victorious Pharaohs appear as tremendous\ngiants driving back hordes of enemies or dragging pigmy kings by their\nheads. It is but a step from this condition to insanity, which is the\napotheosis of vanity. The chief characteristic of insanity is a\ndiseased enlargement of self. If he is elated the madman regards\nhimself as a person of supreme importance--as a prince, as a king,\neven as God. If he is depressed he thinks that he is the victim of\nexceptional malignity. In that case he is beset by watchers of evil\nintent; the world is conspiring against him; everything that happens\nis part of a plot to do him harm. Hence his suspiciousness; hence his\nhomicidal proclivities. He is not so mad in his inferences and\nconclusions. These may be rational and just, on the ground of his\npremisses. It is in the fixed ideas of these premisses that the root\nof his insanity may be detected. His awful fate is a warning to all\nwho venture to indulge in the vice of excessive egotism.\n\nIn the second place, vanity leads to cruelty through the entire\ndependence of the vain person on the good opinion of others; and this\nwe may see clearly in the career of Haman. Vanity is differentiated\nfrom pride in one important particular--by its outward reference. The\nproud man is satisfied with himself; but the vain man is always\nlooking outside himself with feverish eagerness to secure all the\nhonours that the world can bestow upon him. Thus Mordecai may have\nbeen proud in his refusal to bow before the upstart premier: if so his\npride would not need to court admiration; it would be self-contained\nand self-sufficient. But Haman was possessed by an insatiable thirst\nfor homage. If a single obscure individual refused him this honour, a\nshadow rested on everything. He could not enjoy the queen's banquet\nfor the slight offered him by the Jew at the palace gate, so that he\nexclaimed, \"Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see\nMordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate.\"[264] A selfish man in\nthis condition can have no rest if anything in the world outside him\nfails to minister to his honour. While a proud man in an exalted\nposition scarcely deigns to notice the \"dim common people,\" the vain\nman betrays his vulgarity by caring supremely for popular adulation.\nTherefore while the haughty person can afford to pass over a slight\nwith contempt, the vain creature who lives on the breath of applause\nis mortally offended by it and roused to avenge the insult with\ncorresponding rage.\n\n  [264] Esther v. 13.\n\nSelfishness and dependence on the external, these attributes of vanity\ninevitably develop into cruelty wherever the aims of vanity are\nopposed. And yet the vice that contains so much evil is rarely visited\nwith a becoming severity of condemnation. Usually it is smiled at as\na trivial frailty. In the case of Haman it threatened the\nextermination of a nation, and the reaction from its menace issued in\na terrific slaughter of another section of society. History records\nwar after war that has been fought on the ground of vanity. In\nmilitary affairs this vice wears the name of glory; but its nature is\nunaltered. For what is the meaning of a war that is waged for \"la\ngloire\" but one that is designed in order to minister to the vanity of\nthe people who undertake it? A more fearful wickedness has never\nblackened the pages of history. The very frivolity of the occasion\nheightens the guilt of those who plunge nations into misery on such a\npaltry pretext. It is vanity that urges a savage warrior to collect\nskulls to adorn the walls of his hut with the ghastly trophies; it is\nvanity that impels a restless conqueror to march to his own triumph\nthrough a sea of blood; it is vanity that rouses a nation to fling\nitself on its neighbour in order to exalt its fame by a great victory.\nAmbition at its best is fired by the pride of power; but in its meaner\nforms ambition is nothing but an uprising of vanity clamouring for\nwider recognition. The famous invasion of Greece by Xerxes was\nevidently little better than a huge exhibition of regal vanity. The\nchildish fatuity of the king could seek for no exalted ends. His\nassemblage of swarms of men of all races in an ill-disciplined army\ntoo big for practical warfare showed that the thirst for display\noccupied the principal place in his mind, to the neglect of the more\nsober aims of a really great conqueror. And if the vanity that lives\non the world's admiration is so fruitful in evil when it is allowed to\ndeploy on a large scale, its essential character will not be improved\nby the limitation of its scope in humbler spheres of life. It is\nalways mean and cruel.\n\nTwo other features in the character of Haman may be noticed. First, he\nshows energy and determination. He bribes the king to obtain the royal\nconsent to his deadly design, bribes with an enormous present equal to\nthe revenue of a kingdom, though Ahasuerus permits him to recoup\nhimself by seizing the property of the proscribed nation. Then the\nmurderous mandate goes forth: it is translated into every language of\nthe subject peoples; it is carried to the remotest parts of the\nkingdom by the posts, the excellent organisation of which, under the\nPersian government has become famous. Thus far everything is on a\nlarge scale, betokening a mind of resource and daring. But now turn to\nthe sequel. \"And the king and Haman sat down to drink.\"[265] It is a\nhorrible picture--the king of Persia and his grand vizier at this\ncrisis deliberately abandoning themselves to their national vice. The\ndecree is out; it cannot be recalled--let it go and do its fell work.\nAs for its authors, they are drowning all thought of its effect on\npublic opinion in the wine-cup; they are boozing together in a\ndisgusting companionship of debauchery on the eve of a scene of\nwholesale bloodshed. This is what the glory of the Great King has come\nto. This is the anti-climax of his minister's vanity at the moment of\nsupreme success. After such an exhibition we need not be surprised at\nthe abject humiliation, the terror of cowardice, the frantic effort to\nextort pity from a woman of the very race whose extermination he had\nplotted, manifested by Haman in the hour of his exposure at Esther's\nbanquet. Beneath all his braggart energy he is a weak man. In most\ncases self-indulgent, vain, and cruel people are essentially weak at\nheart.