{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_49045/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_49045","id":"gutenberg_49045","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49045","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Deuteronomy -- Commentaries","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\nTranscriber's Note: Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\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  THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY\n\n  BY\n\n  ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\n  NEW YORK\n  A. C. ARMSTRONG AND SON\n  51 EAST TENTH STREET\n  1895\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY\n\n\n  BY THE REV.\n\n  ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\n\n  PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, ORMOND COLLEGE\n  WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY, MELBOURNE\n\n\n  NEW YORK\n  A. C. ARMSTRONG AND SON\n  51 EAST TENTH STREET\n  1895\n\n\n\n\n  Dedicated to\n\n  REV. A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D.\n\n  NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH\n\n  IN VERY GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE\n\n  OF\n\n  INSTRUCTION AND IMPULSE\n\n  IN OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nAn adequate exposition of Deuteronomy requires the discussion of\nmany topics. The author has endeavoured to keep these various claims\nin view: at the same time the limits of the volume have dictated\nselection and compression. In particular, a chapter on miracle\nin the Old Testament has been wholly omitted. That topic cannot\nbe said to have a peculiar or exclusive relation to Deuteronomy.\nYet the writer would have wished to include in the volume a\nreasoned statement of the grounds on which he owns and asserts the\nsupernatural in Old Testament history; all the more because he\nadmits critical views which have sometimes been associated, and\nstill oftener supposed to be associated, with rationalistic views\ngenerally. For the present this discussion is postponed. In some\ninstances, also, the writer has been obliged to content himself\nwith statements on critical questions more brief than he could have\ndesired; but it is hoped that enough has been said to explain the\nposition assumed, and to make clear the main lines of argument.\n\nThe task of adjusting the matter to the space would have been easier\nif it had seemed legitimate to omit the critical and arch\u00e6ological\nquestions on the one hand, or, on the other, to leave untouched the\nbearing of the thoughts and Laws of Deuteronomy on the religious\nhistory of the race, and on the dangers and duties of our own\nage. But an exposition of Deuteronomy must endeavour to open the\nappropriate outlooks in all these directions.\n\nOwing to the author's distance from London the work of passing the\nbook through the press has necessarily been left wholly to others.\nIt is hoped that oversights which may have arisen from this cause\nwill be pardoned.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAPTER I\n\n                                                          PAGE\n  THE AUTHORSHIP AND AGE OF DEUTERONOMY                      1\n\n  CHAPTER II\n\n  THE HISTORIC SETTING OF DEUTERONOMY                       37\n\n  CHAPTER III\n\n  THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT                                     48\n  DEUT. i.-iii.\n\n  CHAPTER IV\n\n  THE DECALOGUE--ITS FORM                                   60\n  DEUT. v. 1-21.\n\n  CHAPTER V\n\n  THE DECALOGUE--ITS SUBSTANCE                              73\n\n  CHAPTER VI\n\n  THE MEDIATORSHIP OF MOSES                                106\n  DEUT. v. 22-33.\n\n  CHAPTER VII\n\n  LOVE TO GOD THE LAW OF LIFE                              116\n  DEUT. vi. 4, 5.\n\n  CHAPTER VIII\n\n  EDUCATION--MOSAIC VIEW                                   146\n  DEUT. vi. 6-25.\n\n  CHAPTER IX\n\n  THE BAN                                                  168\n  DEUT. vii.\n\n  CHAPTER X\n\n  THE BAN IN MODERN LIFE                                   184\n\n  CHAPTER XI\n\n  THE BREAD OF THE SOUL                                    202\n  DEUT. viii.\n\n  CHAPTER XII\n\n  ISRAEL'S ELECTION, AND MOTIVES FOR FAITHFULNESS          218\n  DEUT. ix.-xi.\n\n  CHAPTER XIII\n\n  LAW AND RELIGION                                         239\n  DEUT. xii.-xxvi.\n\n  CHAPTER XIV\n\n  LAWS OF SACRIFICE                                        253\n  DEUT. xii.\n\n  CHAPTER XV\n\n  THE RELATION OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE TO CHRISTIANITY  267\n\n  CHAPTER XVI\n\n  LAWS AGAINST IDOLATROUS ACTS AND CUSTOMS                 277\n  DEUT. xiii., xiv.\n\n  CHAPTER XVII\n\n  THE SPEAKERS FOR GOD--I. THE KING                        295\n  DEUT. xvii. 14-20\n\n  CHAPTER XVIII\n\n  SPEAKERS FOR GOD--II. THE PRIEST                         308\n  DEUT. xviii. 1-8\n\n  CHAPTER XIX\n\n  SPEAKERS FOR GOD--III. THE PROPHET                       334\n  DEUT. xviii. 9-22\n\n  CHAPTER XX\n\n  THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ISRAELITE LIFE                   355\n\n  CHAPTER XXI\n\n  JUSTICE IN ISRAEL                                        377\n\n  CHAPTER XXII\n\n  LAWS OF PURITY (CHASTITY AND MARRIAGE)                   396\n\n  CHAPTER XXIII\n\n  LAWS OF KINDNESS                                         411\n\n  CHAPTER XXIV\n\n  MOSES' FAREWELL SPEECHES                                 433\n  DEUT. iv. 1-40, xxvii.-xxx.\n\n  CHAPTER XXV\n\n  THE SONG AND BLESSING OF MOSES                           452\n  DEUT. xxxii., xxxiii.\n\n  CHAPTER XXVI\n\n  MOSES' CHARACTER AND DEATH                               471\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n_THE AUTHORSHIP AND AGE OF DEUTERONOMY_\n\n\nIn approaching a book so spiritually great as Deuteronomy, it might\nseem superfluous to allude to the critical questions which have\nbeen raised concerning it. On any supposition as to origin and\nauthorship, its spiritual elevation and the moral impulse it gives\nare always there; and it might consequently seem sufficient to\nexpound and illustrate the text as we have it. Minute and vexatious\ninquiry into details, such as any adequate treatment of the critical\nquestion demands, tends to draw away the mind, in a disastrous way,\nfrom the spiritual and moral purpose of the book. That however is\nprecisely what the expositor has to elucidate and apply; and so it\nmight seem to be an error in method to enter upon extraneous matters\nsuch as those with which criticism has mainly to do.\n\nOn the other hand, this has to be taken into account. The truth\nabout the composition of a book, about the authorities it is founded\non, about the times in which and the circumstances under which it\nwas composed, if it be attainable, often throws a very welcome\nlight upon the meaning. It clears up obscurities, removes chances\nof error, and often, when two or three possible paths have opened\nbefore us, it shuts us up to the right one. But if that is the case\nwhen no special conflict of opinion has arisen, it is much more so\nwhen a revolution of opinion concerning the whole religious life of\na nation has been caused by the critical view of a book adopted\nby able men. Now that is plainly the case here. Deuteronomy has\nbeen the key of the position, the centre of the conflict, in the\nbattle which has been waged so hotly as to the growth of religion in\nIsrael. The attack upon the views hitherto generally held within the\nChurch in regard to that matter has rested more upon the character\nand date of Deuteronomy than upon anything else. Consequently every\npart of the book has been the object of intense and microscopic\nscrutiny, and there is scarcely a cardinal point in it which must\nnot be regarded differently, according as we accept or reject the\nstrictly Mosaic origin of the book as a whole, or even of the legal\nportions. The difference is probably never absolutely fundamental.\nOn either supposition, as we have said, the spiritual and moral\nteaching remains the same; but the mind is apt to be clouded with\nharassing doubt as to many important points, until clear views on\nthe critical question have been attained. This is felt more or less\nacutely by all readers of the Old Testament who are touched by\nrecent debates, and they expect that any new exposition shall help\nthem to a clearer view. Many will even demand that some effort in\nthat direction should be made; and, as we think, they rightly demand\nit.\n\nBut there is still another reason for dealing with the questions\ngathering round the authorship and age of our book, and it is\ndecisive. The debate concerning the critical views of the Old\nTestament has reached a stage at which it is no longer confined to\nthe professed teachers and students of the Old Testament. It has\nfiltered down, through magazines first, and then through newspapers,\ninto the public mind, and opinions are becoming current concerning\nthe results of criticism which are so partial and ill-informed that\nthey cannot but produce evil results of a formidable kind in the\nnear future. By those who are sceptically inclined, as well as by\nthose who cling most closely to the teaching of the Churches, it\nis loudly proclaimed that the acceptance of the critical view--viz.\nthat the Levitical law, as a written code, came into existence\nafter the Exile, and that Deuteronomy, written in the royal period\nof Israelite history, occupies a middle position between the\nfirst legislation (Exod. xx.-xxiii.) and this latest--destroys\nthe character of the Old Testament as a record of Revelation, and\nundermines Christianity itself. The former class rejoice that this\nshould be so, and think their scepticism is thereby justified.\nThe latter, on the contrary, reject the critical conclusions with\nvehemence. They have found God through the Scripture, and, resting\nupon this experience, they turn away from theories which they\nbelieve to be in direct conflict with it. To write an exposition\nof Deuteronomy therefore, without correcting the false impression\nthat the critical view as to its age, etc., is incompatible with\nfaith in a Divine revelation, would be to miss one of the great\nopportunities which fall to writers on the Old Testament in our day.\nQuestions regarding the age, authorship, and literary form of the\nbooks of Scripture cannot ultimately be so decided as to nullify the\ntestimony borne to them by the experience of so many generations of\nChristian men and women. Whatever makes itself ultimately credible\nto the human mind in regard to such matters, will always be capable\nof being held along with a belief in the manifestation of Himself\nwhich God has given in the history and literature of Israel. But\nnothing will make that fact so readily apprehensible, nothing will\nmake it stand out so clearly, as an exposition of a book like\nDeuteronomy, which takes account of all that seems established in\nthe critical view. Even the most extreme critical positions, when\nseparated from the totally irrelevant assumption (which too often\naccompanies them) that miracle is unhistorical, are compatible with\na real faith in Revelation and Inspiration. It is not the fact\nof Revelation, but the common conception of its method, which is\nchallenged by the critical theories. We shall therefore only try\nto meet a clamant need of our time, if we take with us into the\nexplanation of the Deuteronomic teaching a definite conclusion as to\nthe authorship, age, and literary character of the book.\n\nAs regards authorship, the ordinary opinion still is that\nDeuteronomy was written by Moses. This was the view handed over to\nChristianity in pre-critical ages by the Jews, and accepted as the\nnatural one. But if the Mosaic authorship of the whole contents of\nthe other books of the Pentateuch is now given up, much more should\nit be given up in the case of Deuteronomy. For Deuteronomy does not\neven claim to be written by Moses. It is not merely that in it Moses\nis often spoken of in the third person; that, if it were carried\nout consistently, as it is, for instance, in C\u00e6sar's Commentaries,\nwould be compatible with Mosaic authorship. But what we find is\nthat the author, \"whenever he speaks himself, purports to give a\ndescription in the third person of what Moses did or said,\"[1] while\nMoses, when he speaks, always uses the first person. The book,\nconsequently, falls naturally into two portions: the subsidiary,\nintroductory framework of statement, in which Moses is always spoken\nof in the third person, together with the historical portions; and\nthe utterances of Moses himself, which these introduce and hold\ntogether, and in which Moses always uses the first person.[2] Again,\nwherever the expression \"beyond Jordan\" is used in the portions\nwhere the author speaks for himself, it signifies the land of\nMoab.[3] Wherever, on the contrary, Moses is introduced speaking in\nthe first person, \"beyond Jordan\" denotes the land of Israel.[4]\nThe only exception is iii. 8, where at the beginning of a long\narch\u00e6ological note, which cannot have originally formed part of the\nspeech of Moses, and consequently must be a comment of the writer,\nor of a later editor of Deuteronomy, \"beyond Jordan\" signifies the\nland of Moab. If, consequently, the book be taken at its word, there\ncan be no doubt that it professes to be an account of what Moses did\nand said on a certain day in the land of Moab, before his death,\nwritten by another person, who lived to the west of the Jordan.\nThe author must consequently have lived after Moses' day; and he\nhas taken pains by his use of language to distinguish himself from\nMoses in a most unmistakable way. It is no doubt possible, though\nnot probable, that Moses might have written of himself in the third\nperson in the connecting passages, and in the first person in the\nremainder of his book: but that he should have made the anxious\ndistinction we have seen as to the phrase \"beyond Jordan\" does not\nseem possible.\n\n  [1] Driver, _Introduction_, 5th Ed., p. 84.\n\n  [2] Cf. Deut. i. 1-5, iv. 41-43, iv. 44, v. 1, xxvii. 1, 9-11, xxix.\n  1, xxxi. 1-30.\n\n  [3] Cf. Deut. i. 1, 5, iv. 41, 46, 47, 49.\n\n  [4] iii. 20, 25, and xi. 30.\n\nBut if our book, as we have it, is not by Moses, but is an account\nby another person of what Moses did and said on a certain occasion,\nthat fact has a very important bearing upon the speeches reported\nas Mosaic. For the style of the whole book up to the end of the\ntwenty-eighth chapter is, for all practical purposes, one. The parts\nwhere the author speaks, and the parts where Moses speaks, are all\nalike in style, and that style is in all respects different from\nthe style of the speeches attributed to Moses in other parts of the\nPentateuch. Consequently we cannot accept the speeches and laws as\nbeing in the very words of Moses. They may contain the exact ideas\nof Moses, but these have manifestly passed through the mind and\nclothed themselves in the vocabulary of the author of Deuteronomy.\nEven Delitzsch is quite decisive on this point.[5] In the tenth\nof his _Pentateuch Kritische Studien_, after distinguishing the\nDeuteronomist from Moses, he continues thus: \"The addresses are\nfreely reproduced, and he who reproduces them is the same who also\ncontributed the historical framework and the historical details\nbetween the addresses. The same colouring, though in a less degree,\nmay also be remarked in the repetition of the law in chapters\nxii.-xxvi. to which the book owes its name. All the component parts\nof Deuteronomy, not excepting the legal prescriptions, are woven\nthrough and through with the favourite phrases of the Deuteronomist.\"\n\n  [5] Cf. _Pentateuch Kritische Studien_ in Luthardt's _Zeitschrift_,\n  1880.\n\nUnder these circumstances, the question immediately suggests itself\nto what degree this representation of Moses' legislation can be\nregarded as purely and unmixedly Mosaic. Was this legislation\ngiven in the main or entirely by Moses, and, if it was so given,\nmay there not be mingled with what he gave inferences drawn by the\nauthor in whose style the book is written, and adaptations demanded\nby the exigencies of his later times? A full discussion of this\npoint would, of course, be out of the question here, and it would,\nmoreover, be superfluous. In Dr. Driver's article on \"Deuteronomy\"\nin Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, and in his _Introduction to\nHebrew Literature_, detailed discussions will be found. All that is\nnecessary here is that one or two large and salient aspects of the\nquestion should be looked at.\n\nIn the first place, it is important to know whether the author of\nDeuteronomy can have been a contemporary of Moses, or a younger\ncontemporary of his contemporaries. If he were, the relation between\nthe speeches and legislation in his book and that which Moses\nactually uttered would be similar to that between the speeches of\nChrist reported by St. John in his Gospel and the actual words\nof our Lord. They might, in fact, be taken to be in all respects\na reliable, though not a verbal, representation of what Moses\nactually said or commanded. If, on the contrary, it should be\nproved, either from the character of the legislation itself, or from\nthe evidence we have as to the date of the authorities whom the\nDeuteronomist quotes, and upon whom he relies, that he must have\nlived centuries later, then any such confidence would be materially\nweakened. Now there can be no doubt, to take the last point first,\nthat Deuteronomy, taken as a legal code, though not wanting in laws\nwhich have been first formulated by its author, is mainly intended\nto be a repetition and a reinforcement of what we find in the Book\nof the Covenant (Exod. xx.-xxiii.). The result of Driver's careful\ntabulation of the subjects dealt with in the two codes is \"that the\nlaws in JE,[6] viz. Exod. xx.-xxiii. (repeated partially in xxxiv.\n10-26) and the kindred section xiii. 3-16, _form the foundations\nof the Deuteronomic legislation_. This is evident as well from\nthe numerous verbal coincidences as from the fact that nearly the\nwhole ground covered by Exod. xx.-xxiii. is included in it; almost\nthe only exception being the special compensations to be paid for\nvarious injuries (Exod. xxi. 18, xxii. 15), which would be less\nnecessary in a manual intended for the people.\" This is also the\nconclusion of other scholars, and indeed is plainly demanded by the\nfacts. It is, moreover, what may be called the Biblical hypothesis,\nfor Moses is supposed to have been renewing the covenant made at\nHoreb, and repeating its conditions.\n\n  [6] It is scarcely necessary to remind readers that, from the point\n  of view of the critics, J signifies one of the constituent documents\n  of the Pentateuch which uses the name Yahweh for God. Its date\n  is about 850 B.C. E is that document which uses the name Elohim,\n  and may be dated about the same period as J. D is the author of\n  Deuteronomy, who wrote, it is supposed, in the reign of Manasseh,\n  perhaps about 670 B.C. P is the Priestly document, which Dillmann\n  dates before Deuteronomy, but which most critics think was brought\n  substantially into its present shape by Ezra. The portions of the\n  Pentateuch assigned to these various documents will be found in\n  Driver's _Introduction_.\n\nBut in the present condition of our knowledge, the fact of\nDeuteronomy's dependence upon the Book of the Covenant brings into\nview unexpected consequences. It is true, certainly, that the laws\nof the latter code existed before they were incorporated in the\ntext where we now find them. Consequently no verbal coincidences\nwould give us the assurance that the Deuteronomist had before him\nthe actual book in which these laws have come down to us. But a\nconclusion may be reached in another way. A comparison of the\nhistorical portions of Deuteronomy with the corresponding narrative\nin the previous four books of our Bible shows that for his history\nalso the author of Deuteronomy relies upon these earlier narratives,\nand that he must have had portions at least of them before him in\nthe same text as we have now. The verbal coincidences tabulated in\nDriver, pp. 75 f., as well as the general and exact agreement in the\nevents recorded in Deuteronomy with those recorded in the earlier\nbooks, show that the author has not only drawn his information from\nthe same sources as those of the earlier books, but that he must\nhave had before him at least that section which contains the laws.\n\nNow, as it happens, in the course of the analysis of the Pentateuch\nit has come to be all but universally acknowledged that Exod.\nxx.-xxiii. form part of a document which can be traced, dovetailed\ninto others, from Genesis to Joshua, and perhaps beyond it. This\ndocument has been called by Wellhausen the Jehovist document, and\nin all critical books it is referred to as JE, as being made up of\ntwo sections, one of which uses Yahweh for the Divine name, and\nthe other Elohim. The only generally known scholar who denies\nthe existence of JE is Professor Green, of Princeton in America,\nwho, rightly enough, sees that the Mosaic authorship of the\nPentateuch cannot be held, if these separate component documents are\nacknowledged. But the separate existence and character of JE may be\nregarded as demonstrated, and also that it has been interwoven with\nanother narrative, largely parallel, but which deals of preference\nwith priestly matters, and has consequently been called the Priest\ncodex, or P. Together these make up the first four books of the\nPentateuch; and the remarkable thing is that, both as regards law\nand history, Deuteronomy is dependent upon JE. \"Throughout the\nparallels just tabulated,\" says Driver,[7] \"(as well as in the\nothers occurring in the book), not the allusions only, but the\nwords cited, will be found, all but uniformly, to be in JE, not in\nP. An important conclusion follows from this fact. Inasmuch as, in\nour existing Pentateuch, JE and P repeatedly cross one another,\nthe constant absence of any reference to P can only be reasonably\nexplained by one supposition, viz. that when Deuteronomy was\ncomposed JE and P were not yet united into a single work, and JE\nalone formed the basis of Deuteronomy.\" And this is not Driver's\nconclusion only. Dillmann, who argues with splendid ability against\nWellhausen for the dating of P in the ninth century B.C. instead\nof after the Exile, and consequently considers that it was in\nexistence before Deuteronomy, still holds that in general JE is\nthe Deuteronomist's authority both for law and history, contenting\nhimself with affirming that D shows undoubted acquaintance with\nlaws, etc., known _to us_ only in P. Clearly, therefore, Deuteronomy\nmust have been written after JE had been made public, or at least\nafter J and E had been written.\n\n  [7] Driver, _Introduction_, p. 76.\n\nThe question therefore arises, what is their date? An answer can be\ngradually approached in this way. As JE reappear as an element in\nthe Book of Joshua,[8] and contribute to it an account of Joshua's\ndeath and burial, they cannot have been written by him, nor before\nhis death. That is the first fixed point. Then we may proceed a\nstep further. In various parts of JE there occur phrases which\ncannot all be later glosses, and which imply that the land, when the\nwriter lived, had long ceased to be in possession of the Canaanites,\nif some of them do not even presuppose a time when the original\ninhabitants had been absorbed into Israel, as Solomon attempted to\nabsorb them by making them slaves of the State. Such passages are\nGen. xii. 6, \"And the Canaanite was then in the land\"; Gen. xiii.\n7, \"Moreover the Canaanites and the Perizzites dwelled then in the\nland\"; Gen. xl. 15, in which Joseph says of himself, \"I was stolen\naway out of the land of the Hebrews,\" a name which the country could\nnot have acquired till some little time at least after the conquest.\nFurther, in Numbers xxxii. 41, which belongs to J or E, probably\nthe latter, we have an account of the rise of the name Hawwoth\nJair. Now in Judges x. 3-5 we are informed that the Jair from whom\nthe Hawwoth Jair had their name was a judge in Israel after the\ntime of Abimelech, who made new conquests for his tribe east of the\nJordan. Unless, therefore, the unlikely hypothesis be accepted that\nboth the district bearing this name in Judges and its conqueror are\nother than those mentioned in Numbers, the verse brings down JE at\nleast to the period of Abimelech, which Kautzsch in his _View of the\nHistory of the Israelites_, appended to his translation of the Old\nTestament, states as about 1120 B.C., _i.e._ two hundred years after\nthe Exodus.\n\n  [8] Josh. xxiv. 30.\n\nThe next step is suggested by Gen. xxxvi. 31-39, a passage from JE\nin which a list of Edomite kings is given with this heading: \"These\nare the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned\nany king over the children of Israel.\" That sentence clearly cannot\nhave been written before kings arose in Israel; consequently JE must\nbe later than the days of Saul, and probably than David, since the\nIsraelite kingship appears to the author's mind here as a firmly\nestablished institution. The author of Deuteronomy must have lived\nand written at a still later date, and we are thus gradually brought\ndown to the time of Solomon, or perhaps even later.\n\nAnd the literary indications of date confirm this conclusion. For\ninstance, two books are quoted occasionally in JE as authorities,\nwhich must consequently have existed before that work--the Book\nof the Wars of Yahweh (Numb. xxi. 14, 15), and the Book of Yashar\n(Josh. x. 12 f.). The former has indeed been declared by Geiger\nto be the product of false punctuation; but soberer critics have\naccepted it and date it in Solomon's day. However that may be, there\ncan be no doubt that the latter actually existed, and was probably\na collection of songs, since from it the verses describing the\nstanding still of the sun and moon are quoted. But we learn from\n2 Sam. i. 18 that David's beautiful lament for Saul and Jonathan\nwas contained in this book, and was quoted from it by the sacred\nhistorian. The book must therefore have been compiled, or at least\ncompleted, after David's lament. As it was manifestly a compilation,\nand the poems it contained may have been of very various ages, much\nstress in our search for dates cannot be laid upon it. It is still\nof some weight, however, that this post-Davidic book is quoted by\nJE; so far as it goes, that fact confirms the conclusion arrived at\nfrom other indications.\n\nIn the same way, the linguistic indications, though not of\nthemselves conclusive, point towards the same period. It is,\nof course, true that we are as yet far from having a general\nagreement as to the history of the Hebrew language. That can only\nbe established along with the history of the Hebrew literature\nand the Hebrew people; and perhaps we never shall be able to fix\nany definite stages in the growth and decay of the language.\nNevertheless no careful reader of JE will deny what Professor Driver\nsays regarding them: \"Both belong to the golden period of Hebrew\nliterature. They resemble the best parts of Judges and Samuel\n(much of which cannot be greatly later than David's own time); but\nwhether they are actually earlier or later than these, the language\nand style do not enable us to say. There is at least no _archaic_\nflavour perceptible in the style of JE.\"[9] That is an admirably\nbalanced judgment, and we may rely upon the indication it gives\nas an additional confirmation of what we have already seen to be\nprobable.\n\n  [9] _Introduction_, p. 117.\n\nIt is impossible that these various lines of inquiry should\nconverge, as they have done, towards the early centuries of the\nkingship as the date of JE, if Moses had written Deuteronomy, in\nwhich JE is drawn upon at every moment. We may consequently dismiss\nthat view finally, and admit that the author of Deuteronomy cannot\nwell have written before the middle of the kingly period. But we\nhave still to inquire what the character of the Mosaic speeches\nand the Mosaic writings given in Deuteronomy is in that case. Had\nthe author lived and written near the time of Moses, we might, as\nhas been said, have accepted them as the Church generally accepts\nthe Johannine speeches of Christ. But if the Deuteronomist wrote\nfour, or five, or six centuries after Moses, what are we to say?\nIn one view it must be granted that his account may be as accurate\nas if it had been written within fifty years of Moses' death. For\nan author of our own day, by keeping close to original written\nauthorities, and strenuously endeavouring to keep out of his mind\nany information he may have as to later times, may reproduce with\nmarvellous correctness the actual state of things, as regards law\nand other departments of public life, which existed in England,\nsay, five hundred years ago. Similarly the author of Deuteronomy\n_may_ have handed on to us, without flaw or defect, the information\nas to Moses' sayings and doings in the plains of Moab which he had\nreceived from the written accounts of Moses' contemporaries. He may\nhave done so; but when we consider that his authorities may have\nbeen in part not much earlier than his own time, that the critical\nsifting of history was then unknown, and finally and most important\nof all, that the Deuteronomist has hortatory much more than purely\nhistorical aims, we cannot evade the question whether a good deal\nthat is here set down to Moses may not turn out to be additions\nto and deductions from the original Mosaic germs of law, made by\ninspired law-givers and prophets who took up and carried on Moses'\nwork. Many assert that this is so, and we must face and try to\nsettle the question they raise.\n\nThe theory held by those who most strenuously deny this assertion is\nthat all the laws in the Pentateuch are Mosaic in the strict sense,\nthat the codes were given by Moses in the order in which they now\nstand in the Pentateuch, and that they were enacted with all their\nmodifications in a period of not more than forty years, all of which\nwas spent in the desert. In order to ascertain whether this view is\ntenable, we shall take one or two of the more important matters,\nsuch as the place of worship, the agents of worship, and the support\nof the cultus; and we shall compare the provisions of the various\ncodes in order to see whether they can be supposed to belong to so\nshort a period, or to have been all enacted by one man.\n\nLet us take first the place of worship. The three codes--that called\nthe Book of the Covenant (Exod. xx.-xxiii.), that contained in\nLeviticus and Numbers and called the Levitical code, and that in\nDeuteronomy--all contain directions about this. In the first the\nprescriptions are (Exod. xx. 24): \"An altar of earth shalt thou make\nto Me, and thou shalt sacrifice upon it thy burnt offerings and\nthy peace offerings, thy sheep and thy oxen. In every place where\nI cause My name to be remembered I will come unto and bless thee.\"\nIn the Levitical law \"the altar\" is to be of Shittim or acacia\nwood overlaid with copper, and the place for it is to be in the\ncourt of the Tabernacle. There all sacrifices are to be offered,\nand thither every slaughtered animal is to be brought (Lev. xvii.\n1 ff.), and this is to be a statute for ever unto them throughout\ntheir generations. In Deuteronomy again (chap. xii.) it is enacted\nthat all sacrifices are to be brought \"unto the place which Yahweh\nyour God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there,\"\nand ver. 21, \"If the place which Yahweh thy God hath chosen to\nput His name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of\nthy herd and of thy flock\" and eat them as game was eaten without\nbringing it to the Sanctuary. But Moses is not represented as\nordering this law to be introduced immediately. It is only when they\ngo over Jordan and dwell in the land which Yahweh their God giveth\nthem, and when He giveth them rest from all their enemies round\nabout so that they dwell in safety, that they are to do this. Nay,\naccording to ver. 20 the new order is to be fully introduced only\nwhen Yahweh their God shall enlarge their border as He had promised,\n_i.e._ when their boundaries should be (xi. 24) the wilderness on\nthe south and Lebanon on the north, the Euphrates on the east and\nthe Mediterranean on the west. Now these boundaries were attained\nonly in David's day, and the rest from all their enemies round\nabout was, as Dillmann says, given as a matter of fact only in the\ntimes of David and Solomon (cf. 2 Sam. vii. 11 and 1 Kings v. 18),\nnotwithstanding Josh. xxi. 42. Consequently the Temple at Jerusalem\nmust have been the place referred to. This is distinctly the view\nof 1 Kings iii. 3 and viii. 16. The latter passage is peculiarly\nemphatic. Solomon says, at the dedication of the Temple, \"Since the\nday that I brought forth My people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no\ncity out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house that My name\nmight be therein.\" The Deuteronomic view consequently is that the\nlaw requiring sacrifice at _one_ sole altar was intended by Moses to\nbe enforced only after the Temple at Jerusalem had been built.\n\nThese are the provisions of the three codes. Can they have been\nthe successive ordinances of a man legislating under the influence\nof Divine inspiration within a period of less than forty years?\nLet us see. The first legislation was given at Sinai, in the third\nmonth after the Exodus: the Levitical legislation on the matter was\ngiven about nine months later when the Tabernacle was finished, and\nduring that time they had not removed from Sinai: thirty-eight years\nafterwards the Deuteronomic code was given in the plains of Moab.\nLet us look at the character of the legislation given first of all\nat Sinai. The meaning of the decisive phrase, \"In every place where\nI cause My name to be remembered I will come unto thee and bless\nthee,\" has been much discussed; yet taken as it stands, without\nreference to laws which on any supposition are later, it cannot\nmean that sacrifices were to be offered only at one central shrine.\nIt specially provides for sacrifices being offered at different\nplaces, but restricts them to places which Yahweh Himself has\nchosen. At every such place He promises to come to them and bless\nthem. So much, men of all schools admit; difference of opinion\narises only as to whether these places are meant to be successive,\nor whether they may be simultaneous. The view of those who accept\nall the legislation of the Pentateuch as Mosaic in the strict sense\nis that the places could only be successive, since otherwise the\nwords would imply that originally worship at one altar was not\nprescribed. Delitzsch, for example, maintains that these words imply\nnecessarily only this, that the place of sacrifice would, in the\ncourse of time, be altered by Divine appointment, and he declares\nthat to be their meaning. Others, again, suppose that the command\nwas meant only to justify worship at the various places where the\nTabernacle was called to halt on the people's journeyings, whether\nin the wilderness or in Palestine. Now it cannot be denied that\nonly on some such interpretation can Exodus be brought into harmony\nwith Leviticus, and that undoubtedly has influenced, and rightly\nso, the scholars who take this view. If it were tenable it would\nbe by far the most satisfactory interpretation. But it can hardly\nbe considered tenable if we look at the time at which this law was\ngiven. There was as yet no other law, and this was given as soon as\nthe people came to Mount Sinai. The law in Leviticus was not on any\nsupposition given till nine months later. Now, if Exod. xx. 24 was\nmeant for immediate use only, and was superseded by the Levitical\nlaw after so short a time, it is difficult to understand why it was\ngiven, and still more difficult to conceive why it was preserved. In\nany case it cannot have been understood to command worship at only\none place. It could have no other sense than that the people, so\nlong as they were at Sinai, were to sacrifice only at Sinai where\nYahweh had revealed Himself, or at other places in the neighbourhood\nwhich He should sanctify, or had sanctified, by revealing His\npresence at them. At any such place, if there He had once revealed\nHimself, He would continue to meet them. Without the colour thrown\nupon them by succeeding laws, that is surely the only meaning that\n_could_ be put upon the words, and so understood they undoubtedly\nauthorise sacrifice at two or more places simultaneously. If, on\nthe other hand, this law was meant more for the future than the\npresent, as some of the laws in the Book of the Covenant undoubtedly\nwere, it must have been intended to be in force concurrently with\nLev. i. f. But if so, the \"places\" it refers to cannot be the mere\nhalting-places on the wilderness journey. No doubt these were\ndetermined by Yahweh, and the tabernacle was set up at places He\nmay be said to have chosen, but the places themselves were of no\nconsequence at all. The Divine presence is declared to be always in\nthe Tabernacle. That was certainly a place where Yahweh caused His\nname to be remembered, and without further inquiry about place, the\nmen of Israel knew that He would always meet them and bless them\nin sacrifice there. The different character of the altar in the\nBook of the Covenant too, a mere heap of earth or unhewn stone, and\nthat in the Tabernacle, made of acacia wood overlaid with copper,\ncorroborates the view that the altar aimed at in Exod. xxiv. is not\nthe Tabernacle altar. The only coherent view, on the supposition\nof the concurrence of the two laws, is therefore that while, as a\nrule, sacrifice was to be offered at the Tabernacle, yet if the\npeople came to any place where Yahweh had caused His name to be\nremembered, sacrifice might be offered there on an altar of earth\nor unhewn stone, as well as at the Tabernacle. Either way therefore\nthere is permission to worship at more than one place. But then the\ndifficulty is that Leviticus appears to denounce upon pain of being\n\"cut off from the people\" absolutely every sacrifice not offered at\nthe Tabernacle.\n\nNow if so far matters have been far from clear on the traditional\nsupposition of the date and order of these codes, a glance at\nDeuteronomy will produce absolute confusion in every mind. As we\nhave seen, Deuteronomy represents Moses as restricting sacrifice\nmost rigorously to one altar after the building of the Temple at\nJerusalem, but virtually declaring that worship at various shrines\nwas to be blameless until that time. We have also seen that that is\nthe view taken by the author of the Book of Kings. Now this might\nbe regarded as a temporary relaxation of the law, intended to meet\nthe difficult circumstances of a period of war and conquest, were\nit not for one thing. That is, that Moses in Deut. xii. 8, after\nprescribing worship at one altar, adds, \"Ye shall not do after all\nthat _we_ do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own\neyes,\" and as if to render mistake as to the meaning impossible, in\nver. 13 he explains ver. 8 thus: \"Take heed to thyself that thou\noffer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest.\"\nNotwithstanding the efforts of conservative scholars like Keil and\nBredenkamp to explain ver. 8 as a reference to the intermissions in,\n_e.g._, the daily sacrifice, brought about by the desert wanderings,\nor to the arbitrariness and illegality of the generation which\nhad brought judgment upon themselves by refusal to obey Yahweh in\nattacking Canaan, it still seems impossible to accept that view. Of\ncourse if we knew that Moses was the giver of all these laws, these\nwords would have to be explained away in some such fashion. But\nif they are approached by an inquirer seeking to discover whether\nthey all are Mosaic, sound exegesis demands that they should be\ntaken as Dillmann and others take them. In the plain sense of words\nMoses here admits that, up till the time at which he is speaking,\nsacrifices were offered wherever men chose, and that he had\nparticipated in the practice. And observe, he does not refer to the\nLevitical law. He does not say this conduct of ours is a sin which\nwe must repent of and turn from at once. He calmly permits this\nstate of things to continue after Israel is in Canaan, and looks\nforward with equanimity to its continuance till the Temple shall\nbe erected in Jerusalem. With this passage before us we ask, Can\nthis be the same inspired legislator who thirty-eight years before\ncompelled sacrifice at one central altar on pain of death?