\n\n  [265] Esther iii. 15.\n\nLooking at the story of Haman from another point of view, we see how\nwell it illustrates the confounding of evil devices and the punishment\nof their author in the drama of history. It is one of the most\nstriking instances of what is called \"poetic justice,\" the justice\ndepicted by the poets, but not always seen in prosaic lives, the\njustice that is itself a poem because it makes a harmony of events.\nHaman is the typical example of the schemer who \"falls into his own\npit,\" of the villain who is \"hoisted on his own petard.\" Three times\nthe same process occurs, to impress its lesson with threefold\nemphasis. We have it first in the most moderate form when Haman is\nforced to assist in bestowing on Mordecai the honours he has been\ncoveting for himself, by leading the horse of the hated Jew in his\ntriumphant procession through the city. The same lesson is impressed\nwith tragic force when the grand vizier is condemned to be impaled on\nthe stake erected by him in readiness for the man whom he has been\ncompelled to honour. Lastly, the design of murdering the whole race to\nwhich Mordecai belongs is frustrated by the slaughter of those who\nsympathise with Haman's attitude towards Israel--the \"Hamanites,\" as\nthey have been called. We rarely meet with such a complete reversal of\nfate, such a climax of vengeance. In considering the course of events\nhere set forth we must distinguish between the old Jewish view of it\nand the significance of the process itself.\n\nThe Jews were taught to look on all this with fierce, vindictive glee,\nand to see in it the prophecy of the like fate that was treasured up\nfor their enemies in later times. This rage of the oppressed against\ntheir oppressors, this almost fiendish delight in the complete\noverthrow of the enemies of Israel, this total extinction of any\nsentiment of pity even for the helpless and innocent sufferers who are\nto share the fate of their guilty relatives--in a word, this utterly\nun-Christlike spirit of revenge, must be odious in our eyes. We cannot\nunderstand how good men could stand by with folded arms while they saw\nwomen and children tossed into the seething cauldron of vengeance;\nstill less how they could themselves perpetrate the dreadful deed. But\nthen we cannot understand that tragedy of history, the oppression of\nthe Jews, and its deteriorating influence on its victims, nor the\nhard, cruel spirit of blank indifference to the sufferings of others\nthat prevailed almost everywhere before Christ came to teach the world\npity.\n\nWhen we turn to the events themselves, we must take another view of\nthe situation. Here was a rough and sweeping, but still a complete and\nstriking punishment of cruel wrong. The Jews expected this too\nfrequently on earth. We have learnt that it is more often reserved for\nanother world and a future state of existence. Yet sometimes we are\nstartled to see how apt it can be even in this present life. The cruel\nman breeds foes by his very cruelty; he rouses his own executioners by\nthe rage that he provokes in them. It is the same with respect to many\nother forms of evil. Thus vanity is punished by the humiliation it\nreceives from those people who are irritated at its pretensions; it is\nthe last failing that the world will readily forgive, partly perhaps\nbecause it offends the similar failing in other people. Then we see\nmeanness chastised by the odium it excites, lying by the distrust it\nprovokes, cowardice by the attacks it invites, coldness of heart by a\ncorresponding indifference on the side of other people. The result is\nnot always so neatly effected nor so visibly demonstrated as in the\ncase of Haman; but the tendency is always present, because there is a\nPower that makes for righteousness presiding over society and inherent\nin the very constitution of nature.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\n_QUEEN ESTHER._\n\nESTHER iv. 10-v.; vii. 1-4; ix. 12, 13.\n\n\nThe young Jewess who wins the admiration of the Persian king above all\nthe chosen maidens of his realm, and who then delivers her people in\nthe crisis of supreme danger at the risk of her own life, is the\ncentral figure in the story of the origin of Purim. It was a just\nperception of the situation that led to the choice of her name as the\ntitle of the book that records her famous achievements. Esther first\nappears as an obscure orphan who has been brought up in the humble\nhome of her cousin Mordecai. After her guardian has secured her\nadmission to the royal harem--a doubtful honour! we might think, but a\nvery real honour in the eyes of an ancient Oriental--she receives a\nyear's training with the use of the fragrant unguents that are\nesteemed so highly in a voluptuous Eastern court. We should not expect\nto see anything better than the charms of physical beauty after such a\nprocess of development, charms not of the highest type--languid,\nluscious, sensuous. The new name bestowed on this finished product of\nthe chief art cultivated in the palace of Ahasuerus points to nothing\nhigher, for \"Esther\" (_Istar_) is the name of a Babylonian goddess\nequivalent to the Greek \"Aphrodite.\" And yet our Esther is a\nheroine--capable, energetic, brave, and patriotic. The splendour of\nher career is seen in this very fact, that she does not succumb to the\nluxury of her surroundings. The royal harem among the lily-beds of\nShushan is like a palace in the land of the lotus-eaters, \"where it is\nalways afternoon\"; and its inmates, in their dreamy indolence, are\ntempted to forget all obligations and interests beyond the obligation\nto please the king and their own interest in securing every comfort\nwealth can lavish on them. We do not look for a Boadicea in such a\nhot-house of narcotics. And when we find there a strong, unselfish\nwoman such as Esther, conquering almost insuperable temptations to a\nlife of ease, and choosing a course of terrible danger to herself for\nthe sake of her oppressed people, we can echo the admiration of the\nJews for their national heroine.\n\nIt is a woman, then, who plays the leading part in this drama of\nJewish history. From Eve to Mary, women have repeatedly appeared in\nthe most prominent places on the pages of Scripture. The history of\nIsrael finds some of its most powerful situations in the exploits of\nDeborah, Jael, and Judith. On the side of evil, Delilah, Athaliah, and\nJezebel are not less conspicuous. There was a freedom enjoyed by the\nwomen of Israel that was not allowed in the more elaborate\ncivilisation of the great empires of the East, and this developed an\nindependent spirit and a vigour not usually seen in Oriental women. In\nthe case of Esther these good qualities were able to survive the\nexternal restraints and the internal relaxing atmosphere of her court\nlife. The scene of her story is laid in the harem. The plots and\nintrigues of the harem furnish its principal incidents. Yet if Esther\nhad been a shepherdess from the mountains of Judah, she could not have\nproved herself more energetic. But her court life had taught her\nskill in diplomacy, for she had to pick her way among the greatest\ndangers like a person walking among concealed knives.\n\nThe beauty of Esther's character is this, that she is not spoiled by\nher great elevation. To be the one favourite out of all the select\nmaidens of the kingdom, and to know that she owes her privileged\nposition solely to the king's fancy for her personal charms, might\nhave spoilt the grace of a simple Jewess. Haman, we saw, was ruined by\nhis honours becoming too great for his self-control. But in Esther we\ndo not light on a trace of the silly vanity that became the most\nmarked characteristic of the grand vizier. It speaks well for\nMordecai's sound training of the orphan girl that his ward proved to\nbe of stable character where a weaker person would have been dizzy\nwith selfish elation.\n\nThe unchanged simplicity of Esther's character is first apparent in\nher submissive obedience to her guardian even after her high position\nhas been attained. Though she is treated as his Queen by the Great\nKing, she does not forget the kind porter who has brought her up from\nchildhood. In the old days she had been accustomed to obey this grave\nJew, and she has no idea of throwing off the yoke now that he has no\nlonger any recognised power over her. The habit of obedience persists\nin her after the necessity for it has been removed. This would not\nhave been so remarkable if Esther had been a weak-minded woman,\nreadily subdued and kept in subjection by a masterful will. But her\nenergy and courage at a momentous crisis entirely forbid any such\nestimate of her character. It must have been genuine humility and\nunselfishness that prevented her from rebelling against the old home\nauthority when a heavy injunction was laid upon her. She undertakes\nthe dangerous part of the champion of a threatened race solely at the\ninstance of Mordecai. He urges the duty upon her, and she accepts it\nmeekly. She is no rough Amazon. With all her greatness and power, she\nis still a simple, unassuming woman.\n\nBut when Esther has assented to the demands of Mordecai, she appears\nin her people's cause with the spirit of true patriotism. She scorns\nto forget her humble origin in all the splendour of her later\nadvancement. She will own her despised and hated people before the\nking; she will plead the cause of the oppressed, though at the risk of\nher life. She is aware of the danger of her undertaking; but she says,\n\"If I perish, I perish.\" The habit of obedience could not have been\nstrong enough to carry her through the terrible ordeal if Mordecai's\nhard requirement had not been seconded by the voice of her own\nconscience. She knows that it is right that she should undertake this\ndifficult and dangerous work. How naturally might she have shrunk back\nwith regret for the seclusion and obscurity of the old days when her\nsafety lay in her insignificance? But she saw that her new privileges\ninvolved new responsibilities. A royal harem is the last place in\nwhich we should look for the recognition of this truth. Esther is to\nbe honoured because even in that palace of idle luxury she could\nacknowledge the stern obligation that so many in her position would\nnever have glanced at. It is always difficult to perceive and act on\nthe responsibility that certainly accompanies favour and power. This\ndifficulty is one reason why \"it is easier for a camel to go through\nthe eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of\nGod.\" For while unusual prosperity brings unusual responsibility,\nsimply because it affords unusual opportunities for doing good, it\ntends to cultivate pride and selfishness, and the miserable worldly\nspirit that is fatal to all high endeavour and all real sacrifice. Our\nLord's great principle, \"Unto whom much is given, of him shall much be\nrequired,\" is clear as a mathematical axiom when we look at it in the\nabstract; but nothing is harder than for people to apply it to their\nown cases. If it were freely admitted, the ambition that grasps at the\nfirst places would be shamed into silence. If it were generally acted\non, the wide social cleft between the fortunate and the miserable\nwould be speedily bridged over. The total ignoring of this tremendous\nprinciple by the great majority of those who enjoy the privileged\npositions in society is undoubtedly one of the chief causes of the\nominous unrest that is growing more and more disturbing in the less\nfavoured ranks of life. If this supercilious contempt for an\nimperative duty continues, what can be the end but an awful\nretribution? Was it not the wilful blindness of the dancers in the\nTuileries to the misery of the serfs on the fields that caused\nrevolutionary France to run red with blood?