\n\nThe traditional hypothesis being thus encompassed with difficulties,\nstudents of the Old Testament have sought another which would\ncorrespond better with all the data. Relying upon the fact that the\nauthor of Deuteronomy founds his book almost entirely on JE, and\nthat if he knows some of the laws and some of the facts mentioned\nin P only, there are no proofs that he knew that book as we have\nit, they put it aside in this matter also. Immediately, when that\nis done, light breaks in upon our problem. If we take Exod. xxiv.\n20 in the natural sense given to it above, sacrifice at various\naltars was permitted from Sinai onwards, the only limitation\nbeing that there should have been, at the place chosen, authentic\nproof of a theophany or some other manifestation of the Divine\npresence. That is the state of things out of which Moses speaks in\nDeuteronomy. It will be noticed, however, that there is a slight\ncontradiction of Exod. xx. 24. The Moses of Deuteronomy speaks as\nif every man's arbitrary choice had been his only guide. Probably,\nhowever, with his mind full of the stringent unity he desires to\nsee, he speaks hyperbolically of the looseness of the former law,\nand means nothing else than the practice prescribed by it. In all\nways this view is supported by the history. From the patriarchs\ntill the time of Samuel, the practice was to sacrifice at various\naltars.[10] Consequently, according to both the Book of the\nCovenant and Deuteronomy, and according to the history, the worship\nof Yahweh at sacred places throughout the land was legal, until the\nTemple was erected at Jerusalem. The centralisation of worship was,\nconsequently, a new thing when the division of the kingdoms took\nplace, and was not an express law till Deuteronomy. If that book\nwas not written till perhaps Hezekiah's day, the fact will account\nas nothing else will do for Elijah's words (1 Kings xix. 10), \"The\nchildren of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine\naltars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword.\" Even in the presence\nof Yahweh he, without rebuke, calls the altars in the Northern\nKingdom His.\n\n  [10] Cf. for the passages on which this statement is founded\n  Driver's _Introduction_, p. 80, and note in small print.\n\nThe first attempt we know of to centralise worship was made by\nHezekiah; a second and more strenuous attempt was made under Josiah,\nbut the work was not actually accomplished till after the Return\nfrom the Captivity. All the facts taken together suggest that the\nmovement towards centralisation was an age-long development. At\nfirst all holy places might be sacrificed at, though a certain\nprimacy belonged to a central sanctuary, and this may have been\nstamped by Moses with approval. When the Solomonic Temple was\nbuilt the primacy began to take the form of a claim for exclusive\nvalidity. The experiences in both kingdoms strengthened that\nclaim, by showing that if Yahwism was to be kept pure the worship\nat the High Places must be abolished. The inspired writer of\nDeuteronomy then completed Moses' work by embodying that which had\nbeen always a tendency of the Mosaic system, and had now become\na necessity, in his revisal of the Mosaic legislation. This was\nadopted by the nation under Josiah, and the Priest Codex must in\nthat case represent a later stage of the development, when the\ncentralisation was neither a tendency nor a demand, but a realised\nfact. Such a process accounts much better for the facts than the\ntraditional belief; and though it is not free from difficulties it\nat least releases us from the confusion of mind which the ordinary\nsupposition forces upon us.\n\nThe inquiry as to the agents of the cultus need not detain us so\nlong. In the Book of the Covenant no priests are mentioned at\nall. The person addressed, the \"thou\" of these chapters, which is\neither the individual Israelite or the whole community, has been\nheld by some to indicate that the individual offerer was the only\nagent in sacrifice. But that is to press the word too far. Even\nin Leviticus, while the whole people are addressed, the actions\nenjoined or prohibited are such as are done by \"any man of them,\"\nand in Deut. xii. 13 we have precisely the same expression, \"Take\nheed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every\nplace that thou seest,\" used at a time when there was undeniably a\npriestly tribe and even the High Places had a regular priesthood.\nBut while in Exod. xx.-xxiii. there is no evidence to show whether\na priesthood existed, in the previous chapter (xix. 22, 24) priests\nwho \"come near to Yahweh\" are twice mentioned. This would be a\nfact of the first importance were it not that the words occur in\na passage which is admitted to be in its present shape the work\nof the later editor. Dillmann maintains, and with good reason,\nthat he has inserted and adapted here a fragment of J. If so then\nJ may have held the view that there were priests before Sinai was\nreached, but under the circumstances we cannot be certain that the\nmention of them may not be an anachronism introduced by the later\nhand. In favour of the view that it is so is the fact that in the\naccount given by JE of the ratification of the Covenant between\nYahweh and the people (Exod. xxiv. 1 ff.), Moses erected an altar\nand then \"sent the young men of the children of Israel which\noffered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto\nYahweh.\" He himself however performed the specially priestly act\nof sprinkling the blood upon the altar. Had there been priests or\nLevites accustomed to perform priestly functions, we should have\nexpected them to act, instead of \"the young men of the children\nof Israel.\" But, on the other hand, we must not omit to notice\nthat the Levites occupy in all these transactions, as narrated\nby JE, a very prominent position. Dillmann,[11] as we have seen,\nseparating J and E, considers that the passages in which priests\nbefore the Sinaitic legislation are spoken of belong to J, and adds:\n\"Indeed, it appears from Exod. iv. 14, 'Is not Aaron the Levite thy\nbrother?' and xxiv. 1, 9, that for him even then the Levites were\nthe priestly persons.\" To these passages Driver adds Exod. xviii.\n12: \"And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took a burnt offering and\nsacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel,\nto eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God.\" Further, Nadab\nand Abihu are Levites, nay, sons of Aaron, and in Exod. xxiv. 1 and\n9 they go with Moses, Aaron, and the seventy elders as the complete\nrepresentation of the people, and Moses, himself a Levite, performs\nall the greater priestly acts.[12] Moreover JE knows of the ark, and\nspeaks frequently of the \"tent of meeting\" (Exod. xxxiii. 7 ff.;\nNumb. xi. 24 f., xii. 4 ff. and Deut. xxxi. 14 ff.). But a very\nnotable thing in connection with the inquiry as to the performers of\npriestly duties appears in Exod. xxxiii. 7 ff., where E's account\nof the \"tent of meeting\" is given. When Moses turned again into the\ncamp \"his minister (_mesharetho_) Joshua, the son of Nun, a young\nman, departed not out of the tent,\" yet Joshua was an Ephraimite (1\nChron. vii. 22-27). In Exod. xxxii. 29, however, the same authority\ndescribes the consecration of the Levites to the priesthood, after\nthe apostasy of the golden calf.\n\n  [11] Dillmann, _Exodus and Leviticus_, p. 199.\n\n  [12] Josh. iii. 14-17 and _passim_.\n\nIn Deuteronomy, on the contrary, the priests are very prominent;\nthey are called, however, the Levitical priests, or priests simply,\nbut never sons of Aaron. The whole tribe of Levi is regarded as\npriestly in some sense. They constitute, in fact, a clerical order,\nthough there are clear indications of ranks, of men being assigned\nto special duties. Curiously enough, the tribe thus highly honoured\nis spoken of as being notoriously and all but universally poor. No\nsacrifice can legitimately be offered without them; and, though the\nquestion of the place of sacrifice has not yet been finally settled,\nthe position of the Levitical priests as sacrificers is so entirely\nestablished that it is regarded as needing neither assertion nor\njustification. Nay, in one passage, Deut. x. 6--which there is\nno valid reason, except the wish to get rid of its contents, for\nsupposing to belong to another authority than D[13]--the hereditary\nsuccession to the chief place among the priesthood is assigned to\nthe family of Aaron. In xviii. 5 also the hereditary character\nof the priesthood is asserted in the words, \"For Yahweh thy God\nhath chosen him--_i.e._ the priest--out of all thy tribes, to\nstand to minister in the name of Yahweh, _him and his sons for\never_.\" As for the body of the Levites, their position is somewhat\nill-defined. On the authority of xviii. 6 ff. many claim that at\nthe date of Deuteronomy every Levite was, at least potentially, a\npriest, that in fact Levite and priest were synonymous. But, as\nwill appear in the exposition of the verses referred to, that is a\nvery questionable proposition. Nevertheless it cannot be denied\nthat in Deuteronomy the line between priests and Levites is a very\nindistinct one; there is _prima facie_ reason to believe that it\ncould be passed, and the gap between the two is certainly not nearly\nso wide as it appears to be in the undeniably post-exilic literature.\n\n [13] Driver, _Introduction_, p. 145; Oettli, _Deuteronomy_, p. 7;\n  Kuenen, _H.K.O._, p. 113.\n\nIn the Priest Codex again, the priesthood is confined exclusively\nto the house of Aaron, with the high priest at their head. The\nLevites have no possible way of entrance into the priesthood. They\nare Yahweh's gift to the priests, and are confined most strictly to\nthe duty of waiting upon these in the ministration of the Sanctuary.\nThey have none but the most subordinate share in the sacrifices;\nthey are shut out from the holy places of the Tabernacle; and they\nhave assigned to them cities in which they may dwell together when\nthey are not on duty at the Sanctuary. There is no word there of\nLevites being poor, and altogether the position of the tribe is,\nthrough the priests, much more dignified and prosperous in a worldly\nsense than we found it to be in Deuteronomy.\n\nNow, taking all these data together, we find here, just as we did in\nthe previous section, that the Levitical law is a disturbing element\nbetween Exodus and Deuteronomy. If we take it out of the way, J, E,\nand D harmonise well enough. The main difference is that the latter\nshows the same fundamental conditions as we find in the former,\nonly consolidated and developed by time, but by a longer time than\nforty years. In fact D makes explicit that importance of the Levites\nwhich is only hinted at and foreshadowed in JE. They have come to\nbe the only authorised agents of sacrifice; they have a hereditary\nheadship in the house of Aaron; various orders and degrees must be\nheld to exist (cf. Deut. xviii. 1 ff.). Compared with this state\nof things, the Levitical arrangements of P, supposed to have been\ngiven thirty-eight years before, are very different. In every\nrespect they are more definite, more detailed, and show a much more\ndifferentiated organisation than those sketched in Deuteronomy.\nThese latter indicate a state of matters which would suit admirably\nas an embryonic stage of the full-grown Levitical system, and which\ncan hardly be fitted into their place otherwise.\n\nIt is suggested, in reply, that allusions in Deuteronomy _imply_\nthe existence of a system of a much more elaborate kind than any\nthat we could construct from the explicit statements of the book,\nand that is certainly true. But no reasonable interpretation of\nthese allusions can lead us to a system identical with that in P.\nNor can Deuteronomy's use of the name Levites (though undoubtedly\nit has been pressed by some too far) be held to be consistent with\nthe public recognition of the \"great gulf fixed\" in P between the\nAaronic priests and the Levites as a body. Nor will the fact that\nDeuteronomy is the people's book, and is consequently not called\nupon to go into technical details, cover the difference. Indeed\nnothing will, short of recognising the fact that, as publicly\nacknowledged organisations, the tribe of Levi in P and the tribe of\nLevi in D are different, and that the state of things in D's day\nis earlier than that in P. If this is not so, then the Levitical\nlegislation, conceived as given by Moses, must be held to have\nproved impracticable, and Deuteronomy must then be regarded as an\nabrogation of it for the time.\n\nAnd the same conclusions suggest themselves if we look more closely\ninto the curious fact that Deuteronomy always speaks of the Levites\nas poor. Some have supposed that this poverty is the result of\nthe centralisation of the cultus which the author demands, and\nthat the constant insistence that the Levite shall be invited to\nall sacrificial feasts, along with the widow and the orphan, and\nother helpless classes, is a provision against the poverty to be\nbrought upon them by the abolition of the High Places. But that\nis not so. We know the manner of the Deuteronomist when he is\nproviding for contingencies arising from the new state of things he\nwishes to bring about, and it is quite different from his manner\nhere. Clearly, the Levites were poor before the suppression of the\nHigh Places, and were so, as Deuteronomy tells us, from the fact\nthat they had no inheritance in the land. But that poverty is not\nconsistent with their whole position as sketched in the Levitical\nlegislation. There we have the Levites launched as a regularly\norganised priestly corporation, endowed with ample revenues, and\nruled and represented by a high priest of the family of Aaron,\nclothed with powers almost royal, surrounded by a priestly nobility\nof his own family and by a bodyguard of tribesmen entirely at his\ndisposal. Such a body never has remained chronically and notoriously\npoor. In the wilderness they would not be so in contrast with\nothers, for all were poor, and there was nothing to hinder the\nLevites having cattle as the other tribes had, and being on the same\nlevel as they. In the promised land, instead of becoming poor, they\nwould at once enter upon the enjoyment of their various tithes and\ndues, and would moreover have such a share in the booty of Canaan\nas would more than make up at first for their want of a heritage.\nThe priests were to receive one five-hundredth part of the army's\nhalf, and the Levites the fiftieth share of the people's half (Numb.\nxxxi. 28 ff.). Gradually, too, they would be put in possession of\nthe priestly cities. Evidently, therefore, if the Levites were ever\npoor, it cannot have been till some time after Israel had been\nsettled in the land, and then only if P's laws and organisations of\nthe tribe were not enforced.\n\nDeuteronomy supports the same argument. Since want of a heritage\nwas the cause of the Levites' poverty, they cannot have been\n_exceptionally_ poor in the wilderness. Nor can they have been poor\nduring the time of the conquest; for even if the Levitical law was\nin force and the tribe was then wholly organised for the priesthood,\nthey must have shared in the fighting and the spoil. But if the\norder of legislation, as we maintain, was (1) Exodus xx.-xxiii., (2)\nDeuteronomy, (3) the Priest Codex, then as the booty from war ceased\nto be a source of income, the Levites as a body remaining nomads,\nwhile the other tribes became agricultural, would necessarily become\npoor in comparison with their fellow-countrymen. It is out of that\nstate of things the Deuteronomist speaks.[14]\n\n  [14] See further in exposition of chapter xvii; xviii.\n\nThe same conclusions follow when the regulations are examined\nwhich bear upon the support of the priestly tribe. The outstanding\nmatters in this department are tithes and firstlings. Space will not\nadmit of a full discussion of these topics; but if the reader will\ncompare, in regard to tithes, Numb. xviii. 21-24 and Lev. xxvii. 30,\n32, with Deut. xii. 17, and in regard to firstlings Numb. xviii.\n18 with Deut. xii. 6, 17 f., and xv. 19 f., he will see that the\napplication of tithes and of firstlings according to Deuteronomy\nis quite different from that in the Levitical legislation. The\ndifference is such as will not comport with the hypothesis of a\nsingle legislator and a consistent legislation. Expedients with a\nview to solve the difficulty have been suggested by Keil and others;\nbut each of those expedients is burdened with specific difficulties\nof its own.\n\nThe inevitable conclusion from all this would seem to be that in the\nDeuteronomic as in the Levitical laws we have not the legislation of\nMoses or of his age alone. The roots of all the legislative codes\nare Mosaic, but in all save perhaps the Book of the Covenant the\ntrunk and branches are of much later growth. The authors of them are\nnot careful to distinguish what came from Moses himself from that\nwhich had been developed out of it under the influence of the same\ninspiration. In both D and P there were Mosaic elements, and in both\nthere are laws not given by him. To disentangle these completely now\nis impossible, and it is probably best for expository purposes to\ntake the codes as giving what the Mosaic legislation had become at\nthe time of the writer. What we have in Deuteronomy therefore cannot\nbe better described than in Driver's words (_Introduction_, p. 85),\nas \"the prophetic re-formulation and adaptation to new needs of an\nolder legislation.\" Its relations to the other codes are as the same\ncritic states (p. 71): \"It is an _expansion_ of that in JE (Exod.\nxx.-xxiii.); it is, in several features, _parallel_ to that in Lev.\nxvii.-xxvi.; it contains _allusions_ to laws such as those codified\nin some parts of P, while from those contained in other parts of P\nit differs widely.\" And the state of things in which these various\ncodes originated is more and more coming to be conceived in the\nmanner stated by Dr. A. B. Davidson.[15] \"It is evident,\" he says,\n\"that two streams of thought, both issuing from a fountain as high\nup as the very origin of the nation, ran side by side down the whole\nhistory of the people, the prophetic and the priestly. In the one\nJehovah is a moral ruler, a righteous king and judge, who punishes\niniquity judicially or forgives sins freely of His mercy. In the\nother He is a Person dwelling among His people in a house, a Holy\nBeing or Nature, sensitive to every uncleanness in all that is near\nHim, and requiring its removal by lustrations and atonement. Those\ncherishing the latter circle of conceptions might be as zealous for\nthe Lord of Hosts as the prophets. And the developments of the\nnational history would extend their conceptions and lead to the\namplification of practices embodying them, just as they extended the\nconceptions of the prophets. A growth of priestly ideas is quite\nas probable as a growth of prophetic ideas. That the streams ran\napart is no evidence that they were not equally ancient and always\ncontemporaneous, for we see Jeremiah and Ezekiel both flourishing\nin one age. At one point in the history the prophetic stream was\nswelled by an inflow from the priestly, as is seen in Deuteronomy,\nand from the Restoration downwards both streams appear to coalesce.\"\n\n  [15] _Ezekiel_, Introduction, p. liv. f.\n\nThe actual date of Deuteronomy still remains to be settled. Already\nit has been brought down to post-Solomonic days. How much later\nmust it probably be put? The book must have been written before\nthe eighteenth year of Josiah, 621 B.C., for the Book of the Law\nwhich was then found in the Temple was undoubtedly not the whole\nPentateuch, but approximately Deut. i.-xxvi. But it can hardly have\nbeen produced in Josiah's reign, because it would never have been\npermitted to drop out of sight had it been known to that pious king\nand the reforming high priest Hilkiah. On the other hand, it can\nhardly have been written or known before Hezekiah's reforms, for\notherwise it would have been made the basis of them, as it was made\nthe basis of Josiah's. Probably, therefore, we may date it between\nHezekiah and Josiah. Indeed we may with great likelihood affirm, as\nRobertson Smith suggests, that it was the need of guidance caused by\nHezekiah's reforms which suggested and called out this book.[16]\n\n  [16] _Additional Answer to the Libel_, p. 80.\n\nBut, say some, if the body of the book is not Mosaic, then this\nis nothing else but forgery, and no forged or even pseudonymous\nbook can be inspired! Others again, most gratuitously, suppose\nthat Hilkiah found the book only because he had forged it and put\nit where it was found. But there is neither need nor room for such\nsuppositions; and our effort must be to conceive to ourselves the\nmeans by which such a book could come into existence, and be found\nas it was, without fraud on the part of any one.\n\nTo modern, and especially Western notions, it seems difficult to\nconceive any legitimate process by which a book of comparatively\nmodern date could be attributed, so far as its main part is\nconcerned, to Moses, and published as Mosaic. But if we take\ninto account the character of Deuteronomy as only an extension\nand adaptation of the Book of the Covenant set in a framework of\naffectionate exhortation, and that all men then believed that\nthe Book of the Covenant was Mosaic, we can see better how such\naction might be considered legitimate. Even on modern and Western\nprinciples we can see that; but at that early time and in the East,\nliterary methods and literary ideas were so different from ours\nthat there may have been customs which made the publication of a\nbook in this way not only natural but right. An example from modern\nIndia will make this clear. Among the sacred books of the Hindus\none of the most famous is the _Laws of Manu_. This is a collection\nof religious, moral, and ceremonial laws much like the Book of\nLeviticus. It is generally admitted that it was not the work of any\none man, but of a school of legal writers and lawgivers who lived\nat very various times, each of whom, with a clear conscience and as\na matter of course, adapted the works of his predecessors to the\nneed of his own day. And this practice, together with the belief in\nits legitimacy, survives to this day. In his _Early Law and Custom_\n(p. 161) Sir Henry Maine tells us that \"A gentleman in a high\nofficial position in India has a native friend who has devoted his\nlife to preparing a new Book of Manu. He does not, however, expect\nor care that it should be put in force by any agency so ignoble as\na British-Indian Legislature, deriving its powers from an Act of\nParliament not a century old. He waits till there arises a king\nin India who will serve God and take the law from the new 'Manu'\nwhen he sits in his Court of Justice.\" There is here no question of\nfraud. This Indian gentleman considers that his book _is_ the Book\nof Manu, and would be amazed if any one should question its identity\nbecause he had edited it; and he supposes that the king he looks\nfor, if he should come in his day, would accept and act upon it as\na Divine authority. So strangely different are Eastern notions from\nthose of the West. It is legitimate to suppose that _this_ Eastern\nbook originated in something of the same fashion. In the evil days\nof persecution, when all the prophetic spokesmen were cut off,\nand when the priests were occupying the chief position among the\nsupporters of pure religion, some pious man, inspired, but not with\nthe prophetic inspiration, set himself, like this modern Hindu, to\nre-write and adapt the legislation which he believed to be Mosaic\nto the needs of his own day. Altering the fundamental points as\nlittle as might be, he developed it to meet the evils which were\nthreatening the Mosaic religion; and he inspired it with the passion\nfor righteousness and the love of God which had already thrilled the\nhearts of faithful men in Israel through the ministry of the great\nprophets. Hoping for the coming of a king who should serve God and\njudge Israel out of this new Book of Moses, but while the darkness\nstill clouded the future, he died, committing his book to some\ntemple chamber where he might hope that it would be discovered when\nGod's set time should come. In such a supposition there is perhaps\nsomething to shock the conventional theories of our time. But, so\nfar as can be seen, there is nothing to shock any open-minded man\nwho knows how widely ancient and Eastern thought differs from modern\nand Western thought. It is certain that at this day Eastern men of\nthe highest character and of the most burning zeal for religion\nwould act in this manner without a qualm of conscience. We may\nwell believe, therefore, that in ancient days it was the same. If\nso, this was a literary method which inspiration might well use;\nand the supposition that Deuteronomy was so produced is certainly\nmore consistent with its history and character than any other. It\nexplains how it so exactly met the needs of the time and summed up\nall its aspirations; and it gives to its claim of inspiration a\nnew support by laying bare the circumstances of its birth and its\npsychological presuppositions.\n\nBut it may still be asked, what are we to think of the Mosaic\nspeeches, which, as has been seen, contain, to say the least, much\nnon-Mosaic matter? The answer probably is that in these, as in the\nlaws, the author relies upon earlier documents. From the appearance\nin the codes of laws which would have little or no meaning if\noriginated in the time of the Deuteronomist, it has rightly been\nconcluded that there are very ancient and Mosaic elements in them.\nSo, in the speeches there are references and allusions that suggest\nan ancient tradition of a final address of Moses, and perhaps a\nwritten account of its general purport, in which even a hope that\nthe worship might be centralised may have been contained.[17] This\nthe author has adapted to his purpose of inciting his contemporaries\nto be faithful to the Mosaic teaching, and has woven into it\nall that later experience could suggest as effective ground of\nexhortation. So much as that all ancient historians would have\ndone, and some moderns would do, without the faintest intention to\ndeceive, or any feeling of guilt; and so much may probably have\nbeen done here. Delitzsch,[18] Robertson Smith,[19] and Driver[20]\nare all at one as to this, and in the proofs they produce of the\nnecessity of accepting this view. In the words of Driver, \"It is\nthe uniform practice of the Biblical historians in both the Old and\nNew Testaments to represent their characters as speaking in words\nand phrases which cannot have been those actually used, but which\nthey themselves select and frame for them.\" The speeches of David\nin Samuel and Chronicles serve for examples. In Samuel he speaks in\nthe language of Samuel, in Chronicles in the language of Chronicles.\n\"In some of these cases,\" Driver continues, \"the authors no doubt\nhad information as to what was actually said on the occasions in\nquestion, which they recast in their own words, only preserving,\nperhaps, a few characteristic expressions; in other cases, they\nmerely gave articulate expression to the thoughts and feelings which\nit was presumed that the persons in question would have entertained.\nIn the Deuteronomic speeches both these characteristic methods have\nprobably been employed, and we must just accept the inspired record\nfor what it reveals itself to be, setting aside, with the inevitable\nsighs, our own _\u00e0 priori_ assumptions of what it ought to be.\"\n\n  [17] Cf. Driver, art. \"Deuteronomy,\" Smith's _Dictionary_, p. 770.\n\n  [18] _Pentateuch Kritische Studien_, X.\n\n  [19] _Answer to the Form of Libel_, p. 34. Note: where Arnold and\n  Masson's _Life of Milton_ are referred to.\n\n  [20] Art. \"Deuteronomy,\" Smith's _Bible Dict._, pp. 769 ff.\n\nThese then are the conclusions regarding Deuteronomy on which the\nexposition offered here will rest. They have been reached after a\ncareful consideration of the evidence on both sides, and are stated\nhere not altogether without regret. For, as Robertson Smith has\nwell said,[21] \"to the ordinary believer the Bible is precious as\nthe practical rule of faith and life in which God still speaks\ndirectly to his heart. No criticism can be otherwise than hurtful to\nfaith if it shakes the confidence with which the simple Christian\nturns to his Bible, assured that he can receive every message which\nit brings to his soul as a message from God Himself.\" Now, though\nit can be demonstrated that the view of Scripture which permits\nof such conclusions as those stated above is quite compatible\nwith this believing confidence, there can be little doubt that\nChristian people will for a time find great difficulty in accepting\nthis assurance. The transition from the old view of inspiration,\nso complete, comprehensible, and effective as it is, to the newer\nand less definite doctrine, cannot fail to be trying, and the\nintroduction of it here cannot but be a disturbing influence which\nit would have been greatly preferable to avoid.\n\n  [21] _Answer_, pp. 41 f.\n\nIt is not to be wondered at, therefore, that to the minds of the\nworking ministry and of their earnest fellow-labourers, who come\ninto constant contact with the actual needs of men, the change\nshould be unwelcome. But it cannot now, in my judgment, be avoided.\nEven the best and most scholarly work of those who still hold the\ntraditional view does not convince. Rather it is their writings,\nmore even than those on the modern side, which make it clear that\nthe traditional view can no longer be held. These writers admit\nthe facts upon which their opponents' case rests, and then explain\nthem all away, harmonising everything by a crowd of hypotheses,\noften scholarly, generally acute, but almost always such as can\nbe accepted only if we know beforehand that the view they support\nis true. But far too many hypotheses are needed. Each case has\nto be set right by a special effort of the imagination; while\nthe new view has this great advantage, that it makes room for\nall the facts, by a hypothesis, suggested not by one difficulty,\nbut by almost all the discrepancies and difficulties which are\nencountered. And, after all, this view does not move men away from\nthe central truth of inspiration, even as it was conceived by the\nlast generation. Apart from any care for averting errors in detail\nwhich can be ascribed to Divine wisdom according to the old view\nor the new, the central thing in both surely is the revelation of\nGod Himself. It was always God that was held to be revealed, and\nthis the advocates of the newer view insist upon most strenuously.\nThey hold that chosen men, the wisest, best, most truthful of\ntheir respective generations, those who travailed most in thought,\nreceived exceptional impressions of the Divine nature. They saw\nGod, and their whole being bore the impress henceforth of this\nillumination. In every word and act the light they had received\nfound expression for itself. They did not receive this revelation in\nmere propositions about God, which had to be carefully repeated with\nminute verbal accuracy. They saw, and their natures were in their\ndegree uplifted, changed, and harmonised with the Divine. They could\nno more be false in speaking of what they had thus experienced, than\na sincere and tender nature can be false in speech or thought about\ndeath, when it once has found its love frustrated and overborne by\nthat dread messenger of God. The impression in both cases is true as\nit is final, and it will triumphantly convey itself to others with\nsubstantial and effective truth, whatever the man's knowledge or\nignorance otherwise may be. When a man has received an impression,\nor a sight of God which has shaken his very soul, will it be lost\nin its essential parts because in the speech in which he utters\nit he shows ignorance of science, or accepts as simply true the\nhistoric knowledge of his day? The thing is impossible. The light\nthat is within him must shine out, even though the medium through\nwhich it shines be here and there blackened by imperfection. In the\nfundamental point, therefore, the old school of critics and the\nnew are entirely at one. On the basis of this essential harmony it\nshould be possible for each to speak to the other for edification.\nThis is what has been attempted here; and if those who hold by the\nMosaic authorship of Deuteronomy will tolerate the opposite view,\nthey will find that in dealing with the Scriptures as a revelation\nof God, and as an infallible guide in all that concerns religious\nand moral truth, there is no difference. To make the sacred word\nliving and powerful as an instrument of spiritual regeneration is\nour common effort; and our common hope must be that, if in anything\nwe have been led into error, the mistake may be discovered and\nremoved, before it has wrought evil in the Church of God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n_THE HISTORIC SETTING OF DEUTERONOMY_\n\n\nWhatever may be the date of the first publication of Deuteronomy,\nthere can be no doubt that it was accepted by Josiah and the people\nof his time with an energy and thoroughness of which we find\nno previous example. Its main lessons were learnt and put into\npractice by them, and from that period the religious conceptions\nof Deuteronomy dominated and formed the Hebrew mind in a manner of\nwhich we have no earlier trace. For practical purposes, therefore,\nwe may say that this was the Deuteronomic period. The book gathered\nup and embodied the higher strivings of that time; and to understand\nit thoroughly we need to know the history of which it was, in part\nat least, the outcome. Indeed, on any supposition as to age and\nauthorship, a study of the history of Judah from the end of the\neighth century B.C. to the end of the seventh is indispensable if we\nwould adequately understand our book, for that was the time when the\nbook is seen entering as a living force into the history of Israel.\n\nUnfortunately, however, there are few periods of Israelite history\nas to which we have less of reliable information. During much of\nthe period the main currents of the national life ran contrary to\nall better influences, and in such epochs the compilers of the Book\nof Kings took no interest. For the most part they were content\nto \"look and pass,\" gathering up the results of such times of\ndeclension in a few condemnatory words. It is only when the nation\nis on the upward slope that they enter into details. They wrote at\na time when the purpose of God in their national life was becoming\nclear, and the splendour of it possessed them so that nothing else\nbut the increase of this purpose seemed worthy of any intenser\ncontemplation. Victories and defeats, successes and failures, and\nlast of all the tremendous catastrophe of the Exile, had taught them\nthis discernment; and they pressed forward so eagerly to record\nthe deeds and thoughts of those who had learned the secret of\nYahweh that they had eyes for nothing else. Consequently the eighty\nyears after the fall of Samaria, which for our purpose would be so\nextremely instructive, are passed over in all our sources, almost\nwithout mention. But there are some facts and events of which we\ncan be entirely sure; and from these it is possible to conceive in\noutline the way in which things must have shaped themselves in these\neventful years.\n\nBrought about as it had been by the appeal of Ahaz to the king of\nAssyria for help against the continual aggressions of Syria and\nIsrael, the fall of Samaria must have come to the king and people\nof Judah as a relief. Their enemy had fallen, and they would\nhenceforth be free from the anxiety and harassment which Israel's\nenmity had caused. But those must have been blind indeed with whom\nthis feeling was permanent. Very soon it must have become apparent\nto all thoughtful men in Judah that, if they had been freed from\nthe worrying and exasperating enmity of their kindred, their very\nsuccess had brought them into the presence of a much more serious\nfoe. With Assyria on their immediate frontier, settled in the lands\nboth of Damascus and Samaria, they must have felt themselves exposed\nto chances and dangers they had never hitherto had to face. Under\nthe old conditions, except during comparatively short periods when\nthere was actual war between the two kingdoms, Israel had stood\nbetween Judah and any danger from the North. But now the people of\nthe Southern Kingdom were summoned from \"the safe glad rear to the\ndreadful van.\" Henceforth no patriot could fail to be haunted by\nfear of that ambitious and conquering Assyrian nation. The whole of\nHezekiah's reign was filled with more or less convulsive efforts\nto maintain the independence of Judah. These were giving but faint\npromise of success, when the great deliverance of Jerusalem foretold\nby Isaiah gave the king a breathing space, and raised the highest\nhopes in the minds of his people. It seemed for a little quite\npossible that the ancient independence of Israel might be restored.\nTo many it seemed that the Messianic times were at hand; faith in\nYahweh carried all before it. But Hezekiah died not long after; and\nin the succeeding reigns of Manasseh and Amon the whole temper and\npolicy of Israel underwent a most serious and reactionary change.\n\nThe causes of this are not far to seek. During the greater part\nof Hezekiah's reign Isaiah had received only moderate support.\nAccording to his own vision of his future work, he was to preach\nwithout success; he was to say, \"Hear ye indeed, but understand\nnot; and see ye, but perceive not\"; and, so far as the mass of\nthe people were concerned, that prevision was justified. Only the\nastounding success with which his opposition to the Assyrians had\nbeen crowned had turned the tide of popular opinion in his favour.\nIt was probably, therefore, only then that Hezekiah's reforms were\ninstituted. They had been too short a time in force at his death to\nhave sent out their roots into the national life. But that was not\nall. One of the most characteristic points in all prophecy was that\nthe _time_ when the full Messianic Kingdom should appear was never\nclearly defined. Neither the Prophet nor his hearers knew when it\nwould be. It loomed always as a bright but vague background to the\ndeliverance which lay immediately before them; and in almost every\ncase neither speaker nor hearers had any conception of the long and\nweary way which divided those sunlit mountain peaks from the dark\nand threatening pass which they were approaching. Now the literal\ninterpretation of Isaiah's prophecies with regard to the deliverance\nfrom Assyria had inevitably led the mass of the people to believe\nthat the raising of the siege of Jerusalem would mean the immediate\ndestruction of Assyria, and the advent of the Messianic day of\npeace and glory for Israel. But the facts completely falsified that\nexpectation. Instead of being destroyed Assyria only grew more\npowerful, and instead of the Messianic time there was only the old\nposition of vassalage to Assyria. So men grew weary, and said then\nas they have said so often since, \"All things are as they have been\nfrom the beginning, and where is the promise of His coming?\" The\ntrue-hearted said it with sadness; and the false-hearted, saying it\nin mockery and unbelief, fell back upon the old heathenish test, and\nsaid, \"The gods of Assyria are stronger than Yahweh, and we must\ngive them a place in our adoration.\" With the bulk of the people\nthis required no really great change in their point of view. They\nhad believed in Yahweh and agreed to purify His worship, because He\nhad proved Himself stronger than Sennacherib and his gods; and now\nwhen, in the long run, Assyria was triumphing, they must have seemed\nto themselves only to be following the teachings of experience in\ngiving the host of heaven equal honour with their own ancestral\nGod. The reaction, therefore, was more in the outward expression\nthan in principle, and we can easily understand how it was so swift\nand so universal. Manasseh, Hezekiah's son, had probably opposed\nhis father's policy, as the heir-apparent has so often opposed the\npolicy of the reigning monarch; and if, as many suppose, Hezekiah\nlived for sixteen years after the destruction of Sennacherib's host,\nManasseh came to the throne just when men's minds were most weary\nwith hope deferred, and when the Assyrian success was about to reach\nits highest point before its final fall.\n\nAccordingly Manasseh would seem to have undone at once all that his\nfather and Isaiah had accomplished. Nay, he went further in the\nintroduction of idolatry than any even of the idolatrous kings who\nhad preceded him. In the Book of Kings the charges made against\nhim are three:--1st, that he introduced the worship of the host of\nheaven according to the Assyrian ritual; 2nd, that he took part in\nthe Moloch-worship; and 3rd, that he restored the old semi-Canaanite\nworship which it had been Isaiah's most strenuous effort to root\nout. And this policy, evil as it was in the eyes of all who cared\nfor the higher destinies of Israel, had at once great and striking\nexternal success. For it meant complete submission to Assyria, a\nwilling vassalage from which even the wish for independence had\ndisappeared. The heart of the old Israelite independence had been\nfaith in Yahweh and confidence in Israel's calling as His people.