\n\nEsther was wise in taking the suggestion of her cousin that she had\nbeen raised up for the very purpose of saving her people. Here was a\nfaith, reserved and reticent, but real and powerful. It was no idle\nchance that had tossed her on the crest of the wave while so many of\nher sisters were weltering in the dark floods beneath. A clear, high\npurpose was leading her on to a strange and mighty destiny, and now\nthe destiny was appearing, sublime and terrible, like some awful\nmountain peak that must be climbed unless the soul that has come thus\nfar will turn traitor and fall back into failure and ignominy. When\nEsther saw this, she acted on it with the promptitude of the founder\nof her nation, who esteemed \"the reproach of Christ greater riches\nthan the treasures of Egypt\"; but with this difference, that, while\nMoses renounced his high rank in Pharaoh's court in order to identify\nhimself with his people, the Queen of Ahasuerus retained her perilous\nposition and turned it to good account in her saving mission. Thus\nthere are two ways in which an exalted person may serve others. He may\ncome down from his high estate like Moses, like Christ who was rich\nand for our sakes became poor; or he may take advantage of his\nprivileged position to use it for the good of his brethren, regarding\nit as a trust to be held for those whom he can benefit, like Joseph,\nwho was able in this way to save his father and his brothers from\nfamine, and like Esther in the present case. Circumstances will guide\nthe willing to a decision as to which of these courses should be\nchosen.\n\nWe must not turn from this subject without remembering that Mordecai\nplied Esther with other considerations besides the thought of her\nmysterious destiny. He warned her that she should not escape if she\ndisowned her people. He expressed his confidence that if she shrank\nfrom her high mission deliverance would \"come from another place,\" to\nher eternal shame. Duty is difficult, and there is often a call for\nthe comparatively lower, because more selfish, considerations that\nurge to it. The reluctant horse requires the spur. And yet the noble\ncourage of Esther could not have come chiefly from fear or any other\nselfish motive. It must have been a sense of her high duty and\nwonderful destiny that inspired her. There is no inspiration like that\nof the belief that we are called to a great mission. This is the\nsecret of the fanatical heroism of the Madhist dervishes. In a more\nholy warfare it makes heroes of the weakest.\n\nHaving once accepted her dreadful task, Esther proceeded to carry it\nout with courage. It was a daring act for her to enter the presence of\nthe king unsummoned. Who could tell but that the fickle monarch might\ntake offence at the presumption of his new favourite, as he had done\nin the case of her predecessor? Her lonely position might have made\nthe strongest of women quail as she stepped forth from her seclusion\nand ventured to approach her lord. Her motive might be shamefully\nmisconstrued by the low-minded monarch. Would the king hold out the\ngolden sceptre to her? The chances of life and death hung on the\nanswer to that question. Nehemiah, though a courageous man and a\nfavourite of his royal master, was filled with apprehension at the\nprospect of a far less dangerous interview with a much more reasonable\nruler than the half-mad Xerxes. These Oriental autocrats were shrouded\nin the terror of divinities. Their absolute power left the lives of\nall who approached them at the mercy of their caprice. Ahasuerus had\njust sanctioned a senseless, bloodthirsty decree. Very possibly he had\nmurdered Vashti, and that on the offence of a moment. Esther was in\nfavour, but she belonged to the doomed people, and she was committing\nan illegal action deliberately in the face of the king. She was Fatima\nrisking the wrath of Bluebeard. We know how Nehemiah would have acted\nat this trying moment. He would have strengthened his heart with one\nof those sudden ejaculations of prayer that were always ready to\nspring to his lips on any emergency. It is not in accordance with the\nsecular tone of the story of Esther's great undertaking that any hint\nof such an action on her part should have been given. Therefore we\ncannot say that she was a woman of no religion, that she was\nprayerless, that she launched on this great enterprise entirely\nrelying on her own strength. We must distinguish between reserve and\ncoldness in regard to religion. The fire burns while the heart muses,\neven though the lips are still. At all events, if it is the intention\nof the writer to teach that Esther was mysteriously raised up for the\npurpose of saving her people, it is a natural inference to conclude\nthat she was supported in the execution of it by unseen and silent\naid. Her name does not appear in the honour roll of Hebrews xi. We\ncannot assert that she acted in the strength of faith. And yet there\nis more evidence of faith, even though it is not professed, in conduct\nthat is true and loyal, brave and unselfish, than we can find in the\nloudest profession of a creed without the confirmation of\ncorresponding conduct. \"I will show my faith by my works,\" says St.\nJames, and he may show it without once naming it.\n\nIt is to be noted, further, that Esther was a woman of resources. She\ndid not trust to her courage alone to secure her end. It was not\nenough that she owned her people, and was willing to plead their\ncause. She had the definite purpose of saving them to effect. She was\nnot content to be a martyr to patriotism; a sensible, practical woman,\nshe did her utmost to be successful in effecting the deliverance of\nthe threatened Jews. With this end in view, it was necessary for her\nto proceed warily. Her first step was gained when she had secured an\naudience with the king. We may surmise that her beautiful countenance\nwas lit up with a new, rare radiance when all self-seeking was\nbanished from her mind and an intense, noble aim fired her soul; and\nthus, it may be, her very loftiness of purpose helped to secure its\nsuccess. Beauty is a gift, a talent, to be used for good, like any\nother Divine endowment; the highest beauty is the splendour of soul\nthat sometimes irradiates the most commonplace countenance, so that,\nlike Stephen's, it shines as the face of an angel. Instead of\ndegrading her beauty with foolish vanity, Esther consecrated it to a\nnoble service, and thereby it was glorified. This one talent was not\nlodged with her useless.\n\nThe first point was gained in securing the favour of Ahasuerus. But\nall was not yet won. It would have been most unwise for Esther to have\nburst out with her daring plea for the condemned people in the moment\nof the king's surprised welcome. But she was patient and skilful in\nmanaging her delicate business. She knew the king's weakness for good\nliving, and she played upon it for her great purpose. Even when she\nhad got him to a first banquet, she did not venture to bring out her\nrequest. Perhaps her courage failed her at the last moment. Perhaps,\nlike a keen, observant woman, she perceived that she had not yet\nwheedled the king round to the condition in which it would be safe to\napproach the dangerous topic. So she postponed her attempt to another\nday and a second banquet. Then she seized her opportunity. With great\ntact, she began by pleading for her own life. Her piteous entreaty\namazed the dense-minded monarch. At the same time the anger of his\npride was roused. Who would dare to touch his favourite queen? It was\na well-chosen moment to bring such a notion into the mind of a king\nwho was changeable as a child. We may be sure that Esther had been\ndoing her very best to please him throughout the two banquets. Then\nshe had Haman on the spot. He, too, prime minister of Persia as he\nwas, had to find that for once in his life he had been outwitted by a\nwoman. Esther meant to strike while the iron was hot. So the\narch-enemy of her people was there, that the king might carry out the\norders to which she was skilfully leading him on without the delay\nwhich would give the party of Haman an opportunity to turn him the\nother way. Haman saw it all in a moment. He confessed that the queen\nwas mistress of the situation by appealing to her for mercy, in the\nfrenzy of his terror even so far forgetting his place as to fling\nhimself on her couch. That only aggravated the rage of the jealous\nking. Haman's fate was sealed on the spot. Esther was completely\ntriumphant.\n\nAfter this it is painful to see how the woman who had saved her people\nat the risk of her own life pushed her advantage to the extremity of a\nbloodthirsty vengeance. It is all very well to say that, as the laws\nof the Medes and Persians could not be altered, there was no\nalternative but a defensive slaughter. We may try to shelter Esther\nunder the customs of the times; we may call to mind the fact that she\nwas acting on the advice of Mordecai, whom she had been taught to obey\nfrom childhood, so that his was by far the greater weight of\nresponsibility. Still, as we gaze on the portrait of the strong,\nbrave, unselfish Jewess, we must confess that beneath all the beauty\nand nobility of its expression certain hard lines betray the fact that\nEsther is not a Madonna, that the heroine of the Jews does not reach\nthe Christian ideal of womanhood.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n\n_MORDECAI._\n\nESTHER ii. 5, 6; iv. 1, 2; vi. 10, 11; ix. 1-4.\n\n\nThe hectic enthusiast who inspires Daniel Deronda with his passionate\nideas is evidently a reflection in modern literature of the Mordecai\nof Scripture. It must be admitted that the reflection approaches a\ncaricature. The dreaminess and morbid excitability of George Eliot's\nconsumptive hero have no counterpart in the wise, strong Mentor of\nQueen Esther; and the English writer's agnosticism has led her to\nexclude all the Divine elements of the Jewish faith, so that on her\npages the sole object of Israelite devotion is the race of Israel. But\nthe very extravagance of the portraiture keenly accentuates what is,\nafter all, the most remarkable trait in the original Mordecai. We are\nnot in a position to deny that this man had a living faith in the God\nof his fathers; we are simply ignorant as to what his attitude towards\nreligion was, because the author of the Book of Esther draws a veil\nover the religious relations of all his characters. Still the one\nthing prominent and pronounced in Mordecai is patriotism, devotion to\nIsrael, the expenditure of thought and effort on the protection of his\nthreatened people.\n\nThe first mention of the name of Mordecai introduces a hint of his\nnational connections. We read, \"There was a certain Jew in Shushan the\npalace, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei,\nthe son of Kish, a Benjamite; who had been carried away from Jerusalem\nwith the captives which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of\nJudah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.\"[266]\nCurious freaks of exegesis have been displayed in dealing with this\npassage. It has been thought that the Kish mentioned in it is no other\nthan the father of Saul, in which case the ages of the ancestors of\nMordecai must rival those of the antediluvians; and it has been\nsuggested that Mordecai is here represented as one of the original\ncaptives from Jerusalem in the reign of Jeconiah, so that at the time\nof Xerxes he must have been a marvellously old man, tottering on the\nbrink of the grave. On these grounds the genealogical note has been\ntreated as a fanciful fiction invented to magnify the importance of\nMordecai. But there is no necessity to take up any such position. It\nwould be strange to derive Mordecai from the far-off Benjamite farmer\nKish, who shines only in the reflected glory of his son, whereas we\nhave no mention of Saul himself. There is no reason to say that\nanother Kish may not have been found among the captives. Then it is\nquite possible to dispose of the second difficulty by connecting the\nrelative clause at the beginning of verse 6--\"who had been carried\naway\"--with the nearest antecedent in the previous sentence--viz.,\n\"Kish the Benjamite.