\nEven so late as Isaiah's day it had been faith in Yahweh which had\nkept Hezekiah steady in his opposition to apparently overwhelming\nforce. But now Manasseh and the people who supported him exalted\nthe gods of Assyria as an even surer refuge than Yahweh had been.\nHaving made that admission, there was nothing left for them but to\nhumble themselves under the mighty hand of the great king and his\ngreat gods. And this Israel under Manasseh did most thoroughly. As\nStade has strikingly said, \"The Temple of the one God of Israel\nbecame a Pantheon.\" The feeble attempts which Ahaz had made in\nthe same direction were utterly swept out of men's memory by the\ncompleteness of Manasseh's apostasy. With this degradation of\nthe religious faith there also came, naturally, an intellectual\ndegradation. Superstition, baser even than idolatry, seized upon\nthe minds of men, and illegitimate efforts to pry into the future\nor to influence the destinies of men by magic and incantations\nbecame part of the popular fashion of the day. The old religion of\nIsrael had sternly set itself against all such debasing practices.\nAlone amid the religions of the ancient world, it had relentlessly\nrefused the help of necromancy and magic generally. But the barrier\nthe religion of Yahweh had erected fell at once when its purity\nand uniqueness had been sacrificed, and Manasseh gave himself up\nto \"practise augury and to use enchantments, and to deal with them\nthat had familiar spirits and with wizards.\" And to superstition he\nalso added cruelty. Not content with his signal victory over all\nthe best impulses of the past, not content with the applause of the\nmultitude who gladly followed him to do evil, he endeavoured to\nforce those whose work he had destroyed to bow before the gods they\nboth hated and despised. We know too little of the circumstances of\nthe time to be sure of his motives, but his action may have been\nfounded upon a craven fear that if he did not suppress the voices of\nthose who spoke for freedom, he might be visited with the anger of\nthe Assyrian king. Or it may have been that feeling, so powerfully\nexpressed in Browning's poem \"Instans Tyrannus,\" which makes a\ntyrant feel that all his life is made bitter to him if there remain\nwithin his power one free man whom he cannot bend to his will. In\nany case it is certain that he attacked the prophetic party with\nsanguinary fury. Though he had the gods of the great battalions on\nhis side, he was dimly afraid of the power of ideas; and, so far\nas faithful men were concerned, he instituted a \"reign of terror.\"\nAccording to the graphic statement of the historian, \"he filled\nJerusalem with innocent blood from lip to lip,\" and for the time at\nleast was able to silence righteousness so far as public utterance\nwas concerned. There is a tradition that even Isaiah fell a victim\nto his fury, being sawn asunder between two planks at his command.\nIt is perhaps not likely that Isaiah had survived so long. But,\nbeyond all doubt, many suffered for their faithfulness to God;\nand it seems probable that the wonderful picture of the Suffering\nServant in the Deutero-Isaiah owes much of its colour to the\npathetic and painful memories of this evil time.\n\nAll this apostasy brought with it worldly success. Manasseh reigned\nlong, and under him the land had peace. Assyria _could_ have no\nquarrel with a people and a king who anticipated its very desire\nby eager submission. Peace brought material prosperity. The land\nwas so naturally fertile that it always grew rich when war was\nkept from its borders. We may surmise, too, that a kind of bastard\nculture became popular when the Jewish mind had opened to it, for\ngood and evil, a world of myth and song and legend which, if known\nbefore, had until now been barred from complete and triumphant\nentrance by faith in a living God. Once only would Manasseh appear\nto have asserted himself, and, according to the Book of Chronicles,\nhe was taken prisoner in Jerusalem by the master he had served so\nwell, and learned to know in the bitterness of a Babylonian prison\nthat sycophancy does not always lead to safety. And the wisdom he\nlearned went further even than that. At the end of his life he\nappears to have wished to undo, at least in some measure, the evil\nhe had laboured throughout his reign to establish and make strong.\nBut he found that to be impossible; and if his repentance was deep\nand sincere he must have learned how severely the heavenly powers\ncan punish, by opening a man's eyes to the evil he has done when\nit cannot be undone. Nor did his late repentance affect his son,\nfor under Amon all things continued in their previous evil course.\nIndeed the prevailing idolatry had rooted itself so firmly that\neven in the early years of Josiah, when the prophetic influence was\nbeginning to reappear, it still retained its hold with unshaken\npower.\n\nBut what of the prophetic party during those evil days? Precipitated\nfrom power in an instant at Hezekiah's death, it had at once become\nfeeble and obscure. Its leading supporters, we may well believe,\nhad to seek safety in hiding or in flight; and after some of its\nchief speakers had been cut off, the once dominant party had to\ntake the position of persecuted remnants for whom all public work\nwas impossible. Under such circumstances what could these faithful\nmen do? They could only wait and pray, and prepare for that better\nday of whose return their faith in Yahweh would not suffer them to\ndespair.\n\nFrom the position afterwards taken up by the high priest, it would\nseem probable that the Temple clergy were in full sympathy with the\nprophetic movement. We need not suppose that that sympathy arose\nwholly from the tendency of prophetic thought and effort towards the\nsuppression of the High Places. We should probably do the better\nspirits among the priesthood grievous wrong if we thought that\ntheir personal interest was their main motive in supporting even\nthat reform. Notwithstanding the earlier prophets' denunciation of\nthe priests as a class, there can be little doubt that they had\nadvanced, with the better classes of their nation generally, in\ntheir appreciation of spiritual religion. And we may well believe\nthat the sight of the havoc which the now degraded worship at the\nHigh Places was working in the popular mind made them earnest in\ntheir endeavours to restore the true faith. Privileged as they\nwere, they would naturally be sheltered from the full fury of the\npersecution. Consequently, when the time came for the supporters\nof true religion to take their place in public life again, it was\nnatural and inevitable that the priests should be at their head.\nThe fact, too, that Josiah at his accession was a child, for whose\nguardian no fitter person could be found than the chief priest, gave\nthe future into their hands. But they did not move prematurely. So\nlong as Josiah was a minor they contented themselves with instilling\ntheir principles into the mind of the king. In outward political\nlife, so far as we can ascertain, they did not interfere at all, and\nthe ground was moved away from beneath the feet of the idolatrous\nparty, while they thought themselves firmly established. In Josiah's\neighteenth year the results of this quiet preparation appeared. In\nthat year Hilkiah, the high priest, told Shaphan the scribe that\nhe had found \"the Book of the Law\" in the Temple. That this was\nDeuteronomy, if not altogether, yet practically, as we have it\nnow, there can be but little doubt; and it immediately became the\ntext-book of religion for all that remained of Israel.\n\nNow it is obvious that the whole hopes of the religious party would\nnaturally be fixed upon it. They would turn to it as eagerly as\nthe Reformers turned to the Bible, after it had been rediscovered\nby Luther at Erfurt. For obviously, if the people could be got to\nacknowledge the law, the axe would be laid at the root of every evil\nwhich they deplored. The High Places would be destroyed; the primacy\nof the Temple at Jerusalem would be secured; and the prophetic\nteaching, with its insistence upon judgment and the love of God as\nthe essentials of true worship, would, for the first time, become\nthe dominant influence in civil and religious life. Never since\nIsrael was a nation had the condition of the people called so\nloudly for the enforcement of such a law, and now for the first time\nwas there hope that it might be actually enforced. The character\nof the evils that afflicted the nation, the history of the last\nhalf-century, and the teachings of the great canonical prophets had\nall converged, as it were, to this one point, and we can understand\nhow all who strove for the higher life of Israel would strive\nthat Deuteronomy, whether ancient or modern, should be neglected\nno longer. The result was that the whole power of the State was\nthrown into the struggle against idolatry and the half-heathen\nBamoth-worship. The prophets and the priests joined hands to spread\nthe principles of the true religion, as voiced by Deuteronomy.\nProfessor Cheyne, in his _Jeremiah_, conjectures, with considerable\nlikelihood, that the break in that prophet's activity which occurred\nat this time is to be accounted for by the zeal with which he\ndevoted himself to Deuteronomic propaganda throughout the land. In\nany case, for the moment the purer worship obtained a completer\nvictory than ever before. Unfortunately it came too late and proved\ntoo evanescent. But in the inward sphere, the Deuteronomic view of\nreligion as having its centre in love to God, the tender, thoughtful\nevangelical spirit which distinguishes the whole outlook of its\nauthor, laid hold upon all the higher minds that came after it. To\nJeremiah and to St. Paul alike, it, _par excellence_, represented\nthe law of God. Produced, or at any rate first prized, at a time\nwhen Israel had fallen very low, when evil was triumphant and good\npersecuted, it recommended and exemplified a cheerful courage, born\nof faith in the high destiny of Israel and the truth of God. That,\nmore than anything else, helped to bear the ark of the Church over\nthe tumultuous centuries which separated those two great servants of\nGod, and when Christ appeared it was seen that this book, more than\nany in the Old Testament save perhaps the Psalms, had anticipated\nHis cardinal teachings regarding the attitude of man to God and\nof man to man. The conflicts and needs of the seventh century\nB.C., which are so clearly reflected in it, gave inspiration the\nopportunity it needed to reveal that inner secret of God's Kingdom.\nOut of defeat and disaster this revelation came, and through times\nof defeat and backsliding it proved its Divine origin by keeping\nsteadfast and calm those who specially waited for the coming of the\nMessiah.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n_THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT_\n\nDEUT. i.-iii.\n\n\nAfter these preliminary discussions we now enter upon the\nexposition. With the exception of the first two verses of chapter\ni., concerning which there is a doubt whether they do not belong\nto Numbers, these three chapters stand out as the first section of\nour book. Examination shows that they form a separate and distinct\nwhole, not continued in chapter iv.; but there has been a great\ndiversity of opinion as to their authorship and the intention with\nwhich they have been placed here. The vocabulary and the style so\nresemble those of the main parts of the book, that they cannot\nbe entirely separated from them; yet, at the same time, it seems\nunlikely that the original author of the main trunk of Deuteronomy\ncan have begun his book with this introductory speech from Moses,\nfollowed it up with another Mosaic speech, still introductory, in\nchapter iv., and in chapter v. begun yet another introductory speech\nrunning through seven chapters, before he comes to the statutes\nand judgments which are announced at the very beginning. The\ncurrent supposition about these chapters, therefore, is that they\nare the work of a Deuteronomist, a man formed under the influence\nof Deuteronomy and filled with its spirit, but not the author of\nthe book. This seems to account for the resemblances, and would\nalso explain to some extent the existence of such a superfluous\nprologue. But the hypothesis is, nevertheless, not entirely\nsatisfactory. The resemblances are closer than we should expect\nin the work of different authors; and one feels that the supposed\nDeuteronomist must have been less sensitive in a literary sense than\nwe have any right to suppose him if he did not feel the incongruity\nof such a speech in this place. Professor Dillmann has made a very\nacute suggestion, which meets the whole difficulty in a more natural\nway. Feeling that the style and language were in all essentials one\nwith those of the central Deuteronomy, he seeks for some explanation\nwhich would permit him to assign this section to the author of the\nbook himself. He suggests that as originally written this was a\nhistorical introduction leading up to the central code of laws;\na historical preface, in fact, which the author of Deuteronomy\nnaturally prefixed to his book. _Ex hypothesi_ he had not the\nprevious books, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, before him as we\nhave them. These now form a historical introduction to Deuteronomy\nof a very minute and elaborate kind; but he had to embody in his\nown book all of the past history of his people that he wished to\nemphasise. But when the editor who arranged the Pentateuch as we now\nhave it inserted Deuteronomy in its present place, he found that he\nhad a double historical preface, that in the previous books and this\nin Deuteronomy itself. As reverence forbade the rejection of these\nchapters, he took refuge in the expedient of turning the originally\nimpersonal narrative into a speech of Moses; which he could all the\nmore blamelessly do as the probability is that the whole book was\nregarded in his time as the work of Moses. This hypothesis, if it\ncan be accepted, certainly accounts for all the phenomena presented\nby these chapters--the similarity of language, the arch\u00e6ological\nnotes in the speech, and the historic colour in the statements\nregarding Edom, for example, which corresponds to early feeling,\nnot to post-exilic thought at all. It has besides the merit of\nreducing the number of anonymous writers to be taken account of in\nthe Pentateuch, a most desirable thing in itself. Lastly, it gives\nus in Deuteronomy a compact whole more complete in all its parts\nthan almost any other portion of the Old Testament, certainly more\nso than any of the books containing legislation.\n\nMoreover, that the Deuteronomic reinforcement and expansion of\nthe Mosaic legislation, as contained in the Book of the Covenant,\nshould begin with such a history of Yahweh's dealings with His\npeople, is entirely characteristic of Old Testament Revelation. In\nthe main and primarily, what the Old Testament writers give us is\na history of how God wrought, how He dealt with the people He had\nchosen. In the view of the Hebrew writers, God's first and main\nrevelation of Himself is always in conduct. He showed Himself good\nand merciful and gentle to His people, and then, having so shown\nHimself, He has an acknowledged right to claim their obedience. As\nSt. Paul has so powerfully pointed out, the law was secondary, not\nprimary. Grace, the free love and choice of God, was always the\nbeginning of true relations with Him, and only after that had been\nknown and accepted does He look for the true life which His law is\nto regulate. Naturally, therefore, when the author of Deuteronomy\nis about to press upon Israel the law in its expanded form, to call\nthem back from many aberrations, to summon them to a reformation and\nnew establishment of the whole framework of their lives, he turns\nback to remind them of what their past had been. Law, therefore,\nis only a secondary deposit of Revelation. If we are true to the\nBiblical point of view we shall not look for the Divine voice only,\nor even chiefly, in the legal portions of the Scripture. God's\nfull revelation of Himself will be seen in the process and the\ncompletion of that age-long movement, which was begun when Israel\nfirst became a nation by receiving Yahweh as their God, and which\nended with the life and death of Him who summed up in Himself all\nthat Israel was called, but failed, to be.\n\nThat is the ruling thought in Scripture about Revelation. God\nreveals Himself in history; and by the persistent thoroughness with\nwhich the Scriptural writers grasp this thought, the unique and\neffective character of the Biblical Revelation is largely accounted\nfor. Other nations, no doubt, looked back at times upon what their\ngods had done for them, and those who spoke for these gods may often\nhave claimed obedience and service from their people on the ground\nof past favour and under threats of its withdrawal. But earlier than\nany other people which has affected the higher races of mankind,\nIsrael conceived of God as a moral power with a will and purpose\nwhich embraced mankind. Further, in the belief which appears in\ntheir earliest records, that through them the nations were to be\nblessed, and that in the future One was coming who would in Himself\nbring about the realisation of Israel's destiny, they were provided\nwith a philosophy of history, with a conception which was fitted to\ndraw into organic connection with itself all the various fortunes of\nIsrael and of the nations.\n\nOf course, at first much that was involved in their view was\nnot present to any mind. It was the very merit of the germinal\nrevelation made through Moses that it had in it powers of growth and\nexpansion. In no other way could it be a true revelation of God, a\nrevelation which should have in it the fulness, the flexibility,\nthe aloofness from mere local and temporary peculiarities, which\nwould secure its fitness for universal mankind. Any revelation that\nconsists only of words, of ideas even, must, to be received, have\nsome kind of relation to the minds that are to receive it. If the\nwords and ideas are revealed, as they must be, at a given place and\na given time, they must be in such a relation to that place and\ntime that at some period of the world's history they will be found\ninadequate, needing expansion, which does not come naturally, and\nthen they have to be laid aside as insufficient. But a revelation\nwhich consists in acts, which reveals God in intimate, age-long,\nconstant dealings with mankind, is so many-sided, so varied, so\nclosely moulded to the actual and universal needs of man, that it\nembraces all the fundamental exigencies of human life, and must\nalways continue to cover human experience. From it men may draw off\nsystems of doctrines, which may concentrate the revelation for a\nparticular generation, or for a series of generations, and make it\nmore potently active in these circumstances. But unless the system\nbe kept constantly in touch with the revelation as given in the\nhistory, it must become inadequate, false in part, and must one day\nvanish away.\n\nThe revelation then in life is the only possible form for a real\nrevelation of God; and that the writers of the Old Testament in\ntheir circumstances and in their time felt and asserted this, is in\nitself so very great a merit, that it is almost of itself sufficient\nto justify any claims they may make to special inspiration. The\ngreatest of them saw God at work in the world, and had experience\nof His influence in themselves, so that they had their eyes opened\nto His actions as other men had not. The least of them, again, had\nbeen placed at the true point of view for estimating aright the\nsignificance of the ordinary action of the Divine Providence, and\nfor tracing the lines of Divine action where they were to other\nmen invisible, or at least obscure. And in the records they have\nleft us they have been entirely true to that supremely important\npoint of view. All they deal with in the history is the moral and\nspiritual effects of God's dealing; and the great interests, as the\nworld reckons them, of war and conquest, of commerce and art, are\nreferred to only briefly and often only in the way of allusion.\nTo many moderns this is an offence, which they avenge by speaking\ncontemptuously of the mental endowment of the Biblical writers as\nhistorians. On the contrary, that these should have kept their\neyes fixed only upon that which concerned the religious life of\ntheir people, that they should have kept firm hold of the truth\nthat it was there the central importance of the people lay, and\nthat they have given us the material for the formation of that\ngreat conception of supernatural revelation by history in which God\nHimself moves as a factor, is a merit so great that even if it were\nonly a brilliant fancy they might surely be pardoned for ignoring\nother things. But if, as is the truth, they were tracing the central\nstream of God's redemptive action in the world, were laying open to\nour view the steps by which the unapproachably lofty conception of\nGod was built up, which their nation alone has won for the human\nrace, then it can hardly seem a fault that nothing else appealed\nto them. They have given God to those who were blindly groping for\nHim, and they have established the standard by which all historic\nestimates of even modern life are ultimately to be measured.\n\nFor though there were in the history of that particular nation,\nand in the line of preparation for Christ, special miraculous\nmanifestations of God's power and love, which do not now occur,\nyet no judgment of the course of history is worth anything, even\nto-day, which does not occupy essentially the Biblical position.\nUltimately the thing to be considered is, what hath God wrought? If\nthat be ignored, then the stable and instructive element in history\nhas been kept out of sight, and the mind loses itself hopelessly\namid the weltering chaos of second causes. Froude, in his _History\nof England_, has noted this, and declares that in the period he\ndeals with it was the religious men who alone had any true insight\ninto the tendency of things. They measured all things, almost too\ncrudely, by the Biblical standard; but so essentially true and\nfundamental does that show itself to be, that their judgment so\nformed has proved to be the only sound one. This is what we should\nexpect if God's power and righteousness are the great factors in\nthe drama which the history of man and of the world unfolds to us.\nThat being so, the suicidal folly of the policy of any Church or\nparty which shuts the Bible away from popular use is manifest. It is\nnothing short of a blinding of the people's eyes, and a shutting of\ntheir ears to warning voices which the providential government of\nthe world, when viewed on a large scale, never fails to utter. It\nrenders sound political judgment the prerogative only of the few,\nand sets them among a people who will turn to any charlatans rather\nthan believe their voice.\n\nIt was natural and it was inevitable, therefore, that the author\nof Deuteronomy, standing, as he did, on the threshold of a great\ncrisis in the history of Israel, should turn the thoughts of his\npeople back to the history of the past. To him the great figure in\nthe history of Israel in those trying and eventful years during\nwhich they wandered between Horeb, Kadesh-Barnea, and the country of\nthe Arnon, is Yahweh their God. He is behind all their movements,\nimpelling and inciting them to go on and enjoy the good land He\nhad promised to their fathers. He went before them and fought for\nthem. He bare them in the wilderness, as a man doth bear his son. He\nwatched over them and guided their footsteps in cloud and fire by\nday and night. Moreover all the nations by whom they passed had been\nled by Him and assigned their places, and only those nations whom\nYahweh chose had been given into Israel's hand. In the internal\naffairs of the community, too, He had asserted Himself. They were\nYahweh's people, and all their national action was to be according\nto His righteous character. Especially was the administration of\njustice to be pure and impartial, yielding to neither fear nor\nfavour because the \"judgment is God's.\" And how had they responded\nto all this loving favour on the part of God? At the first hint of\nserious conflict they shrank back in fear. Notwithstanding that the\nland which God had given them was a good and fruitful country, and\nnotwithstanding the promises of Divine help, they refused to incur\nthe necessary toils and risks of the conquest. Every difficulty they\nmight encounter was exaggerated by them; their very deliverance from\nEgypt, which they had been wont to consider \"their crowning mercy,\"\nbecame to their faithless cowardice an evidence of hatred for them\non the part of God.\n\nTo men in such a state of mind conquest was impossible; and though,\nin a spasmodic revulsion from their abject cowardice, they made an\nattack upon the people they were to dispossess, it ended, as it\ncould not but end, in their defeat and rout. They were condemned to\nforty years of wandering, and it was only after all that generation\nwas dead that Israel was again permitted to approach the land of\npromise. But Yahweh had been faithful to them, and when the time was\ncome He opened the way for their advance and gave them the victory\nand the land. For His love was patient, and always made a way to\nbless them, even through their sins.\n\nThat was the picture the Deuteronomist spread out before the eyes\nof his countrymen, to the intent that they might know the love of\nGod, and might see that safety lay for them in a willing yielding\nof themselves to that love. The disastrous results of their wayward\nand faint-hearted shrinking from this Divine calling is the only\ndirect threat he uses but in the passage there is another warning,\nall the more impressive that it is vague and shadowy. God is to the\nDeuteronomist the universal ruler of the world. The nations are\nraised up and cast down according to His will, and until He wills\nit they cannot be dispossessed. But He had willed that fate for\nmany, and at every step of Israel's progress they come upon traces\nof vanished peoples whom for their sins He had suffered others to\ndestroy. The Emim in Moab, the Zamzummim in Ammon, the Horites in\nSeir, and the Avvims in Philistia, had all been destroyed before\nthe people who now occupied these lands, and the whole background\nof the narrative is one of judgment, where mercy had been of no\navail. The sword of the Lord is dimly seen in the arch\u00e6ological\nnotes which are so frequent in this section of our book and thus\nthe final touch is given to the picture of the past which is here\ndrawn to be an impulse for the future. While all the foreground\nrepresents only God's love and patience overcoming man's rebellion,\nthe background is, like the path of the great pilgrim caravans which\nyear by year make their slow and toilsome way to Mohammedan holy\nplaces, strewn with the remains of predecessors in the same path.\nWith stern, menacing finger this great teacher of Israel points to\nthese evidences that the Divine love and patience may be, and have\nbeen, outworn, and seems to re-echo in an even more impressive way\nthe language of Isaiah: \"The anger of Yahweh was kindled (against\nthese peoples), and He stretched forth His hand (against them) and\nsmote (them); and the hills did tremble, and (their) carcases were\nas refuse in the midst of the streets. For all this His anger is\nnot turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.\" Without a\nword of direct rebuke he opens his people's eyes to see that shadowy\noutstretched hand. Behind all the turmoil of the world there is a\npresence and a power which supports all who seek good, but which\nis sternly set against all evil, ready, when the moment comes, \"to\nstrike once and strike no more.\"\n\nYet another glimpse is given us in these chapters of God's manner of\ndealing with men. We have seen how He guides and rules His chosen\nones. We have seen how He punishes those who have set themselves\nagainst the Divine law. And in chapter ii. 30 we are told how\nmen become hardened in their sin, so as to render destruction\ninevitable. Of Sihon, king of Heshbon, who would not let the\nIsraelites pass by him, the writer says: \"Yahweh thy God hardened\nhis spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him\ninto thy hand, as appeareth this day.\" But he does not mean by these\nexpressions to lay upon God the causation of Sihon's obstinacy,\nso as to make the man a mere helpless victim. His thought rather\nis, that as God rules all, so to Him must be ultimately traced\nall that happens in the world. In some sense all acts, whether\ngood or bad, all agencies, whether beneficent or destructive, have\ntheir source in and their power from Him. But nevertheless men\nhave moral responsibility for their acts, and are fully and justly\nconscious of ill desert. Consequently that hardening of spirit or\nof heart, which at one moment may be attributed solely to God,\nmay at another be ascribed solely to the evil determination of\nman. The most instructive instance of this is to be found in the\nhistory of Pharaoh, when he was commanded to let Israel go. In that\nnarrative, from Exodus iv. to xi., there is repeated interchange\nof expression. Now it is Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart; now, as\nin viii. 15 and 32, Pharaoh hardened his own heart; and, again,\nPharaoh's heart was hardened. In each case the same thing is meant,\nand the varying expressions correspond only to a difference of\nstandpoint. When Yahweh foretells that the signs He authorises\nMoses to show will fail of their effect, it is always \"Yahweh will\nharden Pharaoh's heart,\" since the main point in contemplation is\nHis government of the world. If, on the other hand, it is the sinful\nobstinacy of Pharaoh which is prominent in the passage, we have the\nself-determination of Pharaoh alone set before us. But it is to be\nnoted, and this is indeed the cardinal fact, that Yahweh never is\nsaid to harden the heart of a good man, or a man set mainly upon\nrighteousness. It is always those who are guilty of palpable wrongs\nand acts of evil-doing upon whom God thus works.\n\nNow we know that the author of Deuteronomy had two at least of\nthe ancient historical narratives before him which are combined\nin Exod. iv.-xi., and he takes up their thinking. Expressed in\nmodern language, the thought is this. When men are found following\ntheir own will in defiance of all law and all the restraints of\nrighteousness, that is manifestly not the first stage in their moral\ndeclension. This obstinacy in evil is the result and the wages of\nformer evil deeds, beginning perhaps only with careless laxity, but\ngathering strength and virulence with every wilful sin. Until near\nthe end of a completed growth in wickedness no man deliberately\nsays, \"Evil, be thou my good.\" Nevertheless each act of sin involves\na step towards that, and the sinner in this manner hardens himself\nagainst all warning. Like the sins which work this obduracy, this\nhardening is the sinner's own act. The ruin which falls upon his\nmoral nature is his own work. That is the inexorable result of the\nmoral order of the universe, and from it no exception is possible.\nBut if so, God too has been active in all such catastrophes. He\nhas so framed and ordered the world that indulgence in evil must\nharden in evil. This it was which the Israelite religious mind saw\nand dwelt upon, as well as upon man's share in the dread process\nof moral decay. We also do well to take heed to this aspect of\nthe truth. When we do, we have solved the Scriptural difficulty\nregarding the Divine hardening of man's heart. It is simply the\nancient formula for what every mind that is ethically trained\nrecognises in the world to-day. Those who recognise themselves as\nchildren of God, and acknowledge the obligations of His law, are\ndealt with in the way of discipline with infinite love and patience.\nThose who definitely set themselves against the moral order of the\nworld which God has established are broken in pieces and destroyed.\nBetween these two classes there are the morally undetermined,\nwho ultimately turn either to the right hand or to the left. The\nprocess by which these pass on to be numbered among the rebellious\nis pictured in Scripture with extraordinary moral insight. The\nonly difference from a present-day description of it is, that here\nGod is kept constantly present to the mind as the chief factor in\nthe development of the soul. To-day, even those who believe in God\nare apt to forget Him in tracing His laws of action. But that is\nan error of the first magnitude. It darkens the hope of man; for\nwithout a sure promise of Divine help there is no certainty of\nmoral victory either for the race or the individual. It narrows our\nview of the awful sweep of sin; for unless we see that sin affects\neven the Ruler of the universe, and defies His unchanging law, its\nresults are limited to the evil that we do our fellow-men, which,\nas we see it, is of little importance. Further, it degrades moral\nlaw to a mere arbitrary dictum of power, or to an opinion founded\nupon man's purblind experience. The acknowledgment of God, on the\ncontrary, makes morality the very essence of the Divine nature, and\nthe unchangeable rule for the life of man.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n_THE DECALOGUE--ITS FORM_\n\nDEUT. v. 1-21.\n\n\nAs the fourth chapter belongs to the speech which concludes the\nlegislative portion of Deuteronomy both in contents and language\n(see Chapter XXIII.), we shall pass on now to the fifth chapter,\nwhich begins with a recital of the Decalogue. As has already\nbeen pointed out, the main trunk of the Book of Deuteronomy is a\nrepetition and expansion of the Law of the Covenant contained in\nExod. xx.-xxiii.[22] Now, both in Exodus and Deuteronomy, before\nthe more general and detailed legislation, we have the Decalogue,\nor the Ten Words, as it is called, in substantially the same form;\nand the question immediately arises as to the age at which this\nbeautifully systematised and organised code of fundamental laws\ncame into existence. Whatever its origin, it is an exceedingly\nremarkable document. It touches the fundamental principles of\nreligious and moral life with so sure a hand that at this hour,\nfor even the most civilised nations, it sums up the moral code,\nand that so effectively that no change or extension of it has ever\nbeen proposed. That being its character, it becomes a question of\nexceeding interest to decide whether it can justly be referred to\nso early a time as the days of Moses. In both the passages where\nit occurs it is represented as having been given to the people\nat Horeb by Yahweh Himself, and it is made the earliest and most\nfundamental part of the covenant between Him and Israel. It would\naccordingly seem as if a claim were made for it as a specially\nearly and specially sacred law. Now, much as critics have denied,\nthere have been found very few who deny that in the main some such\nlaw as this must have been given to Israel in Moses' day. Even\nKuenen admits as much as that in his _History of the Religion of\nIsrael_. The only commandment of the ten he has difficulty in\naccepting is the second, which forbids the making of any graven\nimage for worship. That, he thinks, cannot have been in the original\nDecalogue, not because of any peculiarity of language, or because\nof any incoherency in composition, but simply because he cannot\nbelieve that at that early day the religion of Yahweh could have\nbeen so spiritual as to demand the prohibition of images. But his\nreasons are extremely inadequate; more especially as he admits\nthat the Ark was the Mosaic Sanctuary, and that in it there was no\nimage, as there was none in the Temple at Jerusalem. That Yahweh\nwas worshipped under the form of a calf at Horeb, and afterwards\nin Northern Israel at Bethel and elsewhere, proves nothing. A law\ndoes not forthwith extinguish that against which it is directed,\nfor idolatry continued even after Deuteronomy was accepted as the\nlaw. Moreover, if, as Kuenen thinks, calf-worship had existed in\nIsrael before Moses, it was not unnatural that it took centuries\nbefore the higher view superseded the lower. Even by Christianity\nthe ancient superstitions and religious practices of heathenism\nwere not thoroughly overcome for centuries. Indeed in many places\nthey have not yet been entirely suppressed. Nor does Wellhausen[23]\nmake a better case for a late Decalogue. His hesitation about it\nis most remarkable, and the reasons he gives for tending to think\nit may be late are singularly unsatisfactory. His first reason is\nthat \"according to Exodus xxxiv. the commandments which stood upon\nthe two tables were quite different.\" He relies on the words in\nver. 28 of that chapter--\"And he (Moses) was there with the Lord\nforty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink\nwater. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the\nten words\"--taking them to imply that the immediately preceding\ncommandments, which are of the same ritual character with those\nwhich follow the Decalogue in Exodus xx., are here called the ten\nwords. But it is not necessary to take the passage so. According to\nver. 1 it was Yahweh who was to write the words on the tables, and\nwe cannot suppose that so flagrant a contradiction should occur in\na single chapter as that here it should be said that Moses wrote\nthe tables. Yahweh, who is mentioned in the previous verse, must\ntherefore be the subject of _wayyikhtobh_ (ver. 28), and the ten\nwords consequently are different from the words (up to ver. 27)\nwhich Yahweh commanded Moses to write, somewhere, but not on the\ntables. Besides, every one who attempts to make ten words of the\ncommands before ver. 27 brings out a different result, and that of\nitself, as Dillmann says, is sufficient to show that the second\nDecalogue in chapter xxxiv. is entirely fanciful. Wellhausen's\nsecond reason is this: \"The prohibition of images was quite unknown\nduring the other period: Moses himself is said to have made a brazen\nserpent, which down to Hezekiah's time continued to be worshipped\nas an image of Jehovah.\" But the Decalogue does not prohibit the\nmaking of every image; it prohibits the making of images for\nworship. Therefore Moses might quite well have made a figure of a\nserpent, even though he wrote the Decalogue, if it was not meant\nfor worship. But there is nothing said to lead us to believe that\nthe serpent was regarded as an image of Yahweh. Indeed the very\ncontrary is asserted; and if Israel in later times made a bad use\nof this ancient relic of a great deliverance, Moses can hardly be\nheld responsible for that. In the third place, Wellhausen says:\n\"The essentially and necessarily national character of the older\nphases of the religion of Yahweh completely disappears in the\nquite universal code of morals which is given in the Decalogue as\nthe fundamental law of Israel; but the entire series of religious\npersonalities throughout the period of the Judges and Kings--from\nDeborah, who praised Jael's treacherous act of murder, to David,\nwho treated his prisoners of war with the utmost cruelty--make it\nvery difficult to believe that the religion of Israel was from the\noutset one of a specifically moral character.\" Surely this is very\nfeeble criticism. On the same grounds we might declare, because\nof the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, or on account of Napoleon's\nreported poisoning of his own wounded at Acre, that Christianity\nwas not a religion of a \"specifically moral character\" at this\npresent moment. Surely the facts that people never live at the\nlevel of their ideals, and that the lifting of a nation's life is a\nprocess which is as slow as the raising of the level of the delta\nof the Nile, should be too familiar to permit any one to be misled\nby difficulties of this kind. Nor is his last ground in any degree\nmore convincing. \"It is extremely doubtful,\" he says, \"whether the\nactual monotheism which is undoubtedly presupposed in the universal\nmoral precepts of the Decalogue could have formed the foundation\nof a national religion. It was first developed out of the national\nreligion at the downfall of the nation.