\" If we remove the semi-colon from the end of\nverse 5, the clauses will run on quite smoothly and there will be no\nreason to go back to the name of Mordecai for the antecedent of the\nrelative; we can read the words thus--\"Kish the Benjamite who had been\ncarried away,\" etc. In this way all difficulty vanishes. But the\npassage still retains a special significance. Mordecai was a true Jew,\nof the once royal tribe of Benjamin, a descendant of one of the\ncaptive contemporaries of Jeconiah, and therefore most likely a scion\nof a princely house. The preservation of his ancestral record gives us\na hint of the sort of mental pabulum on which the man had been\nnurtured. Living in the palace, apparently as a porter, and possibly\nas a eunuch of the harem, Mordecai would have been tempted to forget\nhis people. Nevertheless it is plain that he had cherished traditions\nof the sad past, and trained his soul to cling to the story of his\nfathers' sufferings in spite of all the distractions and dissipations\nof a Persian court life. Though in a humbler sphere, he thus resembled\nArtaxerxes' cup-bearer, the great patriot Nehemiah.\n\n  [266] Esther ii. 5, 6.\n\nThe peculiarity of Mordecai's part in the story is this, that he is\nthe moving spirit of all that is done for the deliverance of Israel at\na time of desperate peril without being at first a prominent\ncharacter. Thus he first appears as the guardian of his young cousin,\nwhom he has cherished and trained, and whom he now introduces to the\nroyal harem where she will play her more conspicuous part. Throughout\nthe whole course of events Mordecai's voice is repeatedly heard, but\nusually as that of Esther's prompter. He haunts the precincts of the\nharem, if by chance he may catch a glimpse of his foster child. He is\na lonely man now, for he has parted with the light of his home. He has\ndone this voluntarily, unselfishly--first, to advance the lovely\ncreature who has been committed to his charge, and secondly, as it\nturns out, for the saving of his people. Even now his chief thought is\nnot for the cheering of his own solitude. His constant aim is to guide\nhis young cousin in the difficult path of her new career. Subsequently\nhe receives the highest honours the king can bestow; but he never\nseeks them, and he would be quite content to remain in the background\nto the end, if only his eager desire for the good of his people could\nbe accomplished by the queen who has learnt to lean upon his counsel\nfrom her childhood. Such self-effacement is most rare and beautiful. A\nsubtle temptation to self-regarding ambition besets the path of every\nman who attempts some great public work for the good of others in a\nway that necessarily brings him under observation. Even though he\nbelieves himself to be inspired by the purest patriotism, it is\nimpossible for him not to perceive that he is exposing himself to\nadmiration by the very disinterestedness of his conduct. The rare\nthing is to see the same earnestness on the part of a person in an\nobscure place, willing that the whole of his energy should be devoted\nto the training and guiding of another, who alone is to become the\nvisible agent of some great work.\n\nThe one action in which Mordecai momentarily takes the first place\nthrows light on another side of his character. There is a secondary\nplot in the story. Mordecai saves the king's life by discovering to\nhim a conspiracy. The value of this service is strikingly illustrated\nby the historical fact that, at a later time, just another such\nconspiracy issued in the assassination of Xerxes. In the distractions\nof his foreign expeditions and his abandonment to self-indulgence at\nhome, the king forgets the whole affair, and Mordecai goes on his\nquiet way as before, never dreaming of the honour with which it is to\nbe rewarded. Now this incident seems to be introduced to show how the\nintricate wheels of Providence all work on for the ultimate\ndeliverance of Israel. The accidental discovery of Mordecai's\nunrequited service when the king is beguiling the long hours of a\nsleepless night by listening to the chronicles of his reign leads to\nthe recognition of Mordecai and the first humiliation of Haman, and\nprepares the king for further measures. But the incident reflects a\nside light on Mordecai in another direction. The humble porter is\nloyal to the great despot. He is a passionately patriotic Jew; but his\npatriotism does not make a rebel of him, nor does it permit him to\nstand aside silently and see a villainous intrigue go on unmolested,\neven though it is aimed at the monarch who is holding his people in\nsubjection. Mordecai is the humble friend of the great Persian king in\nthe moment of danger. This is the more remarkable when we compare it\nwith his ruthless thirst for vengeance against the known enemies of\nIsrael. It shows that he does not treat Ahasuerus as an enemy of his\npeople. No doubt the writer of this narrative wished it to be seen\nthat the most patriotic Jew could be perfectly loyal to a foreign\ngovernment. The shining examples of Joseph and Daniel have set the\nsame idea before the world for the vindication of a grossly maligned\npeople, who, like the Christians in the days of Tacitus, have been\nmost unjustly hated as the enemies of the human race. The capacity to\nadapt itself loyally to the service of foreign governments, without\nabandoning one iota of its religion or its patriotism, is a unique\ntrait in the genius of this wonderful race. The Zealot is not the\ntypical Jew-patriot. He is a secretion of diseased and decayed\npatriotism. True patriotism is large enough and patient enough to\nrecognise the duties that lie outside its immediate aims. Its fine\nperfection is attained when it can be flexible without becoming\nservile.\n\nWe see that in Mordecai the flexibility of Jewish patriotism was\nconsistent with a proud scorn of the least approach to servility. He\nwould not kiss the dust at the approach of Haman, grand vizier though\nthe man was. It may be that he regarded this act of homage as\nidolatrous--for it would seem that Persian monarchs were not unwilling\nto accept the adulation of Divine honours; and the vain minister was\naping the airs of his royal master. But, perhaps, like those Greeks\nwho would not humble their pride by prostrating themselves at the\nbidding of an Oriental barbarian, Mordecai held himself up from a\nsense of self-respect. In either case it must be evident that he\nshowed a daringly independent spirit. He could not but know that such\nan affront as he ventured to offer to Haman would annoy the great man.\nBut he had not calculated on the unfathomable depths of Haman's\nvanity. Nobody who credits his fellows with rational motives would\ndream that so simple an offence as this of Mordecai's could provoke so\nvast an act of vengeance as the massacre of a nation. When he saw the\noutrageous consequences of his mild act of independence, Mordecai must\nhave felt it doubly incumbent upon him to strain every nerve to save\nhis people. Their danger was indirectly due to his conduct. Still he\ncould never have foreseen such a result, and therefore he should not\nbe held responsible for it. The tremendous disproportion between\nmotive and action in the behaviour of Haman is like one of those\nfantastic freaks that abound in the impossible world of \"The Arabian\nNights,\" but for the occurrence of which we make no provision in real\nlife, simply because we do not act on the assumption that the universe\nis nothing better than a huge lunatic asylum.\n\nThe escape from this altogether unexpected danger is due to two\ncourses of events. One of them--in accordance with the reserved style\nof the narrative--appears to be quite accidental. Mordecai got the\nreward he never sought in what seems to be the most casual way. He had\nno hand in obtaining for himself an honour which looks to us quaintly\nchildish. For a few brief hours he was paraded through the streets of\nthe royal city as the man whom the king delighted to honour, with no\nless a person than the grand vizier to serve as his groom. It was\nHaman's silly vanity that had invented this frivolous proceeding. We\ncan hardly suppose that Mordecai cared much for it. After the\nprocession had completed its round, in true Oriental fashion Mordecai\nput off his gorgeous robes, like a poor actor returning from the stage\nto his garret, and settled down to his lowly office exactly as if\nnothing had happened. This must seem to us a foolish business, unless\nwe can look at it through the magnifying glass of an Oriental\nimagination, and even then there is nothing very fascinating in it.\nStill it had important consequences. For, in the first place, it\nprepared the way for a further recognition of Mordecai in the future.\nHe was now a marked personage. Ahasuerus knew him, and was gratefully\ndisposed towards him. The people understood that the king delighted to\nhonour him. His couch would not be the softer nor his bread the\nsweeter; but all sorts of future possibilities lay open before him. To\nmany men the possibilities of life are more precious than the\nactualities. We cannot say, however, that they meant much to\nMordecai, for he was not ambitious, and he had no reason to think that\nthe kings conscience was not perfectly satisfied with the cheap\nsettlement of his debt of gratitude. Still the possibilities existed,\nand before the end of the tale they had blossomed out to very\nbrilliant results.\n\nBut another consequence of the pageant was that the heart of Haman was\nturned to gall. We see him livid with jealousy, inconsolable until his\nwife--who evidently knows him well--proposes to satisfy his spite by\nanother piece of fanciful extravagance. Mordecai shall be impaled on a\nmighty stake, so high that all the world shall see the ghastly\nspectacle. This may give some comfort to the wounded vanity of the\ngrand vizier. But consolation to Haman will be death and torment to\nMordecai.\n\nNow we come to the second course of events that issued in the\ndeliverance and triumph of Israel, and therewith in the escape and\nexaltation of Mordecai. Here the watchful porter is at the spring of\nall that happens. His fasting, and the earnest counsels he lays upon\nEsther, bear witness to the intensity of his nature. Again the\ncharacteristic reserve of the narrative obscures all religious\nconsiderations. But, as we have seen already, Mordecai is persuaded\nthat deliverance will come to Israel from some quarter, and he\nsuggests that Esther has been raised to her high position for the\npurpose of saving her people. We cannot but feel that these hints veil\na very solid faith in the providence of God with regard to the Jews.\nOn the surface of them they show faith in the destiny of Israel.\nMordecai not only loves his nation; he believes in it. He is sure it\nhas a future. It has survived the most awful disasters in the past.\nIt seems to possess a charmed life. It must emerge safely from the\npresent crisis. But Mordecai is not a fatalist whose creed paralyses\nhis energies. He is most distressed and anxious at the prospect of the\ngreat danger that threatens his people. He is most persistent in\npressing for the execution of measures of deliverance. Still in all\nthis he is buoyed up by a strange faith in his nation's destiny. This\nis the faith that the English novelist has transferred to her modern\nMordecai. It cannot be gainsayed that there is much in the marvellous\nhistory of the unique people, whose vitality and energy astonish us\neven to-day, to justify the sanguine expectation of prophetic souls\nthat Israel has yet a great destiny to fulfil in future ages.\n\nThe ugly side of Jewish patriotism is also apparent in Mordecai, and\nit must not be ignored. The indiscriminate massacre of the \"enemies\"\nof the Jews is a savage act of retaliation that far exceeds the\nnecessity of self-defence, and Mordecai must bear the chief blame of\nthis crime. But then the considerations in extenuation of its guilt\nwhich have already come under our notice may be applied to him.[267]\nThe danger was supreme. The Jews were in a minority. The king was\ncruel, fickle, senseless. It was a desperate case. We cannot be\nsurprised that the remedy was desperate also. There was no moderation\non either side, but then \"sweet reasonableness\" is the last thing to\nbe looked for in any of the characters of the Book of Esther. Here\neverything is extravagant. The course of events is too grotesque to be\ngravely weighed in the scales that are used in the judgment of\naverage men under average circumstances.\n\n  [267] Page 358.\n\nThe Book of Esther closes with an account of the establishment of the\nFeast of Purim and the exaltation of Mordecai to the vacant place of\nHaman. The Israelite porter becomes grand vizier of Persia! This is\nthe crowning proof of the triumph of the Jews consequent on their\ndeliverance. The whole process of events that issues so gloriously is\ncommemorated in the annual Feast of Purim. It is true that doubts have\nbeen thrown on the historical connection between that festival and the\nstory of Esther. It has been said that the word \"Purim\" may represent\nthe portions assigned by lot, but not the lottery itself; that so\ntrivial an accident as the method followed by Haman in selecting a day\nfor his massacre of the Jews could not give its name to the\ncelebration of their escape from the threatened danger; that the feast\nwas probably more ancient, and was really the festival of the new moon\nfor the month in which it occurs. With regard to all of these and any\nother objections, there is one remark that may be made here. They are\nsolely of archaeological interest. The character and meaning of the\nfeast as it is known to have been celebrated in historical times is\nnot touched by them, because it is beyond doubt that throughout the\nages Purim has been inspired with passionate and almost dramatic\nreminiscences of the story of Esther. Thus for all the celebrations of\nthe feast that come within our ken this is its sole significance.\n\nThe worthiness of the festival will vary according to the ideas and\nfeelings that are encouraged in connection with it. When it has been\nused as an opportunity for cultivating pride of race, hatred,\ncontempt, and gleeful vengeance over humiliated foes, its effect must\nhave been injurious and degrading. When, however, it has been\ncelebrated in the midst of grievous oppressions, though it has\nembittered the spirit of animosity towards the oppressor--the\nChristian Haman in most cases--it has been of real service in cheering\na cruelly afflicted people. Even when it has been carried through with\nno seriousness of intention, merely as a holiday devoted to music and\ndancing and games and all sorts of merry-making, its social effect in\nbringing a gleam of light into lives that were as a rule dismally\nsordid may have been decidedly healthy.\n\nBut deeper thoughts must be stirred in devout hearts when brooding\nover the profound significance of the national festival. It celebrates\na famous deliverance of the Jews from a fearful danger. Now\ndeliverance is the keynote of Jewish history. This note was sounded as\nwith a trumpet blast at the very birth of the nation, when, emerging\nfrom Egypt no better than a body of fugitive slaves, Israel was led\nthrough the Red Sea and Pharaoh's hosts with their horses and chariots\nwere overwhelmed in the flood. The echo of the triumphant burst of\npraise that swelled out from the exodus pealed down the ages in the\nnoblest songs of Hebrew Psalmists. Successive deliverances added\nvolume to this richest note of Jewish poetry. In all who looked up to\nGod as the Redeemer of Israel the music was inspired by profound\nthankfulness, by true religious adoration. And yet Purim never became\nthe Eucharist of Israel. It never approached the solemn grandeur of\nPassover, that prince of festivals, in which the great primitive\ndeliverance of Israel was celebrated with all the pomp and awe of its\nDivine associations. It was always in the main a secular festival,\nrelegated to the lower plane of social and domestic entertainments,\nlike an English bank-holiday. Still even on its own lines it could\nserve a serious purpose. When Israel is practically idolised by\nIsraelites, when the glory of the nation is accepted as the highest\nideal to work up to, the true religion of Israel is missed, because\nthat is nothing less than the worship of God as He is revealed in\nHebrew history. Nevertheless, in their right place, the privileges of\nthe nation and its destinies may be made the grounds of very exalted\naspirations. The nation is larger than the individual, larger than the\nfamily. An enthusiastic national spirit must exert an expansive\ninfluence on the narrow, cramped lives of the men and women whom it\ndelivers from selfish, domestic, and parochial limitations. It was a\nliberal education for Jews to be taught to love their race, its\nhistory and its future. If--as seems probable--our Lord honoured the\nFeast of Purim by taking part in it,[268] He must have credited the\nnational life of His people with a worthy mission. Himself the purest\nand best fruit of the stock of Israel, on the human side of His being,\nHe realised in His own great mission of redemption the end for which\nGod had repeatedly redeemed Israel. Thus He showed that God had saved\nHis people, not simply for their own selfish satisfaction, but that\nthrough Christ they might carry salvation to the world.\n\n  [268] John v. 1.\n\nPurged from its base associations of blood and cruelty, Purim may\nsymbolise to us the triumph of the Church of Christ over her fiercest\nfoes. The spirit of this triumph must be the very opposite of the\nspirit of wild vengeance exhibited by Mordecai and his people in\ntheir brief season of unwonted elation. The Israel of God can never\nconquer her enemies by force. The victory of the Church must be the\nvictory of brotherly love, because brotherly love is the note of the\ntrue Church. But this victory Christ is winning throughout the ages,\nand the historical realisation of it is to us the Christian\ncounterpart of the story of Esther.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nVariations in spelling have been preserved except in obvious cases of\ntypographical error. Hyphenation is inconsistent.\n\nPage 371: \"As in the case of Judas, there is thought to be no call....\"\nMissing word \"is\" has been inserted.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":115966}