\" The obvious reply is that\nthis is a _petitio principii_. The whole debate in regard to this\nquestion is whether Moses was a monotheist, or at least the founder\nof a religion which was implicitly monotheistic from the beginning;\nand the date of the Decalogue is interesting mainly because of\nthe light it would throw upon that question. To decide this date\ntherefore by the assertion that, being monotheistic, the Decalogue\ncannot be Mosaic, is to assume the very thing in dispute. Wellhausen\nhimself, elsewhere (p. 434), seems to favour the opposite view. In\nspeaking of what Moses did for Israel he says that through \"the\nTorah,\" in the sense of decisions given by lot from the Ark, \"he\ngave a definite positive expression to their sense of nationality\nand their idea of God. Yahweh was not merely the God of Israel; as\nsuch He was the God at once of Law and of Justice, the basis, the\ninforming principle, and the implied postulate of their national\nconsciousness\"; and again (p. 438), \"As God of the nation Yahweh\nbecame the God of Justice and of Right; as God of Justice and\nRight, He came to be thought of as the highest, and at last as the\nonly power in heaven and earth.\" In the Mosaic conception of God,\ntherefore, Wellhausen himself being witness, there lay implicitly,\nperhaps even explicitly, the conception of Yahweh as \"the only power\nin heaven and earth.\" In that case, is it reasonable to put the\nDecalogue late, because being moral it is universal, and so implies\nmonotheism?\n\n  [22] See this brought out in detail in Robertson Smith, _Old\n  Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 431.\n\n  [23] Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_, p. 439.\n\nBut there is still other, and perhaps stronger evidence, that the\nuniversality of the Decalogue is no indication of a late date. On\nthe contrary it would seem, from Professor Muirhead's account of\nthe Roman _fas_, that universality in legal precept may be a mark\nof very primitive laws. Speaking of Rome in its earliest stages\nof growth, when the circumstances of the people in very many\nrespects resembled those of the Hebrews in Mosaic times,[24] he\nsays: \"We look in vain for, and it would be absurd to expect, any\ndefinite system of law in those early times. What passed for it\nwas a composite of _fas_, _jus_, and _boni mores_, whose several\nlimits and characteristics it is extremely difficult to define.\"\nHe then proceeds to describe _fas_: \"By _fas_ was understood the\nwill of the gods, the laws given by Heaven for men on earth, much\nof it regulative of ceremonial, but a by no means insignificant\npart embodying rules of conduct. It appears to have had a wider\nrange than _jus_. There were few of its commands, prohibitions, or\nprecepts that were addressed to men as citizens of any particular\nstate; _all mankind came within its scope_. It forbade that a war\nshould be undertaken without the prescribed fetial ceremonial,\nand required that faith should be kept with even an enemy--when a\npromise had been made to him under sanction of an oath. It enjoined\nhospitality to foreigners, because the stranger guest was presumed,\nequally with his entertainer, to be an object of solicitude to\na higher power. It punished murder, for it was the taking of a\nGod-given life; the sale of a wife by her husband, for she had\nbecome his partner in all things human and Divine; the lifting of\na hand against a parent, for it was subversive of the first bond\nof society and religion, the reverence due by a child to those to\nwhom he owed his existence; incestuous connections, for they defiled\nthe altar; the false oath, and the broken vow, for they were an\ninsult to the divinities invoked,\" etc. In fact, the Roman _fas_\nhad much the same character as the Decalogue and the legislation\nof the first code (Exod. xx.-xxiii.). Consequently those who have\nthought that all early legislation must be concrete, narrow,\nparticularistic, bounded at widest by the direct needs of the men\nmaking up the clan, tribe, or petty nationality, are wrong. The\nearly history of law shows that, along with that, there is also a\ndemand for some expression of the laws of life seen from the point\nof view of man's relation to God. That fact greatly strengthens the\ncase for the early date of the Decalogue. For practically it is\nthe Hebrew _fas_. If it has a higher tone and a wider sweep, if it\nprovides a framework into which human duty can, even now, without\nundue stretching of it, be securely fitted, that is only what we\nshould expect, if God was working in the history and development\nof this nation as nowhere else in the world. In short, the history\nof primitive Roman law shows that, without inspiration, a feeble\nwavering step would have been taken to the development of a code of\nmoral duty, within the scope of which all mankind should come. With\ninspiration, surely this effort would also be made, and made with a\nsuccess not elsewhere attained.\n\n  [24] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xx., p. 670.\n\nIn none of the reasons which have been advanced, therefore, is there\nanything to set against the Biblical statement that the ten words\nwere older and more sacred than any other portion of the Israelite\nlegislation, and that they were Mosaic in origin. The universal\nhesitation shown by the greater among the most advanced critics in\ndefinitely removing the Decalogue from the foundations of Israel's\nhistory, although its presence there is so great an embarrassment to\nthem, lets us see how strong the case for the Mosaic origin is, and\nassures us that the evidence is all in favour of this view.\n\nBut if it be Mosaic, at first sight the conclusion would seem to\nbe that the form of the Decalogue given in Exodus is the more\nancient, and that the text in Deuteronomy is a later and somewhat\nextended version of that. Closer examination, however, tends to\nsuggest that the original ten words, in their Mosaic form, differed\nfrom any of the texts we have, and that of these the Exodus text\nin its present form is later than that in Deuteronomy. The great\ndifference in length between the two halves of the Decalogue\nsuggests the probability that originally all the commandments were\nshort, and much the same in style and character as the last half,\n\"Thou shalt not steal,\" and so on. Further, when the reasons and\ninducements given for the observance of the longer commands are set\naside, just such short commands are left to us as we find in the\nsecond table. Lastly, differences between the versions in Exodus\nand Deuteronomy occur in almost every case in those parts of the\ntext which may be regarded as appendices. In fact there are only\ntwo variations in the proper text of the commands. In the fourth,\nwe have in Exodus \"Remember the Sabbath day,\" while in Deuteronomy\nwe have \"Observe the Sabbath day\"; but the meaning is the same in\nboth cases. In the tenth, in Exodus the command is \"Thou shalt not\ncovet thy neighbour's house\"; and the \"house\" is explained by the\nsucceeding clause, \"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor\nhis manservant,\" etc., to mean \"household\" in its widest sense.\nIn Deuteronomy the old meaning of \"house\" as household and goods\nhas fallen out of use, and the component parts of the neighbour's\nhousehold possessions are named, beginning with his wife. Then\nfollows the \"house\" in its narrow meaning, as the mere dwelling,\ngrouped along with the slaves and cattle, and with _tithawweh_\nsubstituted in Hebrew for _tachmodh_. Fundamentally therefore the\ntwo recensions are the same. Even in the reasons and explanations\nthere is only one really important variation. In Exod. xx. 11 the\nreason for the observance of the fourth commandment is stated thus:\n\"For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea and all that\nin them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the\nSabbath day, and hallowed it.\" In Deuteronomy, on the other hand,\nthat reason is omitted, and in its place we find this: \"And thou\nshalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and\nYahweh thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a\nstretched out arm; therefore Yahweh thy God commanded thee to keep\nthe Sabbath.\" Now if the reference to the creation had formed part\nof the original text of the Decalogue in the days of the author\nof Deuteronomy, if he had that before him as actually spoken by\nYahweh, it is difficult to believe that he would have left it out\nand substituted another reason in its stead. He would have no object\nin doing so, for he could have added his own reason after that given\nin Exodus, had he so desired. It is likely, therefore, that in the\noriginal text no reason appeared; that Deuteronomy first added a\nreason; while ver. 11 in Exod. xx. was probably inserted there from\na combination of Exod. xxxi. 17 _b_ and Gen. ii. 2 _b_,--\"For in\nsix days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He\nrested and was refreshed\"; \"and He rested on the seventh day from\nall His work which He had made.\" Both these texts belong to P and\ndiffer in style altogether from JE, with whose language all the rest\nof the setting of the Decalogue corresponds. On these suppositions\nExod. xx. 11 would necessarily be the latest part of the two texts.\nOriginally, therefore, the Mosaic commands probably ran thus:--\n\n     \"I am Yahweh thy God, which brought thee out of the land of\n     Egypt, out of the house of bondage.\n\n     \"I. Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me.\n\n     \"II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.\n\n     \"III. Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain.\n\n     \"IV. Remember (_or_ Keep) the day of rest to sanctify it.\n\n     \"V. Honour thy father and thy mother.\n\n     \"VI. Thou shalt not kill.\n\n     \"VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.\n\n     \"VIII. Thou shalt not steal.\n\n     \"IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.\n\n     \"X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.\"\n\nIn that shape they contain everything that is fundamentally\nimportant, and exhibit the foundations of the Mosaic religion and\npolity in an entirely satisfactory and credible form.\n\nBut, before passing on to consider the substance of the Decalogue,\nit will be worth our while to consider what the full significance\nof these differing recensions of the Decalogue is. In both places\nthe words are quoted directly as having been spoken by Yahweh to\nthe people, and they are introduced by the quoting word \"saying.\"\nNow if we do not wish to square what we read with any theory, the\nslight divergences between the two recensions need not trouble us,\nfor we have the substance of what was said, and in the main the\nvery words, and that is really all we need to be assured of. But\nif, on the contrary, we are going to insist that, this being part\nof an inspired book, every word must be pressed with the accuracy\nof a masoretic scribe, then we are brought into inextricable\ndifficulties. It cannot be true that at Horeb Yahweh said two\ndifferent things on this special occasion. One or both of these\naccounts must be inaccurate, in the pedantic sense of accuracy,\nand yet both have the same claim to be inspired. In fact both\n_are_ inspired; it is the theory of inspiration which demands for\nrevelation this kind of accuracy that must go to the wall.\n\nIt will be seen that this instance is very instructive as to the\nmethod of the ancient Hebrews in dealing with legislation which\nwas firmly held to be Mosaic, or even directly Divine. If we are\nright in holding that originally the ten words were, as we have\nsupposed, limited to definite short commands, this example teaches\nus that where there could be no question of deceit, or even an\nobject for deceiving, additions calculated to meet the needs and\ndefects of the particular period at which the laws are written down,\nare inserted without any hint that they did not form part of the\noriginal document. If this has been done, even to the extent we have\nseen reason to infer, in a small, carefully ordered, and specially\nancient and sacred code, how much more freely may we expect the same\nthing to have been done in the looser and more fluid regulations of\nthe large political and ceremonial codes, which on any supposition\nwere posterior, and much less fundamental and sacred. That there is\nfor _us_ something disappointing, and even slightly questionable, in\nsuch action is really nothing to the purpose. We have to learn from\nthe actual facts of revelation how revelation may be, or perhaps\neven must be, conveyed; and we cannot too soon learn the lesson\nthat to a singular degree, and in many other directions than their\nnotions of accuracy, the ancient mind differs from the modern mind,\nand that at any period there is a great gulf to be crossed before a\nWestern mind can get into any intimate and sure _rapport_ with an\nEastern mind.\n\nOne other thing is noteworthy. Wellhausen has already been quoted\nas to the quite universal and moral character of the Decalogue;\nand his view, that a code so free from merely local and ceremonial\nprovisions can hardly be Mosaic, has been discussed. But, while\nrejecting his conclusion, we must adhere to his premisses. By\nemphasising the universal nature of the ten commandments, and by\nshowing that they preceded the ceremonial law by many centuries,\nthe critical school have cut away the ground from under the\nsemi-antinomian views once so prevalent, and always so popular,\nwith those who call themselves advanced thinkers. It is now no\nlonger possible to maintain that the Decalogue was part of a purely\nJewish law, binding only upon Jews and passing away at the advent\nof Christianity as the ceremonial law did. Of course this view was\nnever really taken seriously in reference to murder or theft; but\nit has always been a strong point with those who have wished to\nsecularise the Sunday. Now if the advanced critical position be in\nany degree true, then the ten commandments stand quite separate\nfrom the ceremonial law, have nothing in common with it, and are\nhanded down to us in a document written before the conception even\nof a binding ceremonial law had dawned upon the mind of any man in\nIsrael. Nor is there anything ceremonial or Jewish in the command,\nRemember _or_ Observe the rest-day to keep it holy. In the reasons\ngiven in Exodus and Deuteronomy we have the two principles which\nmake this a moral and universal command--the necessity for rest,\nand the necessity of an opportunity to cultivate the spiritual\nnature. Nothing indeed is said about worship; but it lies in the\nnature of the case that if secular work was rigorously forbidden,\nmere slothful abstinence from activity cannot have been all that\nwas meant. Worship, and instruction in the things of the higher\nlife, must certainly have been practised in such a nation as Israel\non such a day; and we may therefore say that they were intended by\nthis commandment. Understood in that way, the fourth commandment\nshows a delicate perception of the conditions of the higher life,\nwhich surpasses even the prohibition of covetousness in the tenth.\nIn the words of a working man who was advocating its observance,\n\"It gives God a chance\"; that is, it gives man the leisure to\nattend to God. But the moral point of view which it implies is so\nhigh, and so difficult of attainment, that it is only now that the\nnations of Europe are awaking to the inestimable moral benefits of\nthe Sabbath they have despised. Because of this difficulty too,\nmany who think themselves to be leaders in the path of improvement,\nand are esteemed by others to be so, are never weary of trying to\nweaken the moral consciousness of the people, until they can steal\nthis benefit away, on the ground that Sabbath-keeping is a mere\nceremonial observance. So far from being that, it is a moral duty\nof the highest type; and the danger in which it seems at times to\nstand is due mainly to the fact that to appreciate it needs a far\nmore trained and sincere conscience than most of us can bring to the\nconsideration of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n_THE DECALOGUE--ITS SUBSTANCE_\n\n\nThat the Decalogue in any of its forms must have been the work of\none mind, and that a very great and powerful mind, will be evident\non the most cursory inspection. We have not here, as we have in\nother parts of Scripture, fragments of legislation supplementary to\na large body of customary law, fragments which, because of their\nintrinsic importance or the necessities of a particular time, have\nbeen written down. We have here an extraordinarily successful\nattempt to bring within a definite small compass the fundamental\nlaws of social and individual life. The wonder of it does not lie\nin the individual precepts. All of them, or almost all of them, can\nbe paralleled in the legislation of other peoples, as indeed could\nnot fail to be the case if the _fundamental_ laws of society and\nof individual conduct were aimed at. These must be obeyed, more or\nless, in every society that survives. It is the wisdom with which\nthe selection has been made; it is the sureness of hand which has\npicked out just those things which were central, and has laid aside\nas irrelevant everything local, temporary, and purely ceremonial;\nit is the relation in which the whole is placed to God,--these give\nthis small code its distinction. In these respects it is like the\nLord's Prayer. It is vain for men to point out this petition of that\nunique prayer as occurring here, that other as occurring there,\nand a third as found in yet another place. Even if every single\npetition contained in it could be unearthed somewhere, it would\nstill remain as unique as ever; for where can you find a prayer\nwhich, like it, groups the fundamental cries of humanity to God in\nsuch short space and with so sure a touch, and brings them all into\nsuch deep connection with the Fatherhood of God? In both cases, in\nthe prayer and in the Decalogue alike, we must recognise that the\ngrouping is the work of one mind; and in both we must recognise also\nthat, whatever were the natural and human powers of the mind that\nwrought the code and prayer respectively, the main element in the\nsuccess that has attended their work is the extraordinary degree in\nwhich they were illumined by the Divine Spirit. But where, between\nthe time of Moses and the time when Deuteronomy first laid hold\nupon the life of the nation, are we to look for a legislator of\nthis pre-eminence? So far as we know the history, there is no name\nthat would occur to us. So far as can be seen, Moses alone has been\nmarked out for us in the history of his people as equal to, and\nlikely to undertake, such a task. Everything, therefore, concurs to\nthe conclusion that in the Decalogue we have the first, the most\nsacred, and the fundamental law in Israel. Here Moses spoke for God;\nand whatever additions to his original ten words later times may\nhave made, they have not obscured or overlaid what must be ascribed\nto him. He may not have been the author of much that bears his name,\nfor unquestionably there were developments later than his time which\nwere called Mosaic because they were a continuation and adaptation\nof his work; but we are justified in believing that here we have the\nfirst law he gave to Israel; and in it we should be able to see the\nreally germinal principles of the religion he taught.\n\nNow, manifestly, a religion which spoke its first word in the ten\ncommandments, even in their simplest form, must have been in\nits very heart and core moral. It must always have been a heresy\ntherefore, a denial of the fundamental Mosaic conception, to place\nritual observance _per se_ above moral and religious conduct, as\na means of approach to Yahweh. On any reading of the commandments\nonly the third and fourth (two out of ten) refer to matters of\nmere worship; and even these may more correctly be taken to refer\nprimarily to the moral aspects of the cultus. All the rest deal with\nfundamental relations to God and man. Consequently the prophets\nwho, after the manner of Amos and Hosea, denounce the prevailing\nbelief that Yahweh's help could be secured for Israel, whatever\nits moral state, by offerings and sacrifices, were not teaching\na new doctrine, first discovered by themselves. They were simply\nreasserting the fundamental principles of the Mosaic religion.\nReverence and righteousness--these from the first were the twin\npillars upon which it rested. Before ever the ceremonial law, even\nin its most rudimentary form, had been given, these were emphasised\nin the strongest way as the requirements of Yahweh; and the people\nwhom the prophets reproved, instead of being the representatives of\nthe ancient Yahwistic faith, had rejected it. Whether the popular\nview was a falling away from a truer view which had once been\npopular, or whether it represented a heathen tendency which remained\nin Israel from pre-Mosaic times and had not even in the days of Amos\nbeen overcome, it seems undeniable that it was entirely contrary\nto the fundamental principles of Yahwism as given by Moses. Even\nby the latest narrators, those who brought our Pentateuch into its\npresent shape, and who were, it is supposed, completely under the\ninfluence of ceremonial Judaism, the primarily moral character of\nYahweh's religion was acknowledged by the place they gave to the\nten commandments. They alone are handed down as spoken by Yahweh\nHimself, and as having preceded all other commands; and the terrors\nof Sinai, the thunder and the earthquake, are made more intimately\nthe accompaniments of this law than of any other. Unquestionably\nthe mind of Israel always was, that here, and not in the ceremonial\nlaw, was the centre of gravity of Yahwism. In the view of that\nfact it is somewhat hard to understand how so many writers of our\ntimes, who admit the Decalogue to have been Mosaic, or at any rate\npre-prophetic, yet deny the prevailingly moral character of the\nearly religion of Israel. When this law was once promulgated, the\nold naturalism in which Israel, like other ancient races, had been\nentangled was repudiated, and the relation between Yahweh and His\npeople was declared to be one which rested upon moral conduct in the\nwidest sense of that term. And the ground of this fact is plainly\ndeclared here to be the character of Yahweh: \"I am the Lord thy God,\nthat brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of\nbondage.\" He was their deliverer, He had a right to command them,\nand His commands revealed His nature to His people.\n\nThe first four commandments show that Yahweh was already conceived\nas a spiritual being, removed by a whole heaven from the gods of the\nCanaanite nations by whom Israel was surrounded. These were mere\nrepresentatives of the powers of nature. As such they were regarded\nas existing in pairs, each god having his female counterpart; and\ntheir acts had all the indifference to moral considerations which\nnature in its processes shows. They dwelt in mountain tops, in\ntrees, in rude stones, or in obelisks, and they were worshipped\nby rites so sanguinary and licentious that Canaanite worship bore\neverywhere a darker stain than even nature-worship elsewhere had\ndisclosed. In contrast to all this the Yahweh of the Decalogue\nis \"alone,\" in solitary and unapproachable separation. Amid all\nthe unbridled speculation that has been let loose on this subject,\nno one, I think, has ever ventured to join with Him any name of\na goddess, and He sternly repudiates the worship of any other\ngod besides Him. Now, though there is nothing said of monotheism\nhere, _i.e._ of the doctrine that no god but one exists, yet, in\ncontrast to the hospitality which distinguished and distinguishes\nnature-worship in all its forms, Yahweh here claims from His people\nworship of the most exclusive kind. Besides Him they were to have no\nobject of worship. He, in His unapproachable separateness, had alone\na claim upon their reverence. Further, in contrast to the gods who\ndwelt in trees and stones and pillars, and who could be represented\nby symbols of that kind, Yahweh sternly forbade the making of any\nimage to represent Him. Thereby He declared Himself spiritual, in so\nfar as He claimed that no visible thing could adequately represent\nHim. In contrast to the ethnic religions in general, even that of\nZarathushtra, the noblest of all, where only the natural element of\nfire was taken to be the god or his symbol, this fundamental command\nasserts the supersensuous nature of the Deity, thereby rising at one\nstep clear above all naturalism.\n\nSo great is the step indeed, that Kuenen and others, who cannot\nescape the evidence for the antiquity of the other commandments,\ninsist that this at least cannot be pre-prophetic, since we have\nsuch numerous proofs of the worship of Yahweh by images, down at\nleast to the time of Josiah's reform. But, by all but Stade, it is\nadmitted that there was at Shiloh under Eli, and at Jerusalem under\nDavid and Solomon, no visible representation of Deity. Now the\nsame writers who tell us this everywhere represent the worship of\nYahweh by images as existing among the people. According to their\nview, the nation had a continual and hereditary tendency to slip\ninto image-worship, or to maintain it as pre-Mosaic custom. And it\nis quite certain that up even to the Captivity, and after, when,\naccording to even the very boldest negative view, this command had\nbeen long known, image-worship, not only of Yahweh, but also of\nfalse gods and of the host of heaven, was largely prevalent. Only\nthe Captivity, with its hardships and trials, brought Israel to\nsee that image-worship was incompatible with any true belief in\nYahweh. Undeniably, therefore, the existence of an authoritative\nprohibition does not necessarily produce obedience; and the Biblical\nview that the Decalogue is Israel's earliest law proves to be the\nmore reasonable, as well as the better authenticated of the two.\nIf, after the command beyond all doubt existed in Israel, it needed\nthe calamities of Israel's last days, and the hardships and griefs\nof the Exile, to get it completely observed, and if in Jerusalem\nand at Shiloh in the pre-prophetic time Yahweh was worshipped\nwithout images, there can hardly be a doubt that this command must\nhave existed in the earliest period. For no religion is to be\njudged by the actual practice of the multitude. The true criterion\nis its highest point; and the imageless worship of Jerusalem is\nmuch more difficult to understand if the second commandment was\nnot acknowledged previously in Israel, than it would be if the\nDecalogue, essentially as we now have it, was acknowledged in the\ndays before the kingship at least.[25]\n\n  [25] Granting that the commandment did not exist, one asks, _What_\n  was it in Yahwism which determined the Jerusalem Sanctuary to be\n  imageless?\n\nThe arguments advanced by Kuenen and Wellhausen for a contrary\nview, beyond those we have just been considering, rest on an undue\nextension of the prohibition to make any likeness of anything.\nThey adduce the brazen serpent of Moses, and the Cherubim, and the\nbrazen bulls that bore the brazen laver in the court of the Temple\nat Jerusalem, and the ornaments of that building, as a proof that\neven in Jerusalem this commandment cannot have been known. But, as\nwe have seen, the original command prohibited only the making of a\n_pesel_, _i.e._ of an image for worship. The making of likenesses\nof men and animals for mere purposes of art and adornment was never\nincluded; and the whole objection falls to the ground unless it be\nasserted that the bulls under the basin were actually worshipped by\nthose who came into the Temple!\n\nThe supersensuous nature of Yahweh must, therefore, be taken to be a\nfundamental part of the Mosaic religion. But besides being solitary\nand supersensuous, Yahweh was declared by Moses, perhaps by His\nvery name, to be not only mighty, but helpful. The preface to the\nwhole series of commandments is, \"I am Yahweh thy God, who brought\nthee forth out of the land of Egypt.\" Now of all the derivations of\nYahweh, that which most nearly commands universal acceptance is its\nderivation from _hayah_, to be. And the probabilities are all in\nfavour of the view that it does not imply mere timeless existence,\nas the translation of the explanation in Exodus[26] has led many to\nbelieve. That is a purely philosophical idea entirely outside of\nmorality, and it can hardly be that the introduction to this moral\ncode, which announces the author of it, should contain no moral\nreference. If the name be from Qal, and be connected with _ehyeh_,\nthen it means, as Dillmann says (_Exodus and Leviticus_, p. 35),\nthat He will be what He has been, and the name involves a reference\nto all that the God of Israel has been in the past. Such He will\nbe in the future, for He is what He is, without variableness or\nshadow of turning. If, on the other hand, it be from Hiphil, it will\nmean \"He who causes to be,\" the creator. In either case there is a\nclear rise above the ordinary Semitic names for God, Baal, Molech,\nMilkom, which all express mere lordship. No doubt Yahweh was also\ncalled Baal, or Lord, just as we find Him in the Psalms addressed as\n\"my King and my God\"; but the specially Mosaic name, the personal\nname of the God of Israel, does undoubtedly imply quite another\nquality in God. It is the Helper who has revealed Himself to Israel\nwho here speaks. Hence the addition, \"who brought thee out of the\nland of Egypt.\" It is as a Saviour that Yahweh addresses His people.\nBy His very name He lifts all the commands He gives out of the\nregion of mere might, or the still lower region of gratification at\nofferings and precious things bestowed, into the region of gratitude\nand love.\n\n  [26] iii. 14.\n\nFurther, by issuing this code under the name of Yahweh Moses claimed\nfor Him a moral character. Whether the Hebrew word for holy,\n_q\u0101dh\u014dsh_, implied more in those days than mere separateness, may\nbe doubted; but it is impossible that the idea which we now connect\nwith the word \"holy\" should not have been held to be congruous\nto, and expressive of, the nature of Yahweh. Here morality in its\ninitial and fundamental stages is set forth as an expression of His\nwill. And similarly, righteousness must also be an attribute of His,\nfor justice between man and man is made to be His demand upon men.\nHe Himself, therefore, must be faithful as well as holy, and His\nemancipation from the clinging chain of mere naturalism was thereby\ncompleted. The Yahweh of the Decalogue is therefore absolutely\nalone. He is supersensuous. He is the Helper and Saviour, and He is\nholy and true. These are His fundamental qualities. Such qualities\nmay be supposed to be present only in their elements, even to the\nmind of Moses himself: yet the fundamental germinal point was there:\nand all that has grown out of it may be justly put to the credit of\nthis first revelation.\n\nA moment's thought will show how the teaching that Yahweh alone was\nto be worshipped broke away from the main stream of Semitic belief,\nand prepared the way for the ultimate prevalence of the belief that\nGod was one. That He was supersensuous, so that He could not rightly\nor adequately be represented by any likeness of anything in heaven\nor earth or sea, left no possible outlet for thought about Him,\nsave in the direction that He was a Spirit. In essence consequently\nthe spirituality of God was thereby secured. Still more important\nperhaps was the conception of Yahweh as the Helper and Deliverer,\nthe Saviour of His people; for this at once suggested the thought\nthat the true bond between God and man was not mere necessity, nor\nmere dependence upon resistless power, but love--love to a Divine\nHelper who revealed Himself in gracious acts and providences,\nand who longed after and cared for His people with a perfectly\nundeserved affection. Lastly, His holiness and faithfulness, His\nrighteousness in fact, held implicit in it His supremacy and\nuniversality. As Wellhausen has said, \"As God of justice and right,\nYahweh came to be thought of as the highest, and at last as the only\npower in heaven and earth.\" Whether that last stage was present to\nthe mind of Moses, or of any who received the commandments in the\nfirst place, is of merely secondary importance. At the very least,\nthe way which must necessarily lead to that stage was opened here,\nand the mind of man entered upon the path to a pure monotheism, a\nmonotheism which separated God from the world, and referred to His\nwill all that happened in the world of created things. God is One,\nGod is a Spirit, God is Love, and God rules over all--these are\nthe attributes of Yahweh as the Decalogue sets them forth; and in\nprinciple the whole higher life of humanity was secured by the great\nsynthesis.\n\nLike all beginnings, this was an achievement of the highest kind.\nNowhere but in the soul of one Divinely enlightened man could such\na revelation have made itself known; and the solitude of a lonely\nshepherd's life, following upon the stir and training of a high\nplace in the cultured society of Egypt, gave precisely the kind\nof environment which would prepare the soul to hear the voice by\nwhich God spoke. For we are not to suppose that this revelation\ncame to Moses without any effort or preparation on his part. God\ndoes not reveal His highest to the slothful or the debased. Even\nwhen He speaks from Sinai in thunder and in flame, it is only the\nman who has been exercising himself in these great matters who can\nunderstand and remember. All the people had been terrified by the\nDivine Presence, but they forgot the law immediately and fell back\ninto idolatry. It was Moses who retained it and brought it back to\nthem again. His personality was the organ of the Divine will; and\nin this law which he promulgated Moses laid the foundation of all\nthat now forms the most cherished heritage of men. The central thing\nin religion is the character of God. Contrary to the prevailing\nfeeling, which makes many say that they know nothing of God, but are\nsure of their duty to man, history teaches that, in the end, man's\nthought of God is the decisive thing. Everything else shapes itself\naccording to that; and by taking the first great steps, which broke\nthrough the limits of mere naturalism, Moses laid the foundation of\nall that was to come. There was here the promise and the potency\nof all higher life: love and holiness had their way prepared, so\nthat they should one day become supreme in man's conception of the\nhighest life: the confused halting between the material and the\nspiritual, which can be traced in the very highest conceptions of\nmerely natural religions, was in principle done away. And what was\nhere gained was never lost again. Even though the multitude never\nreally grasped all that Moses had proclaimed Yahweh to be; and\nthough it should be proved, which is as yet by no means the case,\nthat even David thought of Him as limited in power and claims by the\nextent of the land which Israel inhabited; and though, as a matter\nof fact, the full-orbed universality which the ten commandments\nimplicitly held in them was not attained under the old covenant at\nall; yet these ten words remained always an incitement to higher\nthoughts. No advance made in religion or morals by the chosen people\never superseded them. Even when Christ came, He came not to destroy\nbut to fulfil. The highest reach of even His thoughts as regards\nGod could be brought easily and naturally under the terms of this\nfundamental revelation to Israel.\n\nThe remaining commands, those which deal with the relations of men\nto each other, are naturally introduced by the fifth commandment,\nwhich, while it deals with human relations, deals with those which\nmost nearly resemble the relations between God and man. Reverence\nfor God, the deliverer and forgiver of men, is the sum of the\ncommandments which precede; and here we have inculcated reverence\nfor those who are, under God, the source of life, upon whose love\nand care all, at their entrance into life, are so absolutely\ndependent. Love is not commanded; because in such relations it is\nnatural, and moreover it cannot be produced at will. But reverence\nis; and from the place of the command, manifestly what is required\nis something of that same awful respect which is due to Yahweh\nHimself. The power which parents had over their children in Israel\nwas extensive, though much less so than that possessed, for example,\nby Roman parents. A father could sell his daughters to be espoused\nas subordinate wives;[27] he could disallow any vows a daughter\nmight wish to take upon her;[28] and both parents could bring an\nincorrigibly rebellious son to the elders of the city[29] and have\nhim stoned publicly to death. But, according to Moses, the main\nrestraining forces in the home should be love and reverence, guarded\nonly by the solemn sanction of death to the openly irreverent, just\nas reverence for Yahweh was guarded.\n\n  [27] Exod. xxi. 7.\n\n  [28] Numb. xxx. 6.\n\n  [29] Deut. xxi. 8.\n\nThere was here nothing of the sordid view, repudiated so\nenergetically by Jewish scholars like Kalisch,[30] that we ought\n\"to weigh and measure filial affection after the degree of\nenjoyed benefits.\" No; to this law \"the relation between parents\nand children is holy, religious, godly, not of a purely human\ncharacter\"; and it is a mere profanation to regard it as we in\nmodern times too often do. In our mad pursuit after complete\nindividual liberty we have fallen back into a moral region which it\nwas the almost universal merit of the ancient civilisations to have\nleft behind them. It is true, certainly, that there were reasons for\nthis advance then which we could not now recognise without falling\nback from our own attainments in other directions; but it was the\nsaving salt of the ancient civilisations that the parents in a\nhousehold were surrounded with an atmosphere of reverence, which\nmade transgressions against them as rare as they were considered\nhorrible. The modern freedom may in favourable circumstances\nproduce more intimate and sympathetic intercourse between parents\nand children; but in the average household it has lowered the\nwhole tone of family life; and it threatens sooner or later, if\nthe ancient feeling cannot be restored, to destroy the family, the\nvery keystone of our religion and civilisation. This commandment\nis not conditioned on the question whether parents have been more\nor less successful in giving their children what they desire, or\nwhether they have been wise and unselfish in their dealing with\ntheir children. As parents they have a claim upon their respect,\ntheir tenderness, their observance, which can be neglected only at\nthe children's peril. Even the average parent gives quite endless\nthought and care to his children, and almost unconsciously falls\ninto the habit of living for them. That brings with it for the\nchildren an indelible obligation; and along with the new and wiser\nfreedom which is permitted in the modern home, this reverence should\ngrow, just as the love and reverence for God on the part of those\nwho have been made the free children of God through Christ ought far\nto exceed that to which the best of the Old Testament saints could\nattain.\n\n  [30] Kalisch, _Exodus_, p. 364:--yet taught in all Victorian State\n  schools under the vicious system at present admitted.\n\nWant of reverence for parents is, in the Decalogue, made almost one\nwith want of reverence toward God, and, in the case of this human\nduty alone, there is a promise annexed to its observance. The duty\nruns so deep into the very core of human life, that its fulfilment\nbrings wholesomeness to the moral nature; this health spreads into\nthe merely physical constitution, and long life becomes the reward.\nBut apart from the quietude of heart and the power of self-restraint\nwhich so great a duty rightly fulfilled brings with it, we must\nalso suppose that in a special manner the blessing of God does\nrest upon dutiful children. Even in the modern world, amid all its\ncomplexity, and though in numberless instances it may seem to have\nbeen falsified, this promise verifies itself on the large scale.\nIn the less complex life of early Israel we may well believe that\nits verification was even more strikingly seen. In both ancient\nand modern times, moreover, the human conscience has leaped up\nto justify the belief that of all the sins committed without the\nbody this is the most heinous, and that there does rest upon it\nin a peculiar manner the wrath of Almighty God. It is a blasphemy\nagainst love in its earliest manifestations to the soul, and only by\nanswering love with love and reverence can there be any fulfilling\nof the law.\n\nAfter the fifth, the commandments deal with the purely human\nrelations; but in coming down from the duties which men owe to God,\nthis law escapes the sordidness which seems to creep over the laws\nof other nations, when they have to deal with the rights and duties\nof men. The human rights are taken up rather into their relation\nto God, and cease to be mere matters of bargain and arrangement.\nThey are viewed entirely from the religious and moral standpoint.\nFor example, the destruction of human life, which in most cases\nwas in ancient times dealt with by private law, and was punished\nby fines or money payments, is here regarded solely as a sin, an\nact forbidden by God. The will of a holy God is the source of these\nprohibitions, however much the idea of property may extend in them\nbeyond the limits which to us now seem fitting. They begin with the\nprotection of a man's life, the highest of his possessions. Next,\nthey prohibit any injury to him through his wife, who next to his\nlife is most dear to him. Then property in our modern sense is\nprotected; and lastly, rising out of the merely physical region, the\nninth commandment prohibits any attack upon a man's civil standing\nor honour by false witness concerning him in the courts of justice.\nTo that crime Easterns are prone to a degree which Westerns, whom\nRome has trained to reverence for law, can hardly realise. In India,\nat this hour, false witnesses can be purchased in the open market\nat a trifling price; and under native government the whole forces\nof civil justice become instruments of the most remediless and\nexasperating tyranny. So long as the law has not spoken its last\nword _against_ the innocent, there is hope of remedy; justice may\nat last assert itself. But when, either by corrupt witnesses or by\na corrupt judge, the law itself inflicts the wrong, then redress\nis impossible, and we have the oppression which drives a wise man\nmad. Both murder and robbery, moreover, may be perpetrated by false\nswearing; and the trust, the confidence that social life demands, is\nutterly destroyed by it.\n\nBut it is in the tenth commandment especially that this code soars\nmost completely away beyond others. In four short words the whole\nregion of neighbourly duty, so far as acts are concerned, has been\ncovered, and with that other codes have been content. But the laws\nof Yahweh must cover more than that. Out of the heart proceed all\nthese acts which have been forbidden, and Yahweh takes knowledge\nof its thoughts and intents. The covetous desire, the grasping\nafter that which we cannot lawfully have, that, too, is absolutely\nforbidden. It has been pointed out that the first commandment also\ndeals with the thoughts. \"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,\"\nseparated from the prohibition of idol-worship, can refer only to\nthe inward adoration or submission of the heart. And in this last\ncommandment also it is the evil desire, the lust which \"bringeth\nforth sin,\" which is condemned. In its beginning and ending,\ntherefore, this code transcends the limits ordinarily fixed for\nlaw; it leads the mind to a view of the depth and breadth of the\nevil that has to be coped with, which the other precepts, taken\nby themselves and understood in their merely literal sense, would\nscarcely suggest.\n\nThis fact should guard us against the common fallacy that Moses and\nthe people of his day could not have understood these commandments\nin any sense except the barely literal one. In the first and tenth\ncommandments there is involved the whole teaching of our Lord that\nhe that hateth his brother is a murderer. The evil thought that\nfirst stirs the evil desire is here placed on the same interdicted\nlevel as the evil deed; and though until our Lord had spoken none\nhad seen all that was implied, yet here too He was only fulfilling,\nbringing to perfection, that which the law as given by Moses had\nfirst outlined. With this in view, it seems difficult to justify\nthat interpretation of the commandments which refuses all depth\nof meaning to them. The initial and final references to the inner\nthoughts of men, the delicate moral perception which puts so\nunerring a finger on the sources of sin, show that such literalism\nis out of place. No interpretation can do this law justice which\ntreats it superficially; and instead of feeling safest when we find\nleast in these commandments, we should welcome from them all the\ncorrection and reproof which a reasonable exegesis will sustain.\n\nSome of those who adopt the other view do so in the interests of\nthe authenticity of the commandments. They say, We must be careful\nnot to put into them any idea which transcends what was possible\nin the days of Moses; otherwise we must agree with those who bring\ndown the date of these marvellous ten words to the middle of the\nseventh century B.C. But there is much ground for distrusting modern\njudgments as to what men can have thought and felt in earlier and\nruder stages of society. So long as the _na\u00efve_ interpretation\nof the state of man before the fall prevailed, which Milton has\nmade so widely popular, the tendency was to exaggerate the early\nman's moral and spiritual attainments. Now, when the most degraded\nsavages are taken as the truest representatives of primitive man,\nthe temptation is to minimise both unduly. How often have we been\ntold, for example, that the Australian is the lowest of mankind,\nand that he has no other idea of a spiritual world than that when\nhe dies he will \"jump up\" a white man! Yet Mr. A. W. Howitt,[31]\nan unexceptionable authority, as having himself been \"initiated\"\namong the Australian blacks, tells us that they give religious and\nmoral instruction to their boys when they receive the privileges\nof manhood. His words are: \"The teachings of the initiation are in\na series of 'moral lessons,' pantomimically displayed in a manner\nintended to be so impressive as to be indelible. There is clearly a\nbelief in a Great Spirit, or rather an anthropomorphic Supernatural\nBeing, the 'Master of all,' whose abode is above the sky, and to\nwhom are attributed powers of omnipotence and omnipresence, or,\nat any rate, the power 'to do anything and to go anywhere.' The\nexhibition of his image to the novices, and the magic dances round\nit, approach very near to idol-worship. The wizards who profess to\ncommunicate with him, and to be the mediums of communication between\nhim and his tribe, are not far removed from an organised priesthood.\nTo his direct ordinance are attributed the spiritual and moral laws\nof the community. Although there is no worship of Daram\u00fclun, as, for\ninstance, by prayer, yet there is clearly an invocation of him by\nname, and a belief that certain acts please while others displease\nhim.\" To most it would have seemed absurd to attribute religious\nideas of such a kind to a people in the social and moral condition\nof the Australian aborigines. Yet here we have the testimony of a\nperfectly competent and reliable witness, who, moreover, has no\npersonal bias in favour of theologic notions, to prove that even in\ntheir present state their theology is of this comparatively advanced\nkind.\n\n  [31] _Journal Anthropological Institute_, May 1884, p. 28.\n\nMany critics like Stade, and even Kuenen, would deny to Israel in\nthe days of Moses any conception of Yahweh which would equal the\nAustralian conception of Daram\u00fclun! Not to speak of the \"regrettable\nvivacities\" of Renan in regard to Yahweh, Kuenen would deny to the\nMosaic Yahweh the title of Lord of all; he would deny to Him the\npower \"to go anywhere and to do anything,\" binding Him strictly to\nHis tribe and His land; he would make His priests little more than\nthe Australian wizards; and purely moral laws like the Decalogue\nWellhausen would remove to a late date mainly because such laws\ntranscend the limits of the thought and knowledge of the Mosaic\ntime. But can any one believe that Israel in the Mosaic time had\nlower beliefs than those of the Australian aborigines? In every\nother respect they had left far behind them the social state and the\nmerely embryonic culture of the Australian tribes. Moses himself is\nan irrefragable proof of that. No such man as he could have arisen\namong a people in the state of the Australians. Even the fact that\nthe Hebrews had lived in Egypt, and had been compelled to do forced\nlabour for a long series of years, would of itself have raised them\nto a higher stage of culture. Moreover they built houses, and owned\nsheep and cattle, and must have known at least the rudiments of\nagriculture. Indeed Deut. xi. 10 asserts this, and the testimony of\ntravellers as to the habits of the tribes in the wilderness of the\nwanderings now confirms it. Further, they had been in contact with\nEgyptian religion, and they had been surrounded by cults having more\nor less relation to the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia. Under\nsuch circumstances, even apart from all revelation, it could not be\nassumed that their religious ideas must needs correspond to modern\nnotions of the low type of primitive religions. On the contrary,\nnothing but the clearest proof that their religious conceptions\nwere so surprisingly low should induce us to believe it. On any\nsupposition, they had in the Mosaic time the first germs of what\nis now universally admitted to be the highest form of religion. Can\nwe believe that only 1300 years B.C., in the full light of history,\ncoming out of a land where the religion of the people had been\nsystematised and elaborated, not for centuries, but for millenniums,\nand only 600 years before the monotheistic prophets, a people at\nsuch a stage of civilisation as the Hebrews can have had cruder\nnotions of Deity than the Wiraijuri and Wolgal tribes of New South\nWales![32] It may have been so; but before we take it to have been\nso, we have a right to demand evidence of a stringent kind, evidence\nwhich leaves us no way of escape from a conclusion so improbable.\n\n  [32] See Page Renouf, _Hibbert Lectures_.\n\nMoreover the acceptance of the view now opposed does not get rid\nof the necessity for supernatural enlightenment in Israel. It only\ntransfers it from an earlier to a later time. For if the knowledge\nof Israel in Moses' day was below the Wolgal standard, then it\nwould seem inexplicable that the ethical monotheism of the prophets\nshould have grown out of it by any merely natural process. If there\nwere no inspiration before the prophets, though they believed and\nasserted there was, then their own inspiration only becomes the\nmore marvellous. It is not needful to deny that the Hebrew tribes\nmay at some time have passed through the low stage of religious\nbelief of which these writers speak. But they err conspicuously in\nregarding every trace of animistic and fetichistic worship which can\nbe unearthed in the language, the ceremonies, and the habits of the\nHebrews at the Exodus, as evidence of the highest beliefs of the\npeople at that time. As a matter of fact, these were probably mere\nsurvivals of a state of thought and feeling then either superseded\nor in the process of being so. Besides, the mass of any people\nalways lag far behind the thoughts and aspirations of the highest\nthinkers of their nation; and if we admit inspiration at all as a\nfactor in the religious development of Israel, the distance between\nwhat Moses taught and believed himself, and what he could get the\nmass of the people to believe and practise, must have been still\ngreater. If he gave the people the ten commandments, he must have\nbeen far above them, and dogmatic assertions as to what he can have\nthought and believed ought to be abandoned.\n\nGranting, however, that all we have found in the Decalogue's\nconception of Yahweh was present to the mind of Moses, and granting\nthat the commands which deal with the relations of men to each\nother are not mere isolated prohibitions, but are founded upon\nmoral principles which were understood even then to have much\nwider implications, there still remains a gap between the widest\nmeaning that early time could put into them, and that which Luther's\nCatechism, or the Catechism of the Westminster Divines, for example,\nasserts. The question therefore arises whether these wider and more\ndetailed explanations, which make the Decalogue cover the whole\nfield of the moral and religious life, are legitimate, and if so,\non what principle can they be justified? The reply would seem to\nbe that they are legitimate, and that the ten words did contain\nmuch more than Moses or any of his nation for many centuries after\nhim understood. For any fruitful thought, any thought which really\npenetrates the heart of things, must have in it wider implications\nthan the first thinker of it can have conceived. If by any means a\nman has had insight to see the central fact of any domain of thought\nand life, its applications will not be limited to the comparatively\nfew cases to which he may apply it. He will generally be content\nto deduce from his discovery just those conclusions which in\nhis circumstances and in his day are practically useful and are\nmost clamorously demanded. But those who come after, pressed by\nnew needs, challenged by new experiences, and enlightened by new\nthoughts in related regions, will assuredly find that more was\ninvolved in that first step than any one had seen. The scope of the\nfruitful principle will thus inevitably widen with the course of\nthings, and inferences undreamed of by those who first enunciated\nthe principle will be securely drawn from it by later generations.\nNow if that be true in regard to truths discovered by the unassisted\nintellect of man, how much more true will it be of thoughts which\nhave first been revealed to man under the influence of inspiration?\nBehind the human mind which received them and applied them to the\ncircumstances which then had to be dealt with, there is always the\ninfinite mind which sees that\n\n                    \"Far-off Divine event\n    To which the whole creation moves.\"\n\nThe Divine purpose of the revelation must be the true measure of the\nthoughts revealed, and the Divine purpose can best be learned by\nstudying the results as they have actually evolved themselves in the\ncourse of ages. Consequently, while the fundamental point in sound\ninterpretation of a book such as the Bible is to ascertain _first_\nwhat the statements made therein signified to those who heard them\nfirst, the second point is not to shut the mind to the wider and\nmore extensive applications of them which the thought and experience\nof men, taught by the course of history, have been induced, or even\ncompelled, to make. Both the narrower and the wider meanings are\nthere, and were meant to be found there. No exposition which ignores\neither can be adequate.\n\nThat all works of God are to be dealt with in this way is\nbeautifully demonstrated by Ruskin (_Fors Clavigera_, Vol. I.,\nLetter V.). In criticising the statement of a botanist that \"there\nis no such thing as a flower,\" after admitting that in a certain\nsense the lecturer was right, he goes on to say: \"But in the deepest\nsense of all, he was to the extremity of wrongness wrong; for\nleaf and root and fruit exist, all of them, only--that there may\nbe flowers. He disregarded the life and passion of the creature,\nwhich were its essence. Had he looked for these, he would have\nrecognised that in the thought of nature herself, there is, in a\nplant, nothing else but flowers.\" That means, of course, that the\nfinal perfection of a development is the real and final meaning of\nit all. Now any thought given by God in this special manner which we\ncall \"inspiration\" has in it a manifold and varied life, and an end\nin view, which God alone foresees. It works like leaven, it grows\nlike a seed. It is supremely living and powerful; and though it may\nhave begun its life, like the mustard seed, in a small and lowly\nsphere, it casts out branches on all sides till its entire allotted\nspace is filled. So in the Decalogue; the central chord in all the\nmatters dealt with has been touched with Divine skill, and all that\nhas further to be revealed or learned on that matter must lie in the\nline of the first announcement.\n\nIt is not, therefore, an illegitimate extension of the meaning\nof the first commandment to say that it teaches monotheism, nor\nof the second that it teaches the spirituality of God, nor of\nthe seventh that it forbids all sensuality in thought or word or\ndeed. It is true that probably only the separateness of God was\noriginally seen to be asserted in the first, and the words may\npossibly have been understood to mean that the \"other gods\" referred\nto had some kind of actual life. The second, too, may have seemed\nto be fulfilled when no earthly thing that was made by man was\ntaken to represent Yahweh. Lastly, those who say that nothing is\nforbidden in the seventh commandment but literal adultery have much\nto say for themselves. In a polygamous society concubinage always\nexists. The absence of the more flagrant of what in monogamous\nsocieties are called social evils does not in the least imply the\nsuperior morality, such as many who wish to disparage our Christian\ncivilisation have ascribed, for instance, to Mohammedans. The\ndegraded class of women who are the reproach and the despair of our\nlarge towns are not so frequent in those societies, because all\nwomen are degraded to nearer their level than in monogamous lands.\nBoth lust and vice are more prevalent: and they are so because the\nwhole level of thought and feeling in regard to such matters is much\nlower than with us.\n\nNow, undoubtedly, ancient Israel was no exception to this rule.\nIn it, as a polygamous nation, there was a licence in regard to\nsexual relations with women who were neither married nor betrothed\nwhich would be impossible now in any Christian community. It may\nbe, therefore, that only the married woman was specially protected\nby this law. But in none of these cases did the more rudimentary\nconception of the scope of the commandments last. By imperceptible\nsteps the sweep of them widened, until finally the last consequences\nwere deduced from them, and they were seen to cover the whole sphere\nof human duty. It may have been a long step from the prohibition\nto put other gods along with Yahweh to St. Paul's decisive word\n\"An idol is nothing in the world,\" but the one was from the first\ninvolved in the other. Between \"Thou shalt not make unto thee a\ngraven image\" and our Lord's declaration \"God is a Spirit, and\nmust be worshipped in spirit and in truth,\" there lies a long and\ntoilsome upward movement; but the first was the gate into the path\nwhich must end in the second. Similarly, the commandment which\naffirmed so strongly the sacredness of the family, by hedging round\nthe house-mother with this special defence held implicit in it all\nthat rare and lovely purity which the best type of Christian women\nexhibit. The principles upon which the initial prohibitions were\nfounded were true to fact and to the nature both of God and man.\nThey were, therefore, never found at fault in the advancing stages\nof human experience; and the meaning which a modern congregation\nof Christians finds in these solemn \"words,\" when they are read\nbefore them, is as truly and justly their meaning as the more meagre\ninterpretation which alone ancient Israel could put upon them.\n\nHow gradually, and how naturally, the advancing thoughts and changed\ncircumstances of Israel affected the Decalogue may be seen most\nclearly in the differences between its form as originally given, and\nas it is set forth in Exodus and in Deuteronomy. If the original\nform of these commandments was what we have indicated (p. 69),\nthey corresponded entirely to the circumstances of the wilderness.\nThere is no reference in them which presupposes any other social\nbackground than that of a people dwelling together according to\nfamilies, possessing property, and worshipping Yahweh. None of the\ncommandments involves a social state different from that. But when\nIsrael had entered upon its heritage, and had become possessed of\nthe oxen and asses which were needed in agricultural labour and in\nsettled life, this stage of their progress was reflected in the\nreasons and inducements which were added to the original commands.\nIn the fourth and tenth commandments of Exodus we have consequently\nthe essential commandments of the earlier day adapted to a new\nstate of things, _i.e._ to a settled agricultural life. Then,\neven as between the Exodus and Deuteronomic texts, a progress is\nperceptible. The reasons for keeping the Sabbath which these two\nrecensions give are different, as we have seen, and it is probable\nthat the reason given in Deuteronomy was first. To the people in the\nwilderness came the bare Divine command that this one day was to be\nsacred to Yahweh. In both Exodus and Deuteronomy we have additions,\ngoing into details which show that when these versions were prepared\nIsrael had ceased to be nomadic and had become agricultural. In\nDeuteronomy we find that the importance and usefulness of this\ncommand from a humane point of view had been recognised, and one\nat least of the grounds upon which it should be held a point of\nmorality to keep it is set forth in the words \"that thy manservant\nand thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.\" Finally, if the\ncritical views be correct, in Exodus we have the motive for the\nobservance of the Sabbath raised to the universal and eternal, by\nbeing brought into connection with the creative activity of God.\n\nIf the progression now traced out be real, then we have in it a\nclassical instance of the manner in which Divine commands were\ngiven and dealt with in Israel. Given in the most general form at\nfirst, they inevitably open the way for progress, and as thought\nand experience grow in volume and rise in quality, so does the\nunderstanding of the law as given expand. Under the influence of\nthis expansion addition after addition is made, till the final form\nis reached; and the whole is then set forth as having been spoken by\nYahweh and given by Moses when the command was first promulgated.\nIn such cases literary proprietorship was never in question. Each\naddition was sanctioned by revelation, and those by whom it came\nwere never thought of. It would seem, indeed, that nothing but\nmodern sceptical views as to the reality of revelation, the feeling\nthat all this movement to a higher faith was merely natural, and\nthat the hand of God was not in it, could have suggested to the\nancient Hebrew writers the wish to hand on the names of those by\nwhom such changes were made. Yahweh spoke at the beginning, Moses\nmediated between the people and Yahweh, and the law thus mediated\nwas in all forms equally Mosaic, and in all forms equally Divine.\n\nOne other thing remains to be noticed, and that is the prevailingly\nnegative form of the commandments. Of the ten only the fourth and\nfifth are in the affirmative. All the others are prohibitions, and\nwe who have been taught by Christianity to put emphasis upon the\npositive aspects of duty as the really important aspects of it,\nmay not improbably feel chilled and repelled by a moral code which\nso definitely and prevailingly forbids. But the cause of this is\nplain. A code like that of the Twelve Tables published in early Rome\nis only occasionally negative, because it rises to no great height\nin its demands, and is intent only upon ordering the life of the\ncitizens in their outward conduct. But this code, which seeks to\nraise the whole of life into the sacredness of a continual service\nof God and man, must forbid, because the first condition of such a\nlife is the renunciation and the restriction of self. Benevolent\ndreamers and theorists of all ages, and men of the world whose\nmoral standard is merely the attainment of the average man, have\ndenied the evil tendency in man's nature. They have asserted that\nman is born good; but the facts of experience are entirely against\nthem. Whenever a serious effort has been made to raise man to any\nconspicuous height of moral goodness, it has been found necessary\nto forbid him to follow the bent of his nature. \"Thou shalt not\"\nhas been the prevailing formula; and in this sense original sin has\nalways been witnessed to in the world. Hence the Old Testament, in\nwhich the most strenuous conflict for goodness which the world in\nthose ages knew was being carried on, could not fail, in every part\nof it, to proclaim that man is not born good. However late we may be\ncompelled to put the writing of the story of the fall as it stands\nin Genesis, there can be no question that it represents the view of\nthe Old Testament at all times. Man is fallen; he is not what he\nought to be, and the evil taint is handed on from one generation\nto another. Every generation, therefore, is called, by prophet and\npriest and lawgiver alike, to the conflict against the natural man.\n\nThe truth is that all along the leaders of Israel had a quite\noverawing sense of the moral greatness of Yahweh and of the\nstringency of His demands upon them. \"Be ye holy, for I am holy,\"\nwas His demand; and so among this people, as among no other, the\nsense of sin was heightened, till it embittered life to all who\nseriously took to heart the religion they professed. This feeling\nsought relief in expiatory sacrifices, like the sin offering and\nthe guilt offering; but in vain. It then led to Pharisaic hedging\nof the law, to seeking a positive precept for every moment of time,\nto binding upon men's consciences the most minute and burdensome\nprescriptions, as a means of making them what they must be if they\nwere to meet the Divine requirements. But that too failed. It became\na slavery so intolerable that, when St. Paul received the power of\na new life, his predominant feeling was that for the first time he\nknew what liberty meant. He was set free from both the bondage of\nsin and the bondage of ritual.\n\nTo the religious man of the Old Testament life was a conflict\nagainst evil tendencies, a conflict in which defeat was only too\nfrequent, but from which there was no discharge. It was fitting,\ntherefore, that at the very beginning of Israel's history, as the\npeople of God, this stern prohibition of the rougher manifestations\nof the natural man should stand.\n\nBut it is characteristic of the Old Testament that it states\nthe fundamental fact, without any of the over-refinements and\nexaggerations by which later doctrinal developments have discredited\nit. There is no appearance here, or anywhere in the Old Testament,\nof the Lutheran exaggeration that man is by nature impotent to all\ngood, as a stock or a stone is. Keeping close to the testimony of\nthe universal conscience, the Decalogue, and the Old Testament\ngenerally, speaks to men as those who can be otherwise if they\nwill. There is, further, a robust assertion of righteous intention\nand righteous act on the part of those whose minds are set to be\nfaithful to God. This may have been partly due to a blunter feeling\nin regard to sin, and a less highly developed conscience, but it\nwas mainly a healthy assertion of facts which ought not to be\nignored. Yet, with all that, original sin was too plain a fact ever\nto be denied by the healthy-minded saints of the Old Testament.\nFundamentally, they held that human nature needed to be restrained,\nits innate lawlessness needed to be curbed, before it could be made\nacceptable to God.\n\nAmong the heathen nations that was not so. Take the Greeks, for\ninstance, as the highest among them. Their watchword in morals was\nnot repression, but harmonious development. Every impulse of human\nnature was right, and had the protection of a deity peculiarly its\nown. Restraint, such as the Israelite felt to be his first need,\nwould have been regarded as mutilation by the Greek, for he was\ndominated by no higher ideal than that of a fully developed man.\nThere was no vision of unattainable holiness hovering always before\nhis mind, as there was before the mind of the Israelite. God had\nnot revealed Himself to him in power and unalloyed purity, with a\nbackground of infinite wisdom and omnipotence, so that unearthly\nlove and goodness were seen to be guiding and ruling the world. As\na consequence, the calling and destiny of man were conceived by the\nGreeks in a far less soaring fashion than by Israel. To put the\ndifference in a few words, man, harmoniously developed in all his\npowers and passions and faculties, with nothing excessive about him,\nwas made God by the Greeks; whereas in Israel God was brought down\ninto human life to bear man's burden and to supply the strength\nneeded that man might become like God in truth and mercy and\npurity. It is of course true that both conceived of God under human\ncategories. They could not conceive God save by attributing to Him\nthat which they looked upon as highest in man. It is also true that\nthe higher natures in both nations, starting thus differently, did\nin much approach each other. Still, the immense difference remains,\nthat the impulse in the one case was given from the earth by dreams\nof human perfection, in the other it came from above through men who\nhad seen God. The Greeks had seen only the glory of man; Israel had\nseen the glory of God.\n\nThe result was that human nature as it is seemed to the one much\nmore worthy of respect and much less seriously compromised than it\ndid to the other. Comparing man as he is, only with man as he easily\nmight be, the Greeks took a much less serious view of his state than\nthe Hebrews, who compared him with God as He had revealed Himself.\nThe former never attained any clear conception of sin, and regarded\nit as a passing weakness which could without much trouble be\novercome. The latter saw that it was a radical and now innate want\nof harmony with God, which could only be cured by a new life being\nbreathed into man from above. And when Europe became Christian,\nthis difference made itself felt in very widespread religious and\ntheological divergences. In the South and among the Latin races the\nless strenuous view of human disabilities--the view which naturally\ngrew out of the heathen conception of man as, on the whole, born\ngood, with no very arduous moral heights to scale--has prevailed,\nand in those regions the Pelagian form of doctrine has mastered the\nChristian Church. But the Teutonic races have, in this matter, shown\na remarkable affinity with the Hebrew mind and teaching. The deeper\nand more tragic view of the state of man has commended itself to\nthe Teutonic mind, and the depth of the moral taint in the natural\nman has been estimated according to the Biblical standard. It is\nnot only theologians among the Northern races who have been thus\naffected. The higher imaginative literature of England gives the\nsame impression; and in our own day Browning, our greatest poet, has\nemphasised his acceptance of the Augustinian view of human nature\nby making its teaching as to original sin a proof of the truth of\nChristianity.[33] At the end of his poem \"Gold Hair: a Story of\nPornic,\" in which he tells how a girl of angelic beauty, and of\nangelic purity of nature as was supposed, is found after her death\nto have sold her soul to the most gruesome avarice, he says:--\n\n    \"The candid incline to surmise of late\n    That the Christian faith may be false, I find;\n    For our Essays and Reviews' debate\n    Begins to tell on the public mind,\n    And Colenso's words have weight:\n\n    I still, to suppose it true, for my part,\n    See reasons and reasons; this, to begin:\n    'Tis the faith that launched point-blank her dart\n    At the head of a lie--taught original sin,\n    The corruption of man's heart.\"\n\n  [33] Browning's _Poetical Works_, vol. vi., p. 69.\n\nBut the Pagan view always reasserts itself; and modern Hellenists\nespecially, in their admiration of the grace which does undoubtedly\ngo with such conceptions of goodness as the Greeks could attain, are\napt to look askance at the harshness and strenuousness which they\nfind in the Old Testament. For the most pathetic and pure of the\nGreek conceptions of the gods are those which, like Demeter, embody\nmother's love or some other natural glory of humanity. Being thus\nnatural, they are set before us by the Greek imagination with an\nunconstrained and graceful beauty which makes goodness appeal to the\n\u00e6sthetic sense. To do this seems to many the supreme achievement.\nWithout this they hold that Christianity would fail to meet the\nrequirements of the modern heart and mind, for to interest \"taste\"\non the side of goodness is, apparently, better than to let men feel\nthe compulsion of duty. Reasoning on such premisses, they claim\nthat Greek religion gave to Christianity its completion and its\ncrown. This is the claim advanced by Dyer in his _Gods of Greece_\n(p. 19). \"The Greek poets and philosophers,\" he says, \"are among\nour intellectual progenitors, and therefore the religion of to-day\nhas requirements which include all that the noblest Greeks could\ndream of, requirements which the aspirations of Israel alone could\nnot satisfy. Our complex life had need, not only of a supreme God\nof power, universal and irresistible, of a jealous God beside whom\nthere was no other God, but also of a God of love and grace and\npurity. To these ideal qualities, present in the Diviner godhead\nof the Gospels, the evolution of Greek mythology brought much\nthat satisfies our hearts.\" The best answer to that is to read\nDeuteronomy. The Hebrews had no need to borrow \"a God of love and\ngrace and purity\" from Greek mythology. Centuries before they came\nin contact with Greeks, their inspired men had painted the love\nand grace and purity of God in the most attractive colours. Nor\ndid they ever need to unlearn the belief that Yahweh was merely\na supreme God of power. In the course of our exposition we shall\nhave occasion to see that the worship of mere power was superseded\nby the religion of Yahweh from the first, and that the author of\nDeuteronomy gives his whole strength to demonstrate that the God of\nIsrael is a \"God of love and grace and purity.\" But perhaps \"grace\"\nmeans to Mr. Dyer \"gracefulness.\" In that case we would deny that\n\"the Diviner godhead of the Gospels,\" as revealed in Jesus Christ,\nhad that \u00e6sthetic quality either. There is no word of an appeal\nto the sense of the artistically beautiful in anything recorded\nof Him; but neither in the Old Testament nor the New is there any\nwant of moral beauty in the representation given of God. Moral\nbeauty alone has a central place in religion; and when beauty that\nappeals to the senses intrudes into religion, it becomes a source of\nweakness rather than of strength. There may be a few people who can\ntrust to their taste to keep them firm in the pursuit of goodness,\nbut the bulk of men have always needed, and will always need, the\nseverer compulsion of duty. They need an objective standard; they\nneed a God, the embodiment and enforcer of all that duty demands of\nthem; and when they bend themselves to the yoke of obligation thus\nimposed, they enter into a world of heavenly beauty which seizes and\nenraptures the soul. The mere \u00e6sthetic beauty of Greek mythology\npales, for the more earnest races of mankind at least, before this\nDiviner loveliness, and it is the special gift of the Hebrew as well\nas of the Teutonic races to be sensitive to it, just as they fall\nbehind others in \u00e6sthetic sensitiveness. Wordsworth felt this, and\nhas expressed it inimitably in his \"Ode to Duty\"--\n\n    \"Stern Lawgiver! yet Thou dost wear\n    The Godhead's most benignant grace\n    Nor know we anything so fair\n    As is the smile upon Thy face.\"\n\nThat expresses the Hebrew feeling also. Drawn upwards by the\ninfinite and unchangeable love and goodness of Yahweh, the Hebrews\nfelt the clog of their innate sinfulness as no other race has done.\nThe stern \"thou shalt nots\" of the Decalogue consequently found an\necho in their hearts. Won by the beauty of holiness, they gladly\nwelcomed the discipline of the Divine law, and by doing so they\nestablished human goodness on a foundation immeasurably more stable\nthan any the gracefulness of Greek imaginations could hope to lay.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n_THE MEDIATORSHIP OF MOSES_\n\nDEUT. v. 22-33\n\n\nAfter the ten commandments, Deuteronomy, like Exodus, next indicates\nthat for all of legislation, exhortation, and advice that follows,\nMoses was to be the mediator between God and the people. He is\nrepresented as Yahweh's prophet or speaker in all that succeeds; the\nDecalogue alone is set forth as the direct Divine command. Evidently\na great distinction is here notified, and what it exactly was may\nbe best explained by reference to the history of Roman law. In the\nearliest times that consisted of _Fas_, _Jus_, and _Jus moribus\nconstitutum_. In Chapter IV. Professor Muirhead's description of fas\nhas been given at length, so that we need not repeat it here. The\npoint to remember is that it consisted of universal precepts such\nas the Decalogue contains, given direct by God. _Jus_ again was,\naccording to Breal, the Divine will declared by human agency, and it\noccupied much the position which law does in civilised states now.\nFinally, _jus moribus constitutum_, or _boni mores_, was customary\nlaw, which had a twofold function. \"It was (1) a restraint upon\nthe law, condemning, though it could not prevent, the ruthless and\nunnecessary exercise of legal right. (2) It was a supplement to\nlaw (_jus_), requiring things law did not, _e.g._ dutiful service,\nrespect and obedience, chastity, fidelity to engagements, etc.\" Now\nit is a striking fact that, though there can be no question of\nimitation here, the legislation of Deuteronomy falls naturally into\nthese very divisions; and that fact of itself gives strong support\nto the belief that here in Israel, as there in Rome, we have the\nrecorded facts of the earliest efforts at the regulation of national\nlife. The _fas_, then, corresponds to the Decalogue. The _jus_ runs\nexactly parallel with the laws in the strict sense of the term,\nthose which Moses received from Yahweh and afterwards promulgated.\nLastly, the _boni mores_ are represented in Deuteronomy by those\nbeautiful precepts which limited the exercise of legal right, and,\ngoing far beyond law, demanded of Israel that they should make good\ntheir claim to be Yahweh's people by justice, charity, and purity.\n\nTo some it may seem that we do no service to Scripture by insisting\nupon such a parallel. They will feel as if thereby the unique\ncharacter of the religion of Israel as a revealed religion were\nobscured, if not obliterated. But nothing can be imagined which\ncould confirm us in belief of the substantial accuracy of what we\nfind narrated of early times in Scripture, more than the discovery\nthat, without any possibility of collusion, the earliest records\nof civilisation elsewhere give us precisely the same account of\nthe forms in which law first makes its appearance. Surely we\nought now to have learned this lesson at least, that it is no\ndisparagement to a Divinely given system of law and religion, that\nits growth and development run in the same channels as the growth\nand development of similar systems which have none of the marks of\na Divine origin. Revelation always seizes upon mind as it is, and\nmakes that a sufficient and effective channel for itself. However it\nis to be explained, it is true that Divine action generally seeks\nto hide itself in the ordinary course of human things as quickly\nas possible. It is only at the moment of contact, or at the moment\nwhen it has burst forth in some flower of more than earthly grace\nand loveliness, or when it has overturned and overturned until that\nstate of things which has a right to endure has been attained, that\nthe Divine force reveals itself. For the most part it sinks into the\ngeneral sum of forces that are making for the progress of humanity,\nand clothes itself gladly in the uniform of other beneficent but\nnatural influences. Consequently it ought to be a welcome fact that\nso close a parallel exists between the origins of Roman law and\nthe origins of Hebrew law. The one great gain already mentioned,\nthat it explains the early appearance of the Decalogue, and shows\nthat some such laws would naturally be among the primary laws of\nIsrael, would be sufficient to justify that view; while in addition\nthe distinctions from the early laws of Rome help us to classify in\nclear broad masses the somewhat disordered series of Deuteronomic\nlaws.\n\nOn one point only does the parallel seem questionable. If we\nfollowed it alone as our guide, we should have to set down the\nmediatorship of Moses, as a mere part of the method, as belonging\nto the formal side only of the great revelation. In other words, we\nshould have to ask whether the statement we have in Deut. v. 22-30\nis only an emotional and pictorial way of setting forth the fact\nthat, following and supplementing the elementary and Divinely given\nHebrew _fas_, there was also a Divinely given but humanly mediated\n_jus_. But clearly it means much more than that. By the earlier\nprophets, and generally in all earlier delineations of him, Moses\nis regarded as a prophet who had more direct and continuous access\nto the Divine presence than any other prophet of Israel. Moreover\nhe had always been represented from the earliest times as standing\nbetween Yahweh and His people, holding on to the one and refusing\nto let the other go. In the great scene, taken from the earliest\nconstituents of the Pentateuch and narrated in Exod. xxxii., we see\nhim anticipating by centuries the wonderful picture of the Servant\nof God in Isa. liii., and by a still more amazing stretch of time,\nthat Divinest wish of St. Paul, that he himself might be accursed\neven from Christ for his brethren's sake. He thus stood between\nYahweh and His people both as the organ of Revelation and as the\nself-forgetting intercessor, who suffered for sins not his own, as\nwell as for sins which his connection with his nation had brought\nupon him; who, instead of repining, was willing to be blotted out of\nGod's book if that could benefit his people.\n\nThis representation of Moses is not accidental. It is in complete\naccord with a characteristic of Israelite literature from beginning\nto end. In the earliest historical records we find that the chief\nheroes of the nation are mediators, standing for God in the face of\nevil men, and pleading with God for men when they are broken and\npenitent, or even when they are only terrified and restrained by\nthe terror of the Lord. At the beginning of the national history\nwe see the noble figure of Abraham in an agony of supplication and\nentreaty before God on behalf of the cities of the plain. At the\nend of it, we see the Christ, the supreme \"mediator between God and\nman,\" pouring out His soul unto death for men \"while they were yet\nsinners,\" dying, the just for the unjust, taking upon Himself the\nresponsibility for the sin of man, and refusing to let him wander\naway into permanent separation from God. And all between is in\naccord with this. For it is not Moses only who is regarded as having\na mediatorial office. The very people itself is set, by the promise\ngiven to Abraham, in the same position. As early at least as the\neighth century it was put before Israel, that their calling was not\nfor their own sakes only, but that in them all nations of the earth\nmight be blessed. And at their highest moments the prophets and\nteachers of Israel always recognised this as their nation's part.\nEven when they were being scattered among the heathen, it was that\nthey might be the means of bringing the knowledge of Yahweh to the\nnations. From end to end of Scripture, therefore, this conception\nis wrought into the very fibre of its utterances. It is of the\nessence of the Biblical conception of God that He should work among\nmen by mediators. In no other way could the primary Divine message\nbe set forth than by the prophetic voice; in no other way than by\nthe intercession and the suffering of those most in harmony with\nthe Divine will could any effective hold upon God be given to His\npeople. Only by those who thus proved that they had seen Yahweh\ncould His character be expressed. Further, it was in this way that\nMoses and the prophets, the rulers and the saints of Israel, were\ntypes of Christ. They were not mere puppets set forth in certain\ncrises of Israel's history to go through a certain career, live a\ncertain life, and pass into and out of a number of scenes, in order\nthat they might afford us, upon whom the end of the world has come,\npictorial proofs that all things in this history were pressing\ntowards and converging upon Christ. That would be a very artificial\nway of conceiving the matter. No, each of these types was a real\nman, with real tasks of his own to accomplish in the world. Not\nonly were they all real men, they were the leading men of their\nvarious times. They bore the burden of their day more than others;\nthey were the special organs of Divine power and grace; and their\nlives were spent in giving impulse and direction to the movements of\ntheir people's life towards the strange, unlooked-for consummation\nappointed for it. They were types of Christ, they gave promise of\nHim, not because of mere arbitrary appointment or selection, but\nbecause they did in their day, in a lower degree and at an earlier\nstage, the very same work that He did. Further, the whole nation\nwas a type of Christ in so far as it was true to its calling at all.\nIt was the prophet and the priest among nations. It spread abroad\nthe knowledge of Him, and it died at last as a nation that life\nmight be given to the world. Both Israel and all the men who truly\nrepresented it were partakers in the labours and in the sufferings\nof Christ beforehand, just as Christians are said to fill up the\nmeasure of His sufferings now. The mediatorial character of Moses,\ntherefore, was essential. It is no merely formal thing, nor an\nafterthought. He would have been no fit founder of the mediatorial\nnation had he not been a mediator himself, for not otherwise could\nhe have helped to realise the Abrahamic promise.\n\nBut there is another subsidiary reason why a mediator was necessary\nto Israel at this stage. Behind all that Moses taught his people lay\nnecessarily the ancient popular religion of the Hebrews. Now, except\nin so far as it may have been changed in Egypt, that was in its\nmain features the same as the religion of the other nomadic tribes\nof Semitic stock, for the Abrahamic faith was, clearly, known but\nto few. But the names given to their deities by these people--such\nas Baal, Adhonai, Milcom, etc.--\"all expressed submission to the\nirresistible power revealing itself in nature,\" just as \"Islam,\"\nwhich means \"submission,\" indicates that Mohammedanism is a\nmere perpetuation of this view.[34] Consequently the Israelite\npeople were unable to conceive God save as a devouring presence,\nbefore which no man could live. The Mosaic view was, in itself,\nimmeasurably higher, and, besides that, it opened up the path to\nattainments then inconceivable. Moses therefore had to stand alone\nin his new relation to God, while the people cowered away in\nterror, dominated entirely by the lower conception. They could not\nstand where he stood. They were unable to believe that power was not\nYahweh's only attribute; while Moses had had revealed to him, in\ngerm at least, that God was \"merciful and gracious, longsuffering\nand slow to anger,\" and that a life passed in His presence was the\nideal life for man. Both the Yahwistic narrative in Exodus and the\nrepetition of it in Deuteronomy give the same representation of the\nevents at Sinai, and indicate quite clearly that, while the old\nrelation to God was in itself good so far, it was to be superseded\nby that higher relation in which Moses stood. That is the meaning of\nthe words in Deut. v. 28, 29: \"And Yahweh said unto me, I have heard\nthe voice of the words of this people which they have spoken unto\nthee; they have well said all that they have spoken. Oh that there\nwere such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My\ncommandments, always, that it might be well with them and with their\nchildren for ever!\" The parallel passage in Exodus is xx. 20: \"And\nMoses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you,\nand that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.\" In both, the\nstandpoint of fear is approved as relatively good and wholesome.\nIt was well that the people should have this awestruck fear of the\nDivine, for it would act as a deterrent from sin. But it was not\nsufficient. It was only the starting-point for the attainments which\nYahweh by Moses, and in Moses, was about to call and incite them to.\nMoses therefore had to stand between Israel and Yahweh in this too,\nthat he had entered into and lived in relations with his God which\nthey were as yet unable either to conceive or to endure.\n\n  [34] Cf. Schultz, _Alttestamentliche Theologie_, p. 92.\n\nIt is well to add, also, that in giving approval of this kind to\nfear as a religious motive these early teachers were entirely in\naccord with the final development of Israelite religion in the\nNew Testament. The modern view that any appeal to fear in religion\nor morality is degrading would have been simply unintelligible to\nthe Biblical writers. Even now, the whole fabric of society, the\nstate with its officials and the law with its penalties, are a\ncontinual protest against it in the realm of practical morality.\nIn truth the conflict raised about this matter in modern times is\nsimply a conflict between superfine theories and facts. Now the Old\nTestament is throughout supremely true to the facts of human nature\nand human experience. It is practically a transcript of them as seen\nin the light of revelation. In a time, therefore, when in morals\nand religion physical fact is being allowed to override or pervert\npsychical fact, the Old Testament view is peculiarly wholesome. It\nhelps to restore the balance and to keep man's thoughts sane.\n\nAnother point on which this narrative of Deuteronomy corrects and\nrestores that which the tendency of modern thought has perverted\nis an even more important one. We have seen that the Old Testament\nview, as stated here, and as it is interwoven with the central\nfibres of the Old Testament conception, is that all men who are\ncalled to the task of permanently raising the level of human life\nand thought must give not only their light to, but their life\nfor, those whom they seek to win for God. They must ask nothing\nfrom mankind but ever widening opportunities for service and\nself-sacrifice. But in our modern day this has been precisely\nreversed, and men like Goethe and Schopenhauer, and even Carlyle,\nhave demanded that mankind should yield service to them, and then,\nby the furtherance and development they thereby attain, they\npromise to work out the deliverance of men from superstition and\nunreality and the bondage of ignorance. Goethe in this matter is\ntypical. He preached and practised in the most uncompromising manner\nthe doctrine of self-development. He thought that he could serve\nhumanity in no way so well as by making every one he met, and all\nthe experiences he encountered, minister to his own intellectual\ngrowth. Instead of saying with Moses, \"Blot me out of Thy book,\" but\nspare these dim idolatrous masses, he would have said, \"Let them all\nperish, and let me become the origin of a wiser, more intellectual,\nmore self-restrained race than they.\" He consequently pursued his\nown ends relentlessly from his early years, and attained results\nso immense that almost every domain of thought, speculation, and\nscience is now under some debt to him. But for all purposes of\ninspiring moral and spiritual enthusiasm he is practically useless.\nHis selfishness, however high its kind, accomplished its work and\nleft him cold, unapproachable, isolated. This want of love for\nmen made him the accurate critic of human nature, but left him\nblind in great degree and hopeless altogether in regard to those\npossibilities of better things which are never wholly wanting to it.\nThe result is that, notwithstanding his heroic powers, his influence\nis to-day rather a minus quantity in the spiritual and moral life.\nNo one who has not warmth from other sources pouring in upon him\ncan have much communion with Goethe without losing vitality, and in\nhis presence the Divine passion of self-sacrificing love looks out\nof place, or even slightly absurd. His power is fascinating, but\nit freezes all the sources of the nobler spiritual emotions, and\nultimately must tend to the impoverishing of human nature and the\nlowering of the level of human life. No; men are not to be reached\nso if it is wished to raise them to their highest powers, and all\nexperience proves that the New Testament was right in summing up the\nteaching of the Old by the words, \"He that saveth his life shall\nlose it, and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it.\"\n\n    \"That is the doctrine, simple, ancient, true;\n    Such is life's trial, as old earth smiles and knows.\n    If you loved only what were worth your love,\n    Love were clear gain, and wholly well for you;\n    Make the low nature better by your throes!\n    Give earth yourself, go up for gain above!\"[35]\n\n  [35] Browning, \"James Lee's Wife,\" VII.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\n_LOVE TO GOD THE LAW OF LIFE_\n\nDEUT. vi. 4, 5\n\n\nIn these verses we approach \"the commandments, the statutes, and\nthe judgments\" which it was to be Moses' duty to communicate to\nthe people, _i.e._ the second great division of the teaching and\nguidance received at Sinai. But though we approach them we do not\ncome to them for a number of chapters yet. We reach them only in\nchapter xii., which begins with almost the same words as chapter vi.\nWhat lies between is a new exhortation, very similar in tone and\nsubject to that into which chapters i-iii. have been transformed.\n\nTo some readers in our day this repetition, and the renewed\npostponement of the main subject of the book, have seemed to\njustify the introduction of a new author here. They are scornfully\nimpatient of the repetition and delay, especially those of them who\nhave themselves a rapid, dashing style; and they declare that the\nwriter of the laws, etc., from chapter xii. onwards cannot have\nbeen the writer of these long double introductions. _They_ would\nnot have written so; consequently no one else, however different\nhis circumstances, his objects, and his style may be, can have\nwritten so. It is true, they admit, that the style, the grammar, the\nvocabulary are all exactly those of the purely legal chapters, but\nthat matters not. Their irritation with this delay is decisive; and\nso they introduce us, entirely on the strength of it, to another\nDeuteronomist, second or third or fourth--who knows? But all this is\ntoo purely subjective to meet with general acceptance, and we may\nwithout difficulty decide that the linguistic unity of the book,\nwhen chapters vi. to xii. are compared with what we find after xii.,\nis sufficient to settle the question of authorship.\n\nBut we have now to consider the possible reasons for this second\nlong introduction. The first introduction has been satisfactorily\nexplained in a former chapter; this second one can, I think, quite\nas easily be accounted for. The object of the book is in itself\na sufficient explanation. To modern critical students of the Old\nTestament the laws are the main interest of Deuteronomy. They are\nthe material they need for their reconstruction of the history of\nIsrael, and they feel as if all besides, though it may contain\nbeautiful thoughts, were irrelevant. But that was not the writer's\npoint of view at all. For him it was not the main thing to introduce\nnew laws. He was conscious rather of a desire to bring old laws,\nwell known to his fellow-countrymen, but neglected by them, into\nforce again. Anything new in his version of them was consequently\nonly such an adaptation of them to the new circumstances of his\ntime as would tend to secure their observance. Even if Moses were\nthe author of the book this would be true; but if a prophetic man\nin Manasseh's day was the author, we can see how naturally and\nexclusively that view would fill his mind. He had fallen upon evil\ntimes. The best that had been attained in regard to spiritual\nreligion had been deliberately abandoned and trodden under foot.\nThose who sympathised with pure religion could only hope that a\ntime would come when Hezekiah's work would be taken up again. If\nDeuteronomy was written in preparation for that time, the legal\nadditions necessary to ward off the evils which had been so nearly\nfatal to Yahwism would seem to the author much less important than\nthey appear to us to be. His object was to retrieve what had been\nlost, to rouse the dead minds of his countrymen, to illustrate that\non which the higher life of the nation depended, and to throw light\nupon it from all the sources of what then was modern thought. His\nmind was full of the high teaching of the prophets. He was steeped\nin the history of his people, which was then receiving, or was soon\nto receive, its all but final touches. He was intensely anxious that\nin the later time for which he was writing all men should see how\nProvidence had spoken for the Mosaic law and religion, and what the\ngreat principles were which had always underlain it, and which had\nnow at last been made entirely explicit.\n\nUnder these circumstances, it was not merely natural that the author\nof Deuteronomy should dwell with insistence upon the hortatory part\nof his book; it was necessary. He could not feel Wellhausen's haste\nto approach his restatement of the law. To him the exhortation was,\nin fact, the important thing. Every day he lived he must have seen\nthat it was not want of knowledge that misled his contemporaries.\nHe must have groaned too often under the weight of the indifference\neven of the well disposed not to be aware that that was the great\nhindrance to the restoration of the better thoughts and ways of\nHezekiah's day.\n\nHe had learned by bitter experience, what every man who is in\nearnest about inducing masses of men to take a step backward\nor forward to a higher life always learns, that nothing can be\naccomplished till a fire has been kindled in the hearts of men which\nwill not let them rest. To this task the author of Deuteronomy\ndevotes himself. And whatever impatient theorists of to-day may\nsay, he succeeds amazingly. His exhortation touches men from one end\nof the world to the other, even to this day, by its affectionate\nimpressiveness. His exhibition of the principles underlying the\nlaw is so true that, when our Lord was asked, \"Which is the first\ncommandment of all?\" He answered from this chapter of Deuteronomy:\n\"The first of all the commandments is this, The Lord our God is\none Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,\nand with all thy soul, and with all thy strength. The second is\nthis, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none\nother commandment greater than these.\" Now these are precisely the\ntruths Deuteronomy exhibits in these prefatory chapters, and it\nis by them that the after-treatment of the law is permeated. The\nauthor of Deuteronomy by announcing these truths brought the Old\nTestament faith as near to the level of the New Testament faith as\nwas possible; and we may well believe that he saw his work in its\ntrue relative proportions. The hortatory chapters are really the\nmost original part of the book, and exhibit what was most permanent\nin it. The mere fact that the author lingers over it, therefore, is\nentirely inadequate to justify us in admitting a later hand. Indeed,\nif criticism is to retain the respect of reasonable men, it will\nhave to be more sparing than it has hitherto been with the \"later\nhand\"; to introduce it here under the circumstances is nothing short\nof a blunder.\n\nIn our verses, therefore, we have to deal with the main point of our\nbook. Coming immediately after the Decalogue, these words render\nexplicit the principle of the first table of that law. In them our\nauthor is making it clear that all he has to say of worship, and of\nthe relation of Israel to Yahweh, is merely an application of this\nprinciple, or a statement of means by which a life at the level\nof love to God may be made possible or secured. This section,\ntherefore, forms the bridge which connects the Decalogue with the\nlegal enactments which follow; and it is on all accounts worthy of\nvery special attention. Our Lord's quotation of it as the supreme\nstatement of the Divine law, in its Godward aspect, would in itself\nbe an overwhelmingly special reason for thorough study of it, and\nwould justify us in expecting to find it one of the deepest things\nin Scripture.\n\nThe translation of the first clause presents difficulties. The\nAuthorised Version gives us, \"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is\none Lord,\" but that can no longer be accepted, since it rests upon\nthe Jewish substitution of Adhonai for Yahweh. Taking this view of\nthe construction, it should be rendered, \"Hear, O Israel: Yahweh\nour God is one Yahweh\"; and this is the meaning which most recent\nauthorities--_e.g._ Knobel, Keil, and Dillmann--put upon it. But\nequally good authorities--such as Ewald and Oehler--render, \"Yahweh\nour God--Yahweh is one.\" This is unobjectionable grammatically.\nStill another translation, \"Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God,\nYahweh alone,\" has been received by the most recent and most\nscholarly German translation of the Scripture, that edited by\nKautzsch. But the objection that in that case _l'bhaddo_, not\n_'ech\u0101dh_, should have been used, seems conclusive against it.\nThe two others come very much to the same thing in the end,\nand were it not for the time at which Deuteronomy was written,\nEwald's translations would be the simpler and more acceptable.\nBut the first--\"Yahweh our God is one Yahweh\"--exactly meets the\ncircumstances of that time, and moreover emphasises that in Israel's\nGod which the writer of Deuteronomy was most anxious to establish.\nAs against the prevailing tendency of the time, he not only denies\npolytheism, or, as Dillmann puts it, asserts the concrete fact that\nthe true God cannot be resolved in the polytheistic manner into\nvarious kinds and shades of deity, like the Baalim, but he also\nprohibits the amalgamation or partial identification of Him with\nother gods. Though very little is told us concerning Manasseh's\nidolatry, we know enough to feel assured that it was in this fashion\nhe justified his introduction of Assyrian deities into the Temple\nworship. Moloch, for example, must in some way have been identified\nwith Yahweh, since the sacrifices of children in Tophet are declared\nby Jeremiah to have been to Yahweh. Further, the worship at the\nHigh Places had led, doubtless, to belief in a multitude of local\nYahwehs, who in some obscure way were yet regarded as one, just as\nthe multitudinous shrines of the Virgin in Romanist lands lead to\nthe adoration of our Lady of Lourdes, our Lady of \u00c9taples, and so\non, though the Church knows only one Virgin Mother. This incipient\nand unconscious polytheism it was our author's purpose to root\nout by his law of one altar; and it seems congruous, therefore,\nthat he should sum up the first table of the Decalogue in such a\nway as to bring out its opposition to this great evil. Of course\nthe oneness of deity as such is involved in what he says; but the\naspect of this truth which is specially put forward here is that\nYahweh, being God, is one Yahweh, with no partners, nor even with\nvariations that practically destroy unity. No proposition could\nhave been framed more precisely and exactly to contradict the\ngeneral opinion of Manasseh and his followers regarding religion;\nand in it the watchword of monotheism was spoken. Since it was\nuttered, this has been the rallying point of monotheistic religion,\nboth among Jews and Mohammedans. For \"there is no God but God\" is\nprecisely the counterpart of \"Yahweh is one Yahweh\"; and from one\nend of the civilised world to the other this strenuous confession\nof faith has been heard, both as the tumultuous battle-shout of\nvictorious armies, and as the stubborn and immovable assertion of\nthe despised, and scattered, and persecuted people to whom it was\nfirst revealed. Even to-day, though in the hands of both Jews and\nMohammedans it has been hardened into a dogma which has stripped\nthe Mosaic conception of Yahweh of those elements which gave it\npossibilities of tenderness and expansion, it still has power over\nthe minds of men. Even in such hands, it incites missionary effort,\nand it appeals to the heart at some stages of civilisation as no\nother creed does. It makes men, nay, even civilised men, of the wild\nfetich-worshipping African; but for want of what follows in our\ncontext it leaves them stranded--at a higher level, it is true, but\nstranded nevertheless--without possibilities of advance, and exposed\nto that terrible decay in their moral and spiritual conceptions\nwhich sooner or later asserts itself in every Mohammedan community.\n\nIsrael was saved from the same spiritual disease by the great\nwords which succeed the assertion of Yahweh's oneness. The writer\nof Deuteronomy did not desire to set forth this declaration as an\nabstract statement of ultimate truth about God. He makes it the\nbasis of a quite new, a quite original demand upon his countrymen.\nBecause Yahweh thy God is one Yahweh, \"thou shalt love Yahweh thy\nGod with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy\nmight.\" To us, who have inherited all that was attained by Israel\nin their long and eventful history as a nation, and especially in\nits disastrous close, it may have become a commonplace that God\ndemands the love of His people. But if so, we must make an effort\nto shake off the dull yoke of custom and familiarity. If we do, we\nshall see that it was an extraordinarily original thing which the\nDeuteronomist here declares. In the whole of the Old Testament there\nare, outside of Deuteronomy, thirteen passages in which the _love_\nof men to Yahweh is spoken of. They are Exod. xx. 6; Josh. xxii. 5,\nxxiii. 11; Judges v. 31; 1 Kings iii. 3; Neh. i. 5; Psalms xviii.\n2, xxxi. 24, xci. 14, xcvii. 10, cxvi. 1, cxlv. 20; and Dan. ix.\n4. Now of these the verses from Nehemiah and Daniel are manifestly\nlater than Deuteronomy, and of the Psalms only the eighteenth can\nwith any confidence be assigned to a time earlier than the seventh\ncentury B.C. All the others may with great probability be assigned\nat earliest to the times of Jeremiah and the post-exilic period.\nThree of the passages from the historic books again--Josh. xxii. 5,\nxxiii. 11; 1 Kings iii. 3--are attributed, on grounds largely apart\nfrom the use of this expression, to the Deuteronomic editor, _i.e._\nthe writer who went over the historical books about 600 B.C., and\nmade slight additions here and there, easily recognisable by their\ndiffering in tone and feeling from the surrounding context. Indeed\nJosh. xxii. 5 is a palpable quotation from Deuteronomy itself.\n\nOf the thirteen passages, therefore, only three--Exod. xx. 6,\nJudges v. 31, and Psalm xviii. 2--belong to the time previous\nto Deuteronomy, and in all three the mention of love to God is\nonly allusive, and, as it were, by the way. Before Deuteronomy,\nconsequently, there is little more than the mere occurrence of the\nword. There is nothing of the bold and decisive demand for love to\nthe one God as the root and ground of all true relations with Him\nwhich Deuteronomy makes. At most, there is the hint of a possibility\nwhich might be realised in the future; of love to God as the\npermanent element in the life of man there is no indication; and\nit is this which the author of Deuteronomy means, and nothing less\nthan this. He makes this demand for love the main element of his\nteaching. He returns to it again and again, so that there are almost\nas many passages bearing on this in Deuteronomy as in the whole Old\nTestament besides; and the particularity and emphasis with which he\ndwells upon it are immeasurably greater. Only in the New Testament\ndo we find anything quite parallel to what he gives us; and there\nwe find his view taken up and expanded, till love to God flashes\nupon us from almost every page as the test of all sincerity and the\nguarantee of all success in the Christian life.\n\nTo proclaim this truth was indeed a great achievement; and when we\nremember the abject fear with which Israel had originally regarded\nYahweh, it will appear still more remarkable that the book embodying\nthis should have been adopted by the whole people with enthusiasm,\nand that with it should begin the Canon of Holy Scripture; for\nDeuteronomy, as all now recognise, was the first book which became\ncanonical. I have said that the conception was an extraordinarily\noriginal one, and have pointed out that it had not been traceable to\nany extent previously in Israel's religious books or its religious\nmen. It will appear still more original, I think, if we consider\nwhat a growth in moral and spiritual stature separates the Israel of\nMoses' day and that of Josiah's; what the attitude of other nations\nto their gods was in contrast to this; and, lastly, what it involves\nand implies, as regards the nature of both God and man.\n\nAs we have already seen, the earlier narratives represent the men\nto whom Moses spoke as acknowledging that they could not, as yet at\nany rate, bear to remain in the presence of Yahweh. Between their\nGod and them, therefore, there could be no relation of love properly\nso called. There was reverence, awe, and chiefly fear, tempered\nby the belief that Yahweh as their God was on their side. He had\nproved it by delivering them from the oppressions of Egypt, and they\nacknowledged Him and were jealous for His honour and submissive to\nHis commands. So far as the record goes, that would seem to have\nbeen their religious state. Progress from that state of mind to\na higher, to a demand for direct personal relations between each\nindividual Israelite and Yahweh, was not easy. It was hindered by\nthe fact that Israel as a whole, and not the individual, was for a\nlong time regarded as the subject of religion. That, of course, was\nno hindrance to the development of the thought that Yahweh loved\nIsrael; but so long as that conception dominated religious thought\nin Israel, so long was it impossible to think of individual love and\ntrust as the element in which each faithful man should live.\n\nBut the love of Yahweh was declared, century after century, by\nprophet and priest and psalmist, to be set upon His people, and\nso the way for this demand for love on man's part was opened.\nMan's relations with God began to grow more intimate. The distance\nlessened, as the use of the words \"them that love Me\" in the song\nof Deborah and the Davidic word in Psalm xviii., \"I love thee,\nYahweh my rock,\" clearly show. Hosea next took up the strain, and\nintensified and heightened it in a wonderful manner, but the nation\nfailed to respond adequately. In the later prophets the love and\ngrace and longsuffering of Yahweh and His ceaseless efforts on\nbehalf of Israel are continually made the ground of exhortations,\nentreaties, and reproaches; but, as a whole, the people still did\nnot respond. We may be sure, however, that an ever increasing\nminority were affected by the clearness and intensity of the\nprophetic testimony. To this minority, the Israel within Israel,\nthe remnant that was to return from exile and become the seed of a\npeople that should be all righteous, the love of Yahweh tended to\nbecome His main characteristic. That love sustained their hopes; and\nthough the awe and reverence which were due to His holiness, and the\nfear called forth by His power, still predominated, there grew up in\ntheir hearts a multitude of thoughts and expectations tending more\nand more to the love of God.\n\nAs yet it was only a timid reaching out towards Him, a hope and\nlonging which could hardly justify itself. Yet it was robust\nenough not to be killed by disappointment, by hope deferred, or\neven by crushing misfortune; and in the furnace of affliction it\nbecame stronger and more pure. And in the heart of the author\nof Deuteronomy it grew certain of itself, and soared up with an\neagerness that would not be denied. Then, as always where God is the\nobject of it, love that dares was justified; and out of its restless\nand timid longings it came to the \"place of rest imperturbable,\nwhere love is not forsaken if itself forsaketh not.\"[36] From\nknowledge, confirmed by the answering love and inspiration of God,\nand impelled consciously by Him, he then in this book made and\nreiterated his great demand. All spiritual men found in it the word\nthey had needed. They responded to it eagerly when the book was\npublished; and their enthusiasm carried even the torpid and careless\nmasses with them for a time. The nation, with the king at their\nhead, accepted the legislation of which this love to God was the\nunderlying principle, and so far as public and corporate action can\ngo, Israel adopted the deepest principle of spiritual life as their\nown.\n\n  [36] Augustine's _Confessions_, p. 64.\n\nOf course with the mass this assent had little depth; but in the\nhearts of the true men in Israel the joy and assurance of their\ngreat discovery, that Yahweh their God was open to, nay, desired and\ncommanded, their most fervent affection, soon produced its fruit.\nFrom the fragments of the earliest legislation which have come down\nto us, it is obvious that the Mosaic principles had led to a most\nunwonted consideration for the poor. In later days, though the\ningrained tendency to oppression, which those who have power in the\nEast seem quite unable to resist, did its evil work in both Israel\nand Judah, there were never wanting prophetic voices to denounce\nsuch villainy in the spirit of these laws. The public conscience was\nthereby kept alive, and the ideal of justice and mercy, especially\nto the helpless, became a distinguishing mark of Israelite religion.\nBut it was in the minds of those who had learned the Deuteronomist's\ngreat lesson, and had taken example by him, that the love which came\nfrom God, and had just been answered back by man overflowed in a\nstream of blessing to man's \"neighbours.\" Deuteronomy had uttered\nthe first and great commandment; but it is in the Law of Holiness,\nthat complex of ancient laws brought together by the author of P,\nand found now mainly in Lev. xvii.-xxvi., that we find the second\nword, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\"[37] If we ask,\nWho is my neighbour? we find that not even those beyond Israel are\nexcluded, for in Lev. xix. 34 we read, \"The stranger that sojourneth\nwith you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt\nlove him as thyself.\" The idea still needed the expansion which it\nreceived from our Lord Himself in the parable of the Good Samaritan;\nbut it is only one step from these passages to the New Testament.\n\n  [37] Lev. xix. 18, 34.\n\nFrom the standpoint of mere fear, then, to the standpoint of love\nwhich casteth out fear, even the masses of Israel were lifted, in\nthought at least, by the love and teaching of God. And the process\nby which Israel was led to this height has proved ever since to\nbe the only possible way to such an attainment. It began in the\nfree favour of God, it was continued by the answer of love on the\npart of man, and these antecedents had as their consequence the\nproclamation of that law of liberty--for self-renouncing love is\nliberty--\"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\" Without the\nfirst, the second was impossible; and the last without the other\ntwo would have been only a satire upon the incurable selfishness of\nman. It is worthy of remark, at least, that only on the critical\ntheory of the Old Testament is each of these steps in the moral\nand religious education of Israel found in its right place, with\nits right antecedents; only when taken so do the teachers who were\ninspired to make each of these attainments find circumstances\nsuited to their message, and a soil in which the germs they were\ncommissioned to plant could live.\n\nBut great as is the contrast between the Israel of Moses' day and\nthat of Josiah's, it is not so great as the contrast between the\nreligion of Israel in the Deuteronomic period and the religion of\nthe neighbouring nations. Among them, at our date 650 B.C., there\nwas, so far as we know them, no suggestion of personal love to God\nas an effective part of religion. In the chapters on the Decalogue\nthe main ideas of the Canaanites in regard to religion have been\ndescribed, so that they need not be repeated here. I shall add\nonly what E. Meyer says of their gods: \"With advancing culture the\ncultus loses its old simplicity and homeliness. A fixed ritual was\ndeveloped--founded upon old hereditary tradition. And here the\ngloomier conception became the ruling one, and its consequences\nwere inexorably deduced. The great gods, even the protecting gods\nof the tribe or the town, are capricious and in general hostile to\nman--possibly to some degree because of the mythological conception\nof Baal as sun-god--and they demand sacrifices of blood that they\nmay be appeased. In order that evil may be warded off from those\nwith whom they are angry, another human being must be offered to\nthem as a substitute in propitiatory sacrifice--nay, they demand\nthe sacrifice of the firstborn, the best-loved son. If the community\nbe threatened with the wrath of the deity, then the prince or the\nnobility as a whole must offer up their children on its behalf.\"[38]\nThis also is the view of Robertson Smith,[39] who considers that\nwhile in their origin the Semitic religions involved kindly\nrelations and continual intercourse between the gods and their\nworshippers, these gradually disappeared as political misfortune\nbegan to fall upon the smaller Semitic peoples. Their gods were\nangry and in the vain hope of appeasing them men had recourse to the\ndirest sacrifices. Hints concerning these had survived from times\nof savagery; and to the diseased minds of these terror-stricken\npeoples the more ancient and more horrible a sacrifice was the\nmore powerful did it seem. At this time, therefore, the course\nof the Canaanite religions was away from love to their gods. The\ndecay of nationality brought despair, and the frantic efforts of\ndespair, into the religion of the Canaanite peoples; but to Israel\nit brought this higher demand for more intimate union with their\nGod. Whatever elements tending towards love the Canaanite religions\noriginally may have had, they had either been mingled with the\ncorrupting sensuality which seems inseparable from the worship of\nfemale deities, or had been limited to the mere superficial good\nunderstanding which their participation in the same common life\nestablished between the people and their gods. Their union was\nlargely independent of moral considerations on either side. But\nin Israel there had grown up quite a different state of things.\nThe union between Yahweh and His people had from the days of the\nDecalogue taken a moral turn; and gradually it had become clear\nthat to have Abraham for their father and Yahweh for their God\nwould profit them little, if they did not stand in right moral\nrelations and in moral sympathy with Him. Now, in Deuteronomy, that\nfundamentally right conception of the relation between God and man\nreceived its crown in Yahweh's claim to the love of His people. No\ncontrast could be greater than that which common misfortune and\na common national ruin produced between the surrounding Semitic\npeoples and Israel.\n\n  [38] _Geschichte des Alterthums_, p. 249.\n\n  [39] _Religion of the Semites_, p. 330.\n\nBut besides the small kingdoms which immediately surrounded\nPalestine, Israel had for neighbours the two great empires of Egypt\nand Assyria. She was exposed therefore to influence from them in\neven a greater degree. Long before the Exodus, the land which Israel\ncame afterwards to occupy had been the meeting-place of Babylonian\nand Egyptian power and culture. In the fifteenth century B.C. it\nwas under the suzerainty if not the direct sovereignty of Egypt;\nbut its whole culture and literature, for it must have had books,\nas the name Kirjath-Sepher (Book-town) shows, was Babylonian.\nThroughout Israel's history, moreover, Assyrian and Egyptian manners\nand ways of thought were pressed upon the people; and we cannot\ndoubt that in regard to religion also their influence was felt. But\nat this period, as in the Canaanite religions, so also in those of\nAssyria and Egypt, the tendency was altogether different from what\nDeuteronomy shows it to have been in Israel.\n\nIn regard to Egypt this is somewhat difficult to prove, for the\nEgyptian religion is so complicated, so varied, and so ancient,\nthat men who have studied it despair of tracing any progress in\nit. A kind of monotheism, polytheism, fetichism, animism, and\nnature-worship such as we find in the Vedas, have in turn been\nregarded as its primitive state; but as a matter of fact all these\nsystems of religious thought and feeling are represented in the\nearliest records, and they remained constant elements of it till the\nend.[40] Whatever had once formed part of it, Egyptian religion\nclung to with extraordinary tenacity. As time went on, however, the\naccent was shifted from one element to the other, and after the\ntimes of the XIXth dynasty, _i.e._ after the time of the Exodus,\nit began to decay. A systematised pantheism, of which sun-worship\nwas the central element, was elaborated by the priests; the moral\nelement which had been prominent in the days when the picture of the\njudgment of the soul after death was so popular in Thebes retired\nmore into the background, and the purely magical element became\nthe principal one. Instead of moral goodness and the fulfilment of\nduty being the main support of the soul in its dread and lonely\njourneys in the \"world of the Western sky,\" knowledge of the proper\nformulas became the chief hope, and the machinations of evil demons\nthe main danger. In the royal tombs at Thebes the walls of the long\ngalleries are covered with representations of these demons, and the\naccompanying writing gives directions as to the proper formulas by\nknowledge of which deliverance can be secured. This, of course,\nconfined the benefits of religion, so far as they related to the\nlife to come, to the educated, and the wealthy. For these secret\nspells were hard to obtain, and had to be purchased at a high price.\nAs Wiedemann says, \"Still more important than in this world was the\nknowledge of the correct magical words and formulas in the other\nworld. No door opened here if its name was not known, no d\u00e6mon let\nthe dead pass in if he did not address him in the proper fashion, no\ngod came to his help so long as his proper title was not given him,\nno food could be procured so long as the exactly prescribed words\nwere not uttered.\"[41] The people were therefore thrown back upon\nthe ancient popular faith, which needed gods only for practical\nlife, and honoured them only because they were mighty.[42] Some\nof them were believed to be friendly; but others were malevolent\ndeities who would destroy mankind if they did not mollify them by\nmagic, or render them harmless by the greater power of the good\ngods. Consequently Set, the unconquerable evil demon, was worshipped\nwith zeal in many places. With him there were numerous demons, \"the\nenemies,\" \"the evil ones,\" which lie in wait for individuals, and\nthreaten their life and weal. The main thing, therefore, was to\nbring the correct sacrifices, to use such formulas and perform such\nacts as would render the gods gracious and turn away evil. Moreover\nthe whole of nature was full of spirits, as it is to the African of\nto-day, and in the mystic texts of the Book of the Dead, there is\nconstant mention made of the \"mysterious beings whose names, whose\nceremonials are not known,\" which thirst for blood, which bring\ndeath, which go about as devouring flame, as well as of others which\ndo good. At all times this element existed in Egypt; but precisely\nat this time, in the reign of Psamtik, Brugsch[43] declares that\nnew force was given to it, and on the monuments there appear, along\nwith the \"great gods,\" monstrous forms of demons and genii. In fact\nthe higher religion had become pantheistic, and consequently less\nrigidly moral. Magic had been taken up into it for the life beyond\nthe grave, and became the only resource of the people in this life.\nFear, therefore, necessarily became the ruling religious motive, and\ninstead of growing toward love of God, men in Egypt at this time\nwere turning more decisively than ever away from it.\n\n  [40] Cf. Wiedemann, _Religion der alten Aegypter_, p. 3.\n\n  [41] Wiedemann, p. 1, 35.\n\n  [42] Cf. Meyer, p. 71.\n\n  [43] _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, Brodick's edition p. 423.\n\nOf the Assyrian religion and its influence it is also difficult\nto speak in this connection, for notwithstanding the amount of\ntranslation that has been done, not much has come to light in regard\nto the personal religion of the Assyrians. On the whole it seems\nto be established that in its main features the religion of both\nBabylon and Assyria remained what the non-Semitic inhabitants of\nAkkad had made it. Originally it had consisted entirely of a spirit\nand demon worship not one whit more advanced than the religion\nof the South Sea islanders to-day. As such it was in the main a\nreligion of fear. Though some spirits were good, the bulk were\nevil, and all were capricious. Men were consequently all their\nlifetime subject to bondage, and love as a religious emotion was\nimpossible. When the Semites came at a later time into the country\ntheir star-worship was amalgamated with this mere Shamanism of the\nAkkadians. In the new faith thus evolved the great gods of the\nSemites were arranged in a hierarchy, and the spirits, both good\nand evil, were subordinated to them. But even the great gods remain\nwithin the sphere of nature, and have in full measure the defects\nand limitations of nature-gods everywhere.[44] They are not entirely\nbeneficent powers, nor are they even moral beings. Some have\nspecial delight in blood and destruction, while the cruel Semitic\nchild-sacrifice was practised in honour of others. Again, their\ndispleasure has no necessary or even general connection with sin.\nTheir wrath is generally the outcome of mere arbitrary whim. Indeed\nit may be doubted whether the conception of sin or of moral guilt\never had a secure footing in this religion. It certainly had none in\nthe terror-struck hymn to the seven evil spirits who are described\nthus:--\n\n    \"Seven (are) they, seven (are) they.\n    Male they (are) not, female they (are) not;\n    Moreover the deep is their pathway.\n    Wife they have not, child is not born to them.\n    Law (and) order they know not,\n    Prayer and supplication hear they not.\n    Wicked (are) they, wicked (are) they.\"[45]\n\n  [44] Meyer, p. 117.\n\n  [45] Sayce, _Babylonian Literature_, p. 36. Both poems here referred\n  to are pre-Assyrian, being found as translations in the library of\n  Assurbanipal. But Assyrian religion made no progress; it seems to\n  have remained always dependent on Babylonian, even in details.\n\nThere is here an accent of genuine terror, which involved not love,\nbut hatred. Even in what Sayce calls a \"Penitential Psalm,\" and\nwhich he compares to the Biblical Psalms, there is nothing of the\ngratitude to God as a deliverer from sin which in Israel was the\nchief factor in producing the response to Yahweh's demand for the\nlove of man. Morally, it contains nothing higher than is contained\nin the hymn of the spirits. The transgressions which are so\npathetically lamented, and from the punishment of which deliverance\nis so earnestly sought, are purely ceremonial and involuntary. The\nauthor of the prayer conceives that he has to do with a god whose\nwrath is a capricious thing, coming upon men they know not why. So\nconceived God cannot be loved. It is entirely in accord with this\nthat in the great flood epic no reason is given for the destruction\nof mankind save the caprice of Bel.[46] The few expressions quoted\nby Sayce from a hymn to the sun-god--such as this, \"Merciful God,\nthat liftest up the fallen, that supportest the weak.... Like a\nwife, thou submittest thyself, cheerful and kindly.... Men far\nand wide bow before thee and rejoice\"--cannot avail to subvert\na conclusion so firmly fixed. These are simply the ordinary\nexpressions which the mere physical pleasure of the sunlight brings\nto the lips of sun-worshippers of all ages and of all climes.\nAt best they could only be taken as germs out of which a loving\nrelation between God and man might have been developed. But though\nthey were ancient they never were developed. At the end as at the\nbeginning the Assyrio-Babylonian religion moves on so low a level,\neven in its more innocent aspects, that a development like that in\nDeuteronomy is absolutely impossible. In its worse aspects Assyrian\nreligion was unspeakable. The worship of Ishtar at Nineveh outdid\neverything known in the ancient world for lust and cruelty.\n\n  [46] Meyer, p. 178. Cf. however Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and\n  the Monuments_, p. 114. Sayce maintains that the Assyrian epic\n  attributes the flood to the moral guilt of men. But that is by\n  no means proved, for it is more than doubtful whether sin to the\n  Assyrian was not always mainly a ceremonial matter.\n\nOn this side too, therefore, we find no parallel to Israel's new\noutgrowth of higher religion. Comparison only makes it stand out\nmore boldly in its splendid originality; and we are left with the\nfruitful question, \"What was the root of the astonishing difference\nbetween Yahweh and every other god whom Israel had heard of?\"\nPrecisely at this time and under the same circumstances, the ethnic\nreligions around Israel were developing away from any higher\nelements they had contained, and were thereby, as we know now,\nhastening to extinction. Under the inspired prophetic influence,\nIsrael's religion turned the loss of the nation into gain; it rose\nby the darkness of national misfortune into a nobler phase than any\nit had previously known.\n\nBut perhaps the crowning merit of this demand for love of God is\nthe emphasis it lays upon personality in both God and man, and the\nhigh level at which it conceives their mutual relations. From the\nfirst, of course, the personal element was always very strongly\npresent in the Israelite conception of God. Indeed personality was\nthe dominating idea among all the smaller nations which surrounded\nIsrael. The national god was conceived of mainly as a greater and\nmore powerful man, full of the energetic self-assertion without\nwhich it would be impossible for any man to reign over an Eastern\ncommunity. The Moabite stone shows this, for in it Chemosh is as\nsharply defined a person as Mesha himself. The Canaanite gods,\ntherefore, might be wanting in moral character; their existence\nwas doubtless thought of in a limited and wholly carnal manner;\nbut there never was, apparently, the least tendency to obscure the\nsharp lines of their individuality. In Israel, _a fortiori_, such\na tendency did not exist; and that a writer of Matthew Arnold's\nability should have persuaded himself, and tried to persuade others,\nthat under the name of Yahweh Israel understood anything so vague\nas his \"stream of tendency which makes for righteousness,\" is\nonly another instance of the extraordinarily blinding effects of\na preconceived idea. So far from Yahweh being conceived in that\nmanner, it would be much easier to prove that, whatever aberrations\nin the direction of making God merely \"a non-natural man\" may be\ncharged upon Christianity, they have been founded almost exclusively\nupon Old Testament examples and Old Testament texts. If there was\ndefect in the Old Testament conception of God, it was, and could\nnot but be, in the direction of drawing Him down too much into the\nlimits of human personality.\n\nBut though the gods were always thought of by the Canaanites as\npersonal, their character was not conceived as morally high. Moral\ncharacter in Chemosh, Moloch, or Baal was not of much importance,\nand their relations with their peoples were never conditioned by\nmoral conduct. How deeply ingrained this view was in Palestine\nis seen in the persistency with which even Yahweh's relation to\nHis people was viewed in this light. Only the continual outcry of\nthe prophets against it prevented this idea becoming permanently\ndominant even in Israel. Nay, it often deceived would-be prophets.\nClinging to the idea of the national God, and forgetting altogether\nthe ethical character of Yahweh, without, perhaps, conscious\ninsincerity, they prophesied peace to the wicked, and so came to\nswell the ranks of the false prophets. But from very early times\nanother thought was cherished by Israel's representative men in\nregard to their relations with God. Yahweh was righteous, and\ndemanded righteousness in His people. Oblations were vain if offered\nas a substitute for this. All the prophets reach their greatest\nheights of sublimity in preaching this ethically noble doctrine;\nand the love to God which Deuteronomy demands is to be exhibited in\nreverent obedience to moral law.\n\nMoreover, that God should seek or even need the love of man threw\nother light on the Old Testament religion. If, without revelation,\nIsrael had widened its mental horizon so as to conceive Yahweh as\nLord of the world, it may be questioned whether it could have kept\nclear of the gulf of pantheism. But by the manifestation of God\nin their special history, the Israelites had been taught to rise\nstep by step to the higher levels, without losing their conception\nof Yahweh as the living, personal, active friend of their people.\nMoreover they had been early taught, as we have seen, that the deep\ndesign of all that was wrought for them was the good of all men. The\nlove of God was seen pressing forward to its glorious and beneficent\nends; and both by ascribing such far-reaching plans to Yahweh, and\nby affirming His interest in the fate of men, Israel's conception\nof the Divine personality was raised alike in significance and\npower; for anything more personal than love planning and working\ntowards the happiness of its objects cannot be conceived. But the\ncrown was set upon the Divine personality by the claim to the love\nof man. This signified that to the Divine mind the individual man\nwas not hid from God by his nation, that he was not for Him a mere\nspecimen of a genus. Rather each man has to God a special worth, a\nspecial character, which, impelled by His free personal love, He\nseeks to draw to Himself. At every step each man has near him \"the\ngreat Companion,\" who desires to give Himself to him. Nay, more,\nit implies that God seeks and needs an answering love; so that\nBrowning's daring declaration, put into the mouth of God when the\nsong of the boy Theocrite is no more heard, \"I miss My little human\npraise,\" is simple truth.[47]\n\n  [47] Browning's Poems, \"The Boy and the Angel.\"\n\nBut if the demand illustrates and illuminates the personality of\nGod, it throws out in a still more decisive manner the personality\nof man. In a rough sense, of course, there never could have been any\ndoubt of that. But children have to grow into full self-determining\npersonality, and savages never attain it. Both are at the mercy\nof caprice, or of the needs of the moment, to which they answer\nso helplessly that in general no consistent course of conduct\ncan be expected of them. That can be secured only by rigorous\nself-determination. But the power of self-determination does not\ncome at once, nor is acquired without strenuous and continued\neffort; it is, in fact, a power which in any full measure is\npossessed only by the civilised man. Now the Israelites were not\nhighly civilised when they left Egypt. They were still at the stage\nwhen the tribe overshadowed and absorbed the individual, as it does\nto-day among the South Sea islanders. The progress of the prophetic\nthought towards the demand for personal love has already been\ntraced. Here we must trace the steps by which the personal element\nin each individual was strengthened in Israel, till it was fit to\nrespond to the Divine demand.\n\nThe high calling of the people reacted on the individual Israelites.\nThey saw that in many respects the nations around them were inferior\nto them. Much that was tolerated or even respected among them was an\nabomination to Israel; and every Israelite felt that the honour of\nhis people must not be dragged in the dust by him, as it would be\nif he permitted himself to sink to the heathen level. Further, the\nlaws regarding even ceremonial holiness which in germ certainly, and\nprobably in considerable extension also, existed from the earliest\ntime, made him feel that the sanctity of the nation depended upon\nthe care and scrupulosity of the individual. And then there were\nthe individual spiritual needs, which could not be suppressed and\nwould not be denied. Though one sees so little explicit provision\nfor restoration of individual character in early Yahwism, yet in\nthe course of time--who can doubt it?--the personal religious needs\nof so many individual men would necessarily frame for themselves\nsome outlet. Building upon the analogy of the relation established\nbetween Yahweh and Israel, they would hope for the satisfaction\nof their individual needs through the infinite mercy of God. The\nPsalms, such of them as can fairly be placed in the pre-Deuteronomic\ntime, bear witness to this; and those written after that time show a\nhopefulness, and a faith in the reality of individual communion with\nGod which show that such communion was not then a new discovery.\n\nIn all these ways the religious life of the individual was being\ncultivated and strengthened; but this demand made in Deuteronomy\nlifts that indirect refreshment of soul, for which the cultus and\nthe covenants made no special provision, into a recognised position,\nnay, into the central position in Israelite religion. The word,\n\"Thou shalt love Yahweh thy God,\" confirmed and justified all these\npersistent efforts after individual life in God, and brought them\nout into the large place which belongs to aspirations that have at\nlast been authorised. By a touch, the inspired writer transformed\nthe pious hopes of those who had been the chosen among the chosen\npeople into certainties. Each man was henceforth to have his own\ndirect relation to God as well as the nation; and the national hope,\nwhich had hitherto been first, was now to depend for its realisation\nupon the fulfilment of the special and private hope. Thus the old\nrelation was entirely reversed by Deuteronomy. Instead of the\nindividual holding \"definite place in regard to Yahweh only through\nhis citizenship,\" now the nation has its place and its future\nsecured only by the personal love of each citizen to God. For that\nis obviously what the demand here made really means. Again and again\nthe inspired writer returns to it; and his persistent endeavour is\nto connect all else that his book contains--warning, exhortation,\nlegislation--with this as the foundation and starting-point. Here,\nas elsewhere, we can trace the roots of the new covenant which\nJeremiah and Ezekiel saw afar off and rejoiced at, and which our\nblessed Lord has realised for us. The individual religious life\nis for the first time fully recognised for what ever since it has\nbeen seen to be, the first condition of any attempt to realise the\nkingdom of God in the life of a nation.\n\nAnd not only thus does our text emphasise individuality. Love with\nall the heart, and all the mind, and all the soul is possible only\nto a fully developed personality; for, as Rothe says, \"We love only\nin the measure in which personality is developed in us. Even God can\nlove only in so far as He is personal.\"[48] Or, as Julius Muller\nsays in his _Doctrine of Sin_, \"The association of personal beings\nin love, while it involves the most perfect distinction of the I\nand Thou, proves itself to be the highest form of unity.\"[49] Unless\nother counteracting circumstances come in, therefore, the more\nhighly developed individuality is, the more entirely human beings\nare determined from within, the more entirely will union among men\ndepend upon free and deliberate choice, and the more perfect will it\nbe. In being called to love God men are dealt with as those who have\nattained to complete self-determination, who have come to completed\nmanhood in the moral life. For all that could mix love with alloy,\nmere sensuous sympathy, and the insistent appeal of that which is\nmaterially present, are wanting here. Here nothing is involved but\nthe free outgoing of the heart to that which is best and highest;\nnothing but loyalty to that vision of Good which, amid all the ruin\nsin has wrought in human nature, dominates us so that \"we needs must\nlove the highest when we see it.\" The very demand is a promise and a\nprophecy of completed moral and religious liberty to the individual\nsoul. It rests upon the assurance that men have at last been\ntrained to walk alone, that the support of social life and external\nordinances has become less necessary than it was, and that one day\na new and living way of access to the Father will bring every soul\ninto daily intercourse with the source of all spiritual life.\n\n  [48] _Theol., Ethik_ i., p. 515.\n\n  [49] _Doctrine of Sin_, vol. i., p. 114.\n\nBut this demand, in affirming personality of so high a kind, also\nre-created duty. Under the national dispensation the individual\nman was a _servant_. To a large extent he knew not what his Lord\ndid, and he ruled his life by the commands he received without\nunderstanding, or perhaps caring to understand, their ultimate\nground and aim. Much too of what he thus laid upon himself was mere\nancient custom, which had been a protection to national and moral\nlife in early days, but which had survived, or was on the point of\nsurviving, its usefulness. Now, however, that man was called upon to\nlove God with all his heart and mind and soul, the step was taken\nwhich was to end in his becoming the consciously free _son_ of God.\nFor to love in this fashion means, on the one hand, a willingness\nto enter into communion with God and to seek that communion; and on\nthe other it implies a throwing open of the soul to receive the love\nwhich God so persistently has pressed upon men. In such a relation\nslavery, blind or constrained obedience, disappears, and the motives\nof right action become the purest and most powerful that man can\nknow.\n\nIn the first place, selfishness dies out. Those to whom God has\ngiven Himself have no more to seek. They have reached the dwelling\n\"of peace imperturbable,\" and know that they are secure. Nothing\nthat they do can win more for them; and they do those things that\nplease God with the free, uncalculating, ungrudging forgetfulness\nof self, which distinguishes those fortunate children who have\ngrown up into a perfect filial love. Of course it was only the\nelect in Israel who in any great degree realised this ideal. But\neven those who neglected it had for a moment been illuminated by\nit; and the record of it remained to kindle the nobler hearts of\nevery generation. Even the legalism of later days could not obscure\nit. In the case of many it bore up and transfigured the dry details\nof Judaism, so that even amid such surroundings the souls of men\nwere kept alive. The later Psalms prove this beyond dispute, and\nthe advanced view which brings the bulk of the Psalter down to\nthe post-exilic period only emphasises the more this aspect of\npre-Christian Judaism. In Christianity of course the ideal was\nmade infinitely more accessible: and it received in the Pauline\ndoctrine, the Evangelical doctrine, of Justification by Faith a\nform, which more than any other human teaching has made unselfish\ndevotion to God a common aim. It would hardly be too much to say\nthat those philosophical and religious systems which have preached\nthe unworthiness of looking for a reward of well-doing, which have\nstriven to set up the doing of good for its own sake as the only\nmorality worthy of the name, have failed, just because they would\nnot begin with the love of God. To Christianity, especially to\nEvangelical Christianity, they have assumed to speak from above\ndownwards; but it alone has the secret they strove in vain to\nlearn. Men justified by faith have peace with God, and do good with\npassionate fervour without hope or possibility of further reward,\njust because of their love and gratitude to God, who is the source\nof all good. This plan has succeeded, and no other has; for to teach\nmen on any other terms to disregard reward is simply to ask them to\nbreathe in a vacuum.\n\nIn the second place, those who rose to the height of this calling\nhad duty not only deepened but extended. It was natural that\nthey should not seek to throw off the obligations of worship and\nmorality as they had been handed down by their ancestors. Only an\nauthoritative voice which they were separated from by centuries\ncould say, \"It hath been said by them of old time, ... but _I_\nsay unto you\"; and men would be disposed rather to fulfil old\nobligations with new zeal, while they added to them the new duties\nwhich their widened horizon had brought into view. It is true that\nin course of time the Pharisaic spirit laid hold of the Jews, and\nthat by it they were led back into a slavery which quite surpassed\nthe half-conscious bondage of their earlier time. It is one of\nthe mysteries of human nature that it is only the few who can\nlive for any time at a high level, and hold the balance between\nextremes. The many cannot choose but follow those few; and the\ndumb, half-reluctant, half-fascinated way in which they are drawn\nafter them is a most pathetic thing to see. But too often they\navenge themselves for the pressure put upon them, by taking up the\nteaching they receive in a perverted or mutilated form, dropping\nunawares the very soul of it, and suiting it to the average man.\nWhen that is done the bread from heaven becomes a stone; the message\nof liberty is turned into a summons to the prison house; and the\ndarkness becomes of that opaque sort which is found only where the\nlight within men is darkness. That tragedy was enacted in Judaism\nas rarely elsewhere. The free service of sons was exchanged for\nthe timorous, anxious scrupulosity of the formalist. How could men\nlove a God whom they pictured as inexorable in claiming the mint\nand cummin of ceremonial worship, and as making life a burden for\nall who had a conscience? They could not, and they did not. Most\nsubstituted a merely formal compliance with the externalities of\nworship for the love to God and man which was the presupposition\nof the true Israelite's life, and the mass of the nation fell away\nfrom true faith. Strangely enough, therefore, the strength of men's\nlove for God, and of their belief in His love, gave an impulse to\nthe legalistic Pharisaism which our Lord denounced as the acme of\nloveless irreligion.\n\nBut it was not so perverted in all. There always was an Israel\nwithin Israel that refused to let go the truths they had learned,\nand kept up the succession of men inspired by the free spirit of\nGod. Even among the Pharisees there were such--witness St. Paul--men\nwho, though they were entangled in the formalism of their time,\nfound it at last a pedagogue to bring them unto Christ. We must\nbelieve therefore that at the beginning the attainment marked by\nthe demands of Deuteronomy and the Law of Holiness existed and\nwas carried over into the daily life. As the national limits of\nreligion were broken down, the word \"neighbour\" received an ever\nwider definition in Israel. At first only a man's fellow-tribesman\nor fellow-countryman was included; then the stranger; later, as in\nJonah's picture of the conduct of the sailors, it was hinted that\neven among the heathen brethren might be found. Finally, in our\nLord's parable of the Good Samaritan the last barrier was broken\ndown. But it needed all St. Paul's lifework, and the first and\nmost desperate inner conflict Christianity had to live through, to\ninitiate men into anything like the full meaning of what Christ\nhad taught. Then it was seen that as there was but one Father in\nheaven, so there was but one family on earth. Then too, though the\nmerely ceremonial duties by which the Jew had been bound ceased to\nbe binding on Christians, the sphere for the practice of moral duty\nwas immensely widened. Indeed, had it not been for the free, joyous\nspirit with which they were inspired by Christ, they must have\nshrunk from the immensity of their obligation. For not only were\nmen's neighbours infinitely more numerous now, but their relations\nwith them became vastly more complicated. To meet all possible\ncases that might arise in the great and elaborate civilisations\nChristianity had to face and save, our Lord deepened the meaning of\nthe commandments; and so far from Christians being free from the\nobligation to law, immeasurably more was demanded of them. To them\nfirst was the full sweep of moral obligation revealed, for they\nfirst had reached the full moral stature of men in Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\n_EDUCATION--MOSAIC VIEW_\n\nDEUT. vi. 6-25\n\n\nThose great verses, Deut. vi. 4, 5, form the central truth of the\nbook. Everything else in it proceeds from and is informed by them,\nand they are dwelt upon and enforced with a clear perception of\ntheir radical importance. There is something of the joy of discovery\nin the way in which the unity of Yahweh and exclusive love to Him\nare insisted upon, not only in verses 6-25 of this chapter, but in\nxi. 13-20. The same strongly worded demand to lay to heart Yahweh's\ncommand to love Him and Him only, and to teach it strenuously to\ntheir children--to make it \"a sign upon their hand,\" and \"as a\nfrontlet between their eyes\"--is found in both passages. It is\nworthy of remark also that nearly the same words are found in Exod.\nxiii. 9, 16. Presumably on account of this, some have ascribed that\nsection of Exodus to the author of Deuteronomy. But both Dillmann\nand Driver ascribe these passages to J and E, and with good reason.\nIndeed, apart from the purely literary grounds for thinking that\nthese formulas were first used by the earlier writers and were\ncopied by the author of Deuteronomy, another line of argument points\nin the same direction. In Exodus the thing to be remembered and\ntaught to the children was the meaning and origin of the Passover\nand the consecration of the firstborn, _i.e._ the meaning and origin\nof some of their ritual institutions. Here in Deuteronomy, on the\ncontrary, that which is to be written on the heart and taught to\nthe children is moral and spiritual truth about God, and love to\nGod. Now the probable explanation of this likeness and difference\nis, not that the author of Deuteronomy, after using this insistive\nphrase only of high spiritual truths in his own book, inserted it in\nExodus with regard to mere institutions of the cultus; rather, the\nwriters of Exodus had used it of that which was important in their\nday, and the Deuteronomist borrowed it from them to emphasise his\nown most cherished revelation. In the earlier stages of a religious\nmovement, the establishment of institutions which shall embody and\nperpetuate religious truth, is one of the first necessities. It has\nbecome a commonplace of Christian defence, for example, that Baptism\nand the Lord's Supper were made the most successful vehicles for\nconveying fundamental Christian truth, and that the celebration of\nthese two rites from the first days even until now is one of the\nmost convincing proofs of the continuity of Christianity. Naturally,\ntherefore, the establishment of the Passover was specially marked\nout as the _palladium_ of Israelite religion in the earlier days.\nBut in the time after Isaiah, when Deuteronomy was written, the\ninstitutions needed no longer such insistence. They had indeed\nbecome so important to the people that the mere observance of them\nthreatened to become a substitute for religious and even moral\nfeeling. The Deuteronomist's great message was, consequently, a\nreiteration of the prophetic truths as to the supremacy of the\nspiritual; and for the object of the warm exhortation of the earlier\nwritings he substituted the proclamation of Yahweh's oneness, and\nof His demand for His people's love. This seems a reasonable and\nprobable explanation of the facts as we find them. If true, it is a\nproof that the need of ritual institutions, and the danger of unduly\nexalting them, was not peculiar to post-exilic times. In principle\nthe temptation was always present; and as living faith rose and\nfell it came into operation, or was held in abeyance, throughout\nthe whole of Israel's history. Hence the mention of this kind of\nformalism or the denunciation of it must be very cautiously used as\na criterion by which to date any Scriptural writings.\n\nIt is therefore with a full consciousness of its fundamental\nimportance that the author of Deuteronomy follows the great passage\nchapter vi. 4, 5, with this solemn and inspiring exhortation. It\nis from no mere itch for religious improvement of the occasion\nthat he presses home his message thus. Nor is it love for the mere\nrepetition of an ancient formula of exhortation that dictates its\nuse. He knew and understood the work of Moses, and felt that the\nmoulding power in Israel's life as a nation, the unifying element\nin it, had been the religion of Yahweh. Whatever else may have\nbeen called in question, it has never been doubted that the salt\nwhich kept the political and social life of the people from rotting\nthrough many centuries was the always advancing knowledge of God.\nAt each great crisis of Israel's history the religion of Yahweh\nhad met the demands for direction, for inspiration, for uplifting\nwhich were made upon it. With Protean versatility it had adapted\nitself to every new condition. In all circumstances it had provided\na lamp for the feet and a light for the path of the faithful; and\nin meeting the needs of generation after generation it had revealed\nelements of strength and consolation which, without the commentary\nof experience, could never have been brought out. Now the author\nof Deuteronomy felt that in these short sentences the high-water\nmark of Israelite religion so far had been reached, and that in\nrenewing the work of Moses, and adapting it to his own time, the\nprinciples here enunciated must be the main burden of his message.\nFurther progress depended, he obviously felt, upon the absorption\nand assimilation of these truths by his people, and he felt he must\nprovide for the perpetuation of them in that better time he was\npreparing for. This he did by providing for the religious education\nof the young. Whatever else Israel had gained it had been careful\nto hand on from generation to generation. The land flowing with\nmilk and honey was still in the possession of the descendants of\nthe first conquerors. The literature, the science, the wisdom that\nthe fathers had gathered, had been carefully passed down to the\nchildren; and a precious deposit of enriching experience in the form\nof history had reached to the elect even among the common people,\nas the example of Amos shows. But the most valuable heritage of\nIsrael was that continually growing deposit of religious truth which\nhad been the life-blood of its master spirits. From generation to\ngeneration the noblest men in the nation, those most sensitive to\nthe touch of the Divine, had been casting soundings into the great\ndeep of the hidden purposes of God. With sore travail of both mind\nand spirit, they had found solutions of the great problems which no\nliving soul can escape. These were no doubt more or less partial,\nbut they were sufficient for their day, and were always in the line\nof the final answer. As the sum of experience widened, the scope of\nthe solutions widened also, and in the course of Providence these\nissued in a conception of God which elsewhere was never approached.\nThis of all national treasures was the most priceless, and to\npreserve and hand on this was simply to keep the national soul\nalive. Compared with this, every other heritage from the past was\nas nothing; and so, with a simple directness which must amaze the\nlegislators of modern states, the inspired lawgiver arranged for a\nreligious education.\n\nTo him, as to all ancient lawgivers, a commonwealth without religion\nwas simply inconceivable, and the hampering, confusing, and confused\ndifficulties of to-day lay far beyond his horizon. Parents must\ntake over this great heritage and lay it deeply to heart. They must\nthen make it the subject of their common talk. They must write\nthe profound words which summed it up upon the doorposts of their\nhouses. They must let it fill their minds at their down-sitting\nand their uprising, and while they walked by the way. Further, as\nthe crown of their work, they were to teach it diligently to their\nchildren, already accustomed by their parents' continual interest to\nregard this as the worthiest object of human thought. But though the\nparents were to be the chief instructors of children in religion,\nthe State or the community was also to do its part. As the private\ncitizen was to write, \"Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh;\nand thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thine heart, and with\nall thy soul, and with all thy might,\" on the posts of his door, so\nthe representatives of the community were to write them upon the\ntown or village gates. In those early days schools were unknown,\nas State-regulated schools are still unknown in all purely Eastern\ncountries. Consequently there was no sphere for the State in the\ndirect religious teaching of the young. But so far as it could act,\nthe State was to act. It was to commit itself to the religious\nprinciples that underlay the life of the people, and to proclaim\nthem with the utmost publicity. It was to secure that none should\nbe ignorant of them, so far as proclamation by writing in the most\npublic place could secure knowledge, for on this the very existence\nof the State depended.\n\nBut the religious instruction was not to be limited to the\nreiteration of these great sentences; in that case they would have\nbecome a mere form of words. In the last verses of the chapter, vv.\n20-25, we find a model of the kind of explanatory comment which\nwas to be given in addition: \"When thy son asketh thee in time to\ncome, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and\nthe judgments, which Yahweh our God hath commanded you? then thou\nshalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh's bondmen in the land of\nEgypt; and Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand,\"\nand so on. That means that the _history_ of Yahweh's dealings\nwith His people was to be taught, to show the reasonableness of\nthe Divine commands, to exhibit the love-compelling character of\nGod. And this was entirely in accord with the Biblical conception\nof God. Neither here nor elsewhere in the Old Testament are there\nany abstract definitions of His character, His spirituality, His\nomnipresence, or His omnipotence. Nor is there anywhere any argument\nto prove His existence. All that is postulated, presupposed, as that\nwhich all men believe, except those who have wilfully perverted\nthemselves. But the existence of God with all these great and\nnecessary attributes is undoubtedly implied in what is narrated of\nYahweh's dealings with His people. As we have seen, too, the very\nname of Yahweh implies that His nature should not be limited by any\ndefinition. He was what He would prove Himself to be, and throughout\nthe Old Testament the _gesta Dei_ through and for the Israelites,\nand the prophetic promises made in Yahweh's name, represented all\nthat was known of God. This gave a peculiarly healthy and robust\ntone to Old Testament piety. The subjective, introspective element\nwhich in modern times is so apt to take the upper hand, was kept\nin due subordination by making history the main nourishment of\nreligious thought. In constant contact with external fact, Israelite\npiety was simple, sincere, and practical; and men's thoughts being\nturned away from themselves to the Divine action in the world, they\nwere less touched by the disease of self-consciousness than modern\nbelievers in God. In every sphere of human life, too, they looked\nfor God, and traced the working of His hand. The later distinction\nbetween the sacred and secular parts of life, which has been often\npushed to disastrous extremes, was to them unknown. For these among\nmany other reasons, the Old Testament must always remain of vital\nimportance to the Church of God. It can fall into neglect only when\nthe religious life is becoming unhealthy and one-sided.\n\nFurther, its qualities especially fit it for use in the education\nof children. In many respects a child's mind resembles the mind of\na primitive people. It has the same love of concrete examples, the\nsame incapacity to appreciate abstract ideas, and it has the same\nsusceptibility to such reasoning as this: God has been very loving\nand gracious to men, especially to our forefathers, and we are\ntherefore bound to love Him and to obey Him with reverence and fear.\nTo the children of a primitive people such teaching would therefore\nbe doubly suitable; but the Deuteronomist's anxiety in regard to\nit has been justified by its results in times no longer primitive.\nThrough ages of persecution and oppression, often amid a social\nenvironment of the worst sort, there has been little or no wavering\nin the fundamental points of Jewish faith. Scattered and peeled,\nslaughtered and decimated, as they have been through blood-stained\ncenturies, this nation have held fast to their religion. Not even\nthe fact that, through their refusal to accept their Messiah when\nHe came, the most tender, the most expansive, the most highly\nspiritual elements of the Old Testament religion have escaped them,\nhas been able to neutralise the benefit of the truth they have so\ntenaciously held. Of non-Christian nations they stand by far the\nhighest; and among the orthodox Jews who still keep firm to the\nnational traditions, and teach the ancient Scriptures diligently to\ntheir children, there is often seen a piety and a confidence in God,\na submission and a hopefulness which put to shame many who profess\nto have hope in Christ. Even in our day, when agnosticism and denial\nof the supernatural is eating into Judaism more than into almost any\nother creed,[50] a book like Friedl\u00e4nder's _The Jewish Religion_\ngives us a very favourable idea of the spirit and teachings of\northodox Judaism. And its main stay is, and always has been, the\nreligious training of the young. \"In obedience to the precept 'Thou\nshalt speak of them,' _i.e._ of 'the words which I command thee this\nday,'\"says Friedl\u00e4nder, \"'when thou liest down and when thou risest\nup,' three sections of the law are read daily, in the morning and\nin the evening, viz. (1) Deut. vi. 4-9, beginning 'Hear'; (2) Deut.\nxi. 13-21, beginning 'And it shall be if ye diligently hearken'; (3)\nNumb. xv. 37-41, beginning 'And the Lord said.' The first section\nteaches the unity of God, and our duty to love this one God with all\nour heart, to make His word the subject of our constant meditation\nand to instil it into the heart of the young. The second section\ncontains the lesson of reward and punishment, that our success\ndepends on our obedience to the will of God. This important truth\nmust constantly be kept before our eyes, and before the eyes of our\nchildren. The third section contains the commandments of Tsitsith,\nthe object of which is to remind us of God's precepts.\" To-day,\ntherefore, as so many centuries ago, these great words are uttered\ndaily in the ears of all pious Jews, and they are as potent to keep\nthem steady to their faith now as they were then. For in most cases\nwhere a drift towards the fashionable agnosticism of the day or to\natheistic materialism is observable among Jews, it will be found to\nhave been preceded either by neglect or formalism in regard to this\nfundamental matter. Briefly, without this teaching they cease to\nbe Jews; with it they remain steadfast as a rock. Uprooted as they\nare from their country, their national coherence endures and seems\nlikely to endure till their set time has come. So triumphantly has\nthe enforcement of religious education vindicated itself in the case\nof God's ancient people.\n\n  [50] _Jewish Quarterly Review_, October 1888, p. 55, where Professor\n  Schechter finds himself compelled to discuss the question whether a\n  man may be a good Jew and yet deny the existence of God.\n\nIn the remaining verses of the chapter, vv. 10-19, we have a warning\nagainst neglect and forgetfulness of their God, and an indication of\nthe circumstances under which it would be most difficult to remain\ntrue to Him. These are uttered entirely from the Mosaic standpoint,\nand are among the passages which it is most difficult to reconcile\nwith the later authorship; for there would appear to be no motive\nfor the later writer to go back upon the exceptional circumstances\nof the early days in Canaan. His object must have been to warn and\nguide and instruct the people of _his_ time in the face of their\ndifficulties and temptations, to adapt Mosaic legislation and Mosaic\nteaching to the needs of his own day. Now on any supposition he must\nhave written when all conquest on Israel's part had long ceased. It\nis most probable too that in his day the prosperity of his people\nwas on the wane. They were not looking forward to a time of special\ntemptation from riches; rather they were dreading expatriation and\ndecay. Consequently this reference to the ease with which they\nbecame rich by occupying the cities and villages and farms of those\nthey had conquered is quite out of place, unless we are to regard\nthe author as a skilled and artistic writer who deliberately set\nhimself to reproduce in all respects the mind and thoughts of a man\nof an earlier day, as Thackeray, for instance, does in his _Henry\nEsmond_. But that is not credible; and the explanation is that given\nin Chapter I., that the addresses here attributed to Moses are free\nreproductions of earlier traditions or narratives concerning what\nMoses actually said. If we know anything about Moses at all, it is\nin the highest degree probable that he left his people some parting\ncharge. He longed to pass the Jordan with them. He could not fail\nto see that an immense revolution in their habits and manner of\nlife was certain to occur when they entered the promised land. That\nmust have appeared to him fraught with varied dangers, and words of\nwarning and instructions would rush even unbidden to his lips.\n\nThere can be no doubt, at any rate, that this passage is true to\nhuman nature in regarding the sudden acquirement of great and\ngoodly cities which they did not build, and houses full of good\nthings which they filled not, and cisterns hewn out which they did\nnot hew, vineyards and olive trees which they did not plant, as a\ngreat temptation to forgetfulness of God. At all times prosperity,\nespecially if it come suddenly, and without being won by previous\ntoil and self-denial, has tended to deteriorate character. When\nmen have no changes or vicissitudes, then they fear not God. It\nis for help in trouble when the help of man is vain, or for a\ndeliverance in danger, that average men most readily turn to God.\nBut when they feel fairly safe, when they have raised themselves,\nas they think, \"beyond all storms of chance,\" when they have built\nup between themselves and poverty or failure a wall of wealth and\npower, then the impulse that drives them upward ceases to act. It\nbecomes strangely pleasant, and it seems safe, to get rid of the\nstrain of living at the highest attainable level, and with a sigh\nof relief men stretch themselves out to rest and to enjoy. These\nare the average men; but there are some in every age, the elect, who\nhave had the love of God shed abroad in their hearts, who have had\nsuch real and intimate communion with God that separation from Him\nwould turn all other joys into mockery. They cannot yield to this\ntemptation as most do, and in the midst of wealth and comfort keep\nalive their aspirations. In Israel these two classes existed; and to\nthe former, _i.e._ to the great bulk of both rulers and people, the\nstimulus administered by the conquest to the material side of their\nnature must have been potent indeed.\n\nIt is here implied that the Israelite people when they entered\nCanaan had some moral education to lose. Whether that could be so is\nthe question asked by many critics, and their answer is an emphatic\nNo. They were, say they, a rude, desert people, without settled\nhabits of life, without knowledge of agriculture, and possessed\nof a religion which in all outward respects was scarcely, if at\nall, higher than that of the surrounding nations. What happened\nto them in Canaan, therefore, was not a lapse, but a rise. They\nadvanced from being a wandering pastoral people to become settled\nagriculturists. They gained knowledge of the arts of life by their\ncontact with the Canaanites, and they lost little or nothing in\nreligion; for they were themselves only image-worshippers and\nlooked upon Yahweh as on a level with the Canaanite Baals. But if\nthe Decalogue belongs, in any form, to that early time, and if the\ncharacter of Moses be in any degree historical, then, of course,\nthis mode of view is false. Then Israel worshipped a spiritual\nGod, who was the guardian of morals; and there was in the mind\nof their leader and legislator a light which illuminated every\nsphere of life, both private and national. Consequently there\ncould be a falling away from a higher level of religious life, as\nthe Scriptures consistently say there was. Without perhaps having\nunderstood and made their own the fundamental truths of Yahwism,\nthe people had had their whole social and political life remodelled\nin accordance with its principles. They had, moreover, had time to\nlearn something of its inner meaning, and in forty years we may\nwell believe that the more spiritually minded among them had become\nimbued with the higher religious spirit. Add to that the union,\nthe movement, the excitement of a successful advance, crowned by\nconquest, and we have all the elements of a revived religious and\nnational life among Eastern people.\n\nSimilar causes have produced precisely similar effects since. In\nimportant respects the origin of Mohammedanism repeats the same\nstory. A semi-nomadic people, divided into clans and tribes, related\nby blood but never united, were unified by a great religious idea\nvastly in advance of any they had hitherto known. The religious\nreformer who proclaimed this truth, and those who belonged to the\ninner circle of his friends and counsellors, were turned from many\nevils, and exhibited a moral force and enthusiasm corresponding, in\nsome degree at least, to the sublimity of the religious doctrine\nthey had embraced. The masses, on their part, received and submitted\nto a revised and improved scheme of social life. Then they moved\nforward to conquest, and in their first days not only trampled down\nopposition, but deserved to do so, for in most respects they were\nsuperior to the ignorant and degraded Christians they overthrew.\nThey came out of the desert, and were at first soldiers only. But\nin a generation or two they largely settled to purely agricultural\nlife, as landowners for whom the native population laboured; and\nthey gained in knowledge of the arts of life from the more civilised\npeoples they conquered. But in religious and moral character\nimitations of the conquered peoples involved, for the conquerors, a\nloss. And soon they did lose. The violence accompanying successful\nwar produced arrogance and injustice; the immense wealth thrown\ninto their hands so suddenly gave rise to luxury and greed. Within\ntwenty-five years from the flight of Mohammed from Mecca, relaxation\nof manners manifested itself. Sensuality and drunkenness were rife;\nwith Ali's death the Caliphate passed into the hands of Muawia,\nthe leader of the still half-heathen part of the Koreish; and\nthe secular indifferent portion of Mohammed's followers ruled in\nIslam.[51]\n\n  [51] For an illustration of the way in which land-hunger and the\n  rush to satisfy it operates on men, see the account of \"The Invasion\n  of Oklahoma\" (a territory lately thrown open to occupation in the\n  United States), _Spectator_, April 27th, 1889.\n\nAllowing all that can be allowed for exceptional influences in\nIsrael, we may well believe that the circumstances of the first\ninvaders were such as would strain the influence of the higher\nreligion upon the nation. And after the conquest and settlement\nthe strain would necessarily be greater still. Whatever drawbacks\nwarfare may have, it at least keeps men active and hardy, but the\nrest of a conqueror after warfare is a temptation to luxury and\ncorruption which has been very rarely resisted. Even to-day, when\nmen enter upon new and vacant lands, and that without war and under\nChristian influences, the plenty which the first immigrants soon\ngather about them proves adverse to higher thought. In America in\nits earlier days, and in new American territories and Australia now,\nour civilisation at that stage always takes a materialistic turn.\nEvery man may hope to become rich, the resources of the country\nare so great and those who are to share them are so few. In order\nto develop them, all concerned must give their time and thoughts\nto the work, and must become absorbed in it. The result is that,\nthough the religious instinct asserts itself in sufficient strength\nto lead to the building of churches and schools, and men are too\nbusy to be much influenced by theoretical unbelief, yet the pulse\nof religion beats feebly and low. The feeling spreads, under many\ndisguises it is true, but still it spreads, that a man's life does\n\"consist in the abundance of the things which he possesseth\"; and\nthe heroic element of Christianity, the impulse to self-sacrifice,\nfalls into the background. The result is a social life respectable\nenough, save that the social blots due to self-indulgence are a good\ndeal more conspicuous than they should be; a very high average of\ngeneral comfort, with its necessary drawback of a self-satisfied\nand somewhat ignoble contentment; and a religious life that prides\nitself mainly in avoiding the falsehood of extremes. In such\nan atmosphere true and living religion has great difficulty in\nasserting itself. Each individual is drawn away from the region\nof higher thought more powerfully than in the older lands where\nambitions are for most men less plausible; and so the struggle to\nkeep the soul sensitive to spiritual influences is more hard. As\nfor the national life, public affairs in those circumstances tend\nto be ruled simply by the standard of immediate expediency, and\nstrenuousness of principle or practice tends to be regarded as an\nimpossible ideal.\n\nTo all this Israel was exposed, and to more. There are doubts as to\nthe extent of their conquests when they settled down; but there are\nnone that when they did so they still had heathen Canaanites among\nthem. Throughout almost the whole country the population was mixed,\nand constant intercourse with the conquered peoples was unavoidable.\nAt first these were either Israel's teachers in many of the arts of\nsettled life, or they must have carried on the work of agriculture\nfor their Israelite lords. Moreover many of the sacred places\nof the land, the sanctuaries which from time immemorial had been\nresorted to for worship, were either taken over by the Israelites or\nwere left in Canaanite hands. In either case they opened a way for\nmalign influences upon the purer faith. Gradually, too, the tribal\nfeeling asserted itself. The tribal heads regained the position they\nhad held before the domination of Moses and his successor, just as\nthe tribal heads of the Arabs asserted themselves after the death of\nMohammed and his immediate successors, and plunged into fratricidal\nwar with the companions of their prophet. The only difference was\nthat, while the circumstances of the Arabs compelled them to retain\na supreme head, the circumstances of the Israelites permitted them\nto fall back into the tribal isolation from which they had emerged.\nThe national life was broken up, the religious life followed in\nthe same path, until, as the Book of Judges graphically says in\nnarrating how Micah set up an Ephod and Teraphim for himself and\nmade his son a priest, \"every man did that which was right in his\nown eyes.\" With a people so recently won for a higher faith, there\ncould not but follow a recrudescence of heathen or semi-heathen\nbeliefs and practices.\n\nTo sum up, given a great truth revealed to one man, which, though\naccepted by a nation, is only half understood by the bulk of them,\nand given also a great national deliverance and expansion brought\nabout by the same leader, you have there the elements of a great\nenthusiasm with the seeds of its own decay within it. Such a nation,\nespecially if plied with external temptation, will fall back, not\ninto its first state certainly, but into a condition much below\nits highest level, so soon as the leader and those who had really\ncomprehended the new truth are removed to a distance or are dead.\n\nIn the case of Mohammedanism this was instinctively felt. We find\nthe Governor of Bassorah writing thus to Omar, the third Khalif:\n\"Thou must strengthen my hands with a company of the Companions\nof the Prophet, for verily they are as salt in the midst of the\npeople.\"[52] The same thing is expressly asserted of Israel also\nby the later editor in Josh. xxiv. 31: \"And Israel served the\nLord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that\noutlived Joshua, and had known all the work of the Lord, that\nHe had wrought for Israel.\" It would almost seem as if Semitic\npeoples were specially liable to such oscillations, if Palgrave's\naccount of the people of Nejed before the rise of the Wahabbis in\nthe middle of last century can be trusted. \"Almost every trace of\nIslam,\" he says,[53] \"had long since vanished from Nejed, where the\nworship of the Djann, under the spreading foliage of large trees,\nor in the cavernous recesses of Djebel Toweyk, along with the\ninvocation of the dead and sacrifices at their tombs, was blended\nwith remnants of old Sab\u00e6an superstition. The Coran was unread, the\nfive daily prayers forgotten, and no one cared where Mecca lay,\neast or west, north or south; tithes, ablutions, and pilgrimages\nwere things unheard of.\"[54] If that was the state of things in a\ncountry exposed to no extraneous influences after a thousand years\nof Islam, we may well believe that the state of Israel in the time\nof the Judges was a fall from a better state religiously as well\nas politically. Looking to the future, Moses might well foresee\nthe danger; and looking back the author of Deuteronomy would have\nreasons, many of them now unknown, for knowing that what was feared\nhad occurred.\n\n  [52] _The Caliphate_, by Sir William Muir, p. 185.\n\n  [53] _Central and Eastern Arabia_, vol. i., p. 373.\n\n  [54] This shows how precarious the fundamental principle of much\n  new criticism is. The non-observance of rites laid down as Divine\n  commands, and the appearance of ancient superstitions such as the\n  worship of the dead at any period, are held sufficient in the\n  history of Israel to prove that monotheism did not then exist, and\n  that ancestor-worship was then the prevailing cult. If applied to\n  Islam that principle would lead to utterly false conclusions. Is\n  there any reason for thinking that it may not give similar results\n  when applied to the history of Israel?\n\nIt is striking to see that both know but one security against such\nlapses in the life of a nation, and that is education. Nowadays we\nare inclined to ask if this was not a delusion on their part. The\nboundless faith in education as a moral, religious, and national\nrestorative which filled men's minds in the early part of this\ncentury, has given place to disquieting questions as to whether\nit can do anything so high. Many begin to doubt whether it does\nmore than restrain men from the worst crimes, by pointing out\ntheir consequences. And in the case of ordinary secular education\nthat doubt is only too well founded. But it was not mere secular\neducation the Old Testament relied on. Reading, writing, and\narithmetic, valuable as these are as gateways to knowledge, were\nnot in its view at all. What it was felt necessary to do was to\nkeep alive an ideal view of life; and that was done by pouring\ninto the young the history of their people, with the best that\ntheir highest minds had learned and thought of God. The demand\nis that parents shall first of all give themselves up to the\nlove of God, without any reserve, and then that they shall teach\nthis diligently to their children as the substance of the Divine\ndemand upon _them_. Evidently by the words, \"Thou shalt talk of\nthem when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by\nthe way, and when thou liest down and when thou risest up,\" it is\nmeant that the truth about God and the thought of God should be a\nsubject on which conversation naturally turned, and to which it\ngladly returned continually. Words about these things were to\nflow from a genuine delighted interest in them, which made speech\na necessity and a joy. Further, parents were to meet the _na\u00efve_\nand questioning curiosity of their children as to the meaning of\nreligious and moral ordinances of their people, with grave and\nextended teaching as to the work of God among them in the past.\nThey were to point out, vv. 21-25, all the grace of God, and to\nshow them that the statutes, which to young and undisciplined minds\nmight seem a heavy burden, were really God's crowning mercy: they\nmarked out the lines upon which alone good could come to man: they\nwere the directions of a loving guide anxious to keep their feet\nfrom paths of destruction, \"for their good always.\" Such education\nas this might prove adequate to overcome even stronger temptations\nthan those to which Israel was exposed. For see what it means. It\nmeans that all the garnered religious thought and emotion of past\ngenerations, which the experiences of life and the felt presence\nof God in them had borne in upon the deepest minds of Israel, was\nto be made the bounding horizon for the opening mind of every\nIsraelite child. When the child looked beyond the desires of its\nphysical nature, it was to see this great sight, this panorama of\nthe grace of Yahweh. To compensate for the restrictions which the\nDecalogue puts upon the natural impulses, Yahweh was to be held up\nto every child as an object of love, no desire after which could be\nexcessive. Love to Yahweh, drawn out by what He had shown Himself to\nbe, was to turn the energies of the young soul outward, away from\nself, and direct them to God, who works and is the sum of all good.\nObviously those upon whom such education had its perfect work would\nnever be fettered by the material aspects of things. Their horizon\ncould never be so darkened that the twilight gods worshipped by the\nCanaanites should seem to them more than dim and vanishing shadows.\nEvery evil, incident to their circumstances as conquerors, would\nfall innocuous at their feet.\n\nThe instrument put into the hands of Israel was, viewed ideally,\nquite adequate for the work it had to do. But the history of Israel\nshows that the effort to keep Yahweh continually present to the mind\nof the people failed; and the question arises, why did it fail? If,\nas we have every reason to believe, the main tendencies of human\nnature then were what they are now, the first cause of failure\nwould be with the parents. Many, probably the most of them, would\nobserve to do all that Moses commanded, but they would do it without\nthemselves keeping alive their spiritual life. Wherever that was the\ncase, though the prayers should be scrupulously rehearsed, though\nthe religious talk should be increasing, though the instruction\nabout the past should be exact and regular, the highest results of\nit all would cease to appear. The best that would be done would be\nto keep alive knowledge of what the fathers had told them. The worst\nwould be to render the child's mind so familiar with all aspects\nof the truth, and with all the phases of religious emotion, that\nthroughout life this would always seem a region already explored,\nand in which no water for the thirsty soul had been found.\n\nBut in the children, too, there would be fatal hindrances. One\nwould almost expect, _a priori_, that when one generation had won\nin trial and hardship and conquest a fund of moral and spiritual\nwisdom, their children would be able to take it to themselves,\nand would start from the point their fathers had attained. But in\nexperience that is not found to be so. The fathers may have gained\na sane and strong manhood through the training and teaching of\nDivine Providence, but their children do not start from the level\ntheir fathers have gained. They begin with the same passions, and\nevil tendencies, and illusions, as their fathers began with, and\nagainst these they have to wage continual war. Above all, each soul\nfor itself must take the great step by which it turns from evil to\ngood. No rise in the general level of life will ever enable men to\ndispense with that. The will must determine itself morally by a free\nchoice, and the Divine grace must play its part, before that union\nwith God which is the heart of all religion can be brought about.\nNo mechanical keeping up of good habits or fairer forms of social\nlife can do much at this crucial point; and so each generation finds\nthat there is no discharge in the war to which it is committed. As\nin all wars, many fall; sometimes the battle goes sorely against\nthe kingdom of God, and the majority fall. The strength and beauty\nof a whole generation turns to the world and away from God, and the\nlabours and prayers of faithful men and women who have taught them\nseem to be in vain.\n\nThe method of warding off evil by even high religious education\nis consequently very imperfect and uncertain in its action.\nNevertheless this relative uncertainty is bound up with the very\nnature of moral influence and moral agency. Professor Huxley, in\na famous passage of one of his addresses, says that if any being\nwould offer to wind him up like a clock, so that he should always\ndo what is right, and think what is true, he would close with the\noffer, and make no mourning about his moral freedom. Probably this\nwas only a vehement way of expressing a desire for righteousness in\ndeed, and truth in thought, somewhat pathetic in such a man. But if\nwe are to take it literally, it is a singularly unwise declaration.\nThe longing which gives pathos to the professor's words would on\nhis hypothesis be a lunacy; for in the realm of morals mechanical\ncompulsion has no meaning. Even God must give room to His creature,\nthat he may exercise the spiritual freedom with which he is\nendowed. Even God, we may say without irreverence, must sometimes\nfail in that which He seeks to accomplish, in the field of moral\nlife. Philosophically speaking, perhaps, this statement cannot be\ndefended. But it is not the Absolute of Philosophy which can touch\nthe hearts and draw the love of men. It is the living, personal God,\nof whom we gain our best working conception by boldly transferring\nto Him the highest categories predicable of our humanity. He is,\ndoubtless, much more than we; but we can only ascribe to Him our\nown best and highest. When we have done that we have approached Him\nas near as we can ever do. The Scriptural writers, therefore, have\nno pedantic scruples in their speech about God. They constantly\nrepresent Him as pleading with men, desiring to influence them, and\nyet sometimes as being driven back defeated by the obstinate sin of\nman. The Bible is full of the failures of God in this sense; and\nGod's greatest failure, that which forms the burden and inspires\nthe pathos of the bulk of the Old Testament, is His failure with\nHis chosen people. They _would_ not be saved, they _would_ not be\nfaithful; and God had to accomplish His work of planting the true\nand spiritual religion in the world by means of a mere remnant of\nfaithful men chosen from a faithless multitude.\n\nBut though this plan failed miserably in one way, in the way of\ngaining the bulk of the people, it succeeded in another. As has\njust been said, _the_ purpose of God was in any case accomplished.\nBut even apart from that, the religious education that was given\nwas of immense importance. It raised the level of life for all;\nlike the Nile mud in the inundation, it fertilised the whole field\nof this people's life. It kept an ideal, too, before men, without\nwhich they would have fallen even lower than they did. And it lay\nin the minds of even the worst, ready to be changed into something\nhigher; for without previous intellectual acquaintance with the\nfacts, the deeper knowledge was impossible. Moreover the ordinary\ncivil morality of the people rested upon it. Without their religion\nand the facts on which it was based, the moral code had no hold\nupon them, and could have none. That had grown up in one complex\ntangle with religion; it had received its highest inspiration from\nthe conception of God handed down from the fathers; and apart from\nthat it would have fallen into an incoherent mass of customs unable\nto justify or account for their existence. In every community the\nsame principle holds. Hence whatever the theory of the relation\nof the State to religion which may prevail, no State can, without\nmuch harm, ignore the religion of the people. It may sometimes even\nbe wise and right for a government to introduce or to encourage\na higher religion at the expense of a lower. But it can never be\neither wise or right to be inadvertent of religion altogether. In\naccordance with this precept, the rulers of Israel never were so.\nThey not only encouraged parents to be strenuous, as this passage\ndemands of them, but on more than one occasion they made definite\nprovision for the religious instruction of the people. In a formal\nsense that grew into a habit which even yet has not lost its hold;\nand hence, as we have seen, the Jews have been kept true in an\nunexampled manner to their racial and religious characteristics.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\n_THE BAN_\n\nDEUT. vii.\n\n\nAs in the previous chapter we have had the Mosaic and Deuteronomic\nstatement of the internal and spiritual means of defending the\nIsraelite character and faith from the temptations which the\nconquest in Canaan would bring with it, in this we have strenuous\nprovision made against the same evil by external means. The mind\nfirst was to be fortified against the temptation to fall away; then\nthe external pressure from the example of the peoples they were\nto conquer was to be minimised by the practice of the ban. The\nfirst five verses, and the last two deal emphatically with that,\nas also does ver. 16, and what lies between is a statement of the\ngrounds upon which a strict execution of this dreadful measure was\ndemanded. These, as is usual in Deuteronomy, are dealt with somewhat\ndiscursively; but the command as to the ban, coming as it does\nat the beginning, middle, and end, gives this chapter unity, and\nsuggests that it should be treated under this head as a whole. There\nare besides other passages which can most conveniently be discussed\nin connection with chapter vii. These are the historic statements\nas to the ban having been laid upon the cities of Sihon (Deut. ii.\n34) and Og (Deut. iii. 6); the provision for the extirpation of\nidolatrous persons and communities (Deut. xiii. 15); and lastly,\nthat portion of the law of war which treats of the variations in the\nexecution of the ban which circumstances might demand (Deut. xx.\n13-18). These passages, taken together, give an almost exhaustive\nstatement in regard to the nature and limitations of the Cherem,\nor ban, in ancient Israel, a statement much more complete than is\nelsewhere to be found; and they consequently suggest, if they do not\ndemand, a complete investigation of the whole matter.\n\nIt is quite clear that the Cherem, or ban, by which a person or\nthing, or even a whole people and their property, were devoted to\na god, was not a specially Mosaic ordinance, for it is a custom\nknown to many half-civilised and some highly civilised nations.\nIn Livy's account of early Rome we read that Tarquinius, after\ndefeating the Sabines, burned the spoils of the enemy in a huge\nheap, in accordance with a vow to Vulcan, made before advancing into\nthe Sabine country. The same custom is alluded to in Vergil, _\u00c6n._\nviii. 562, and C\u00e6sar, _B.G._ vi. 17, tells us a similar thing of the\nGauls. The Mexican custom of sacrificing all prisoners of war to\nthe god of war was of the same kind. But the most complete example\nof the ban in the Hebrew sense, occurring among a foreign people,\nis to be found in the Moabite stone which Mesha, king of Moab,\nerected in the ninth century B.C., _i.e._ in the days of Ahab. Of\ncourse Moab and Israel were related peoples, and it might in itself\nbe possible that Moab during its subjection to Israel had adopted\nthe ban from Israel. But that is highly improbable, considering how\nwidespread this custom is, and how deeply its roots are fixed in\nhuman nature. Rather we should take the Moabite ban as an example of\nits usual form among the Semitic peoples. \"And Chemosh said to me,\nGo, take Nebo against Israel. And I went by night and fought against\nit from the break of morn until noon, and took it and killed\nthem all, seven thousand men and boys, and women and girls and\nmaid-servants, for I had devoted it to 'Ashtor-Chemosh'; and I took\nthence the vessels\" (so Renan) \"of Yahweh, and I dragged them before\nChemosh.\"[55] The ordinary Semitic word for the ban is _Cherem_. It\ndenotes a thing separated from or prohibited to common use, and no\ndoubt it indicated originally merely that which was given over to\nthe gods, separated for their exclusive use for ever. In this way it\nwas distinguished from that which was \"sanctified\" to Yahweh, for\nthat could be redeemed; devoted things could not.\n\n  [55] Driver, _Notes on Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_, p. 101,\n  note.\n\nIn the ancient laws repeated in Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, two classes\nof devoted things seem to be referred to. First of all, we have\nthe things which an individual may devote to God, \"whether of man\nor beast, or of the field of his possession.\" The provision made\nin regard to them is that they shall not be sold or redeemed, but\nshall become in the highest degree sacred to Yahweh. Men so devoted,\ntherefore, became perpetual slaves at the holy places, and other\nkinds of property fell to the priests. In the next verse, 29, we\nread, \"None devoted which shall be devoted of\" (_i.e._ from among)\n\"men shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,\" but that\nmust refer to some other class of men devoted to Yahweh. It is\ninconceivable that in Israel individuals could at their own will\ndevote slaves or children to death. Moreover, if every man devoted\nmust be killed, the provision of Numb. xviii. 14, according to which\neverything devoted in Israel is to be Aaron's, could not be carried\nout. Further, there is a difference in expression in the two verses:\nin 28 we have things \"devoted to Yahweh,\" in 29 we have simply men\n\"devoted.\"[56] There can be little doubt, therefore, that we have\nin ver. 29 the case of men condemned for some act for which the\npunishment prescribed by the law was the ban (as in Exod. xxii. 19,\n\"He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto Yahweh only shall be\nput to the ban\"), or which some legal tribunal considered worthy\nof that punishment. In such cases, the object of the ban being\nsomething offensive, something which called out the Divine wrath and\nabhorrence, this \"devotion\" to God meant utter destruction. Just\nas _anath\u0113ma_, a thing set up in a temple as a votive offering,\nbecame _anath\u0115ma_, an accursed thing, and as _sacer_, originally\nmeaning sacred, came to mean devoted to destruction, so _Cherem_,\namong the Semites, came to have the meaning of a thing devoted to\ndestruction by the wrath of the national gods. From ancient days it\nhad been in use, and in Israel it continued to be practised, but\nwith a new moral and religious purpose which antiquity could know\nnothing of. No more conspicuous instance of that transformation\nof ancient customs of a doubtful or even evil kind by the spirit\nof the religion of Yahweh, which is one of the most remarkable\ncharacteristics of the history of Israel, can be conceived than this\nuse of the ban for higher ends.\n\n  [56] Cf. Dillmann, _Exodus and Leviticus_, p. 634.\n\nAs the fundamental idea of the _Cherem_ was the devoting of objects\nto a god, it is manifest that the whole inner significance of the\ninstitution would vary with the conception of the Deity. Among the\nworshippers of cruel and sanguinary gods, such as the gods of the\nheathen Semites were, the ends which this practice was used to\npromote would naturally be cruel and sanguinary. Moreover, where\nit was thought that the gods could be bought over by acceptable\nsacrifices, where they were conceived of as non-moral beings,\nwhose reasons for favour or anger were equally capricious and\nunfathomable, it was inevitable that the _Cherem_ should be mainly\nused to bribe these gods to favour and help their peoples. Where\nvictory seemed easy and within the power of the nation, the spoil\nand the inhabitants of a conquered city or country would be taken\nby the conquerors for their own use. Where, on the other hand,\nvictory was difficult and doubtful, an effort would be made to win\nthe favour of the god, and wring success from him by promising him\nall the spoil. The slaughter of the captives would be considered\nthe highest gratification such sanguinary gods could receive, while\ntheir pride would be held to be gratified by the utter destruction\nof the seat of the worship of other gods. Obviously it was in this\nway that the Gauls and Germans worked this institution; and the\nprobability is that the heathen Semites would view the whole matter\nfrom an even lower standpoint. But to true worshippers of Yahweh\nsuch thoughts must have grown abhorrent. From the moment when their\nGod became the centre and the norm of moral life to Israel, acts\nwhich had no scope but the gratification of a thirst for blood, or\nof a petty jealous pride, could not be thought acceptable to Him.\nEvery institution and custom, therefore, which had no moral element\nin it, had either to be swept away, or moralised in the spirit of\nthe purer faith. Now the ban was not abolished in Israel; but it\nwas moralised, and turned into a potent and terrible weapon for the\npreservation and advancement of true religion.\n\nBy the Divine appointment the national life of Israel was bound up\nwith the foundation and progress of true religion. It was in this\npeople that the seeds of the highest religion were to be planted,\nand it was by means of it that all the nations of the earth were\nto be blessed. But as the chief means to this end was to be the\nhigher ethical and religious character of the nation as such, the\npreservation of that from depravation and decay became the main\nanxiety of the prophets and priests and law-givers of Israel. Just\nas in modern days the preservation and defence of the State is\nreckoned in every country the supreme law which overrides every\nother consideration, so in Israel the preservation of the higher\nlife was regarded. Rude and half-civilised as Israel was at the\nbeginning of its career, the Divinely revealed religion had made\nmen conscious of that which gave this people its unique value both\nto God and men. They recognised that its glory and strength lay in\nits thought of God, and in the character which this impressed upon\nthe corporate life, as well as on the life of each individual. As we\nhave seen, this bred in them a consciousness of a higher calling,\nof a higher obligation resting on them than upon others. They\nconsequently felt the necessity of guarding their special character,\nand used the ban as their great weapon to ward off the contagion\nof evil, and to give this character room to develop itself. Its\ntremendous, even cruel, power was directed in Israel to this end;\nit was from this point of view alone that it had value in the eyes\nof the fully enlightened man of Israel. Stade in his history (vol.\ni., p. 490) holds that this distinction did not exist, that the\nIsraelite view differed in little, if anything, from that of their\nheathen kinsmen, and that the ban resulted from a vow intended to\ngratify Yahweh and win His favour by giving Him the booty. But\nit is undeniable that in the earliest statement in regard to it\n(Exod. xx.) there is a distinct legislative provision that the ban\nshould be proclaimed and executed irrespective of any vow; and in\nthe later, but still early, notices of it in Joshua, Judges, and 1\nSamuel the command to execute it comes in every case from Yahweh.\nIn Deuteronomy, again, the ethical purpose of the ban is always\ninsisted upon, most emphatically perhaps in chap. xx. 17 ff., where\nthe _Cherem_ is laid down as a regular practice in war against the\nheathen inhabitants of Canaan: \"But thou shalt utterly destroy them,\n... that they teach you not to do after all their abominations,\nwhich they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against\nYahweh your God.\" Whatever hints or appearances there may be in\nthe Scripture narratives that the lower view still clung to some\nminds are not to be taken as indicating the normal and recognised\nview. They were, like much else of a similar kind, mere survivals,\nbecoming more and more shadowy as the history advances, and at last\nentirely vanishing away. The new and higher thought which Moses\nplanted was the rising and prevailing element in the Israelite\nconsciousness. The lower thought was a decaying reminiscence of\nthe state of things which the Mosaic revelation had wounded to the\ndeath, but which was slow in dying.\n\nIn Israel, therefore, the ban was, on the principles of the higher\nreligion, legitimate only where the object was to preserve that\nreligion when gravely endangered. If any object could justify a\nmeasure so cruel and sweeping as the ban, this could, and this\nis the only ground upon which the Scriptures defend it. That the\ndanger was grave and imminent, when Israel entered Canaan, cannot be\ndoubted. As we have seen, the Israelite tribes were far from being\nof one blood or of one faith. There was a huge mixed multitude along\nwith them; and even among those who had unquestioned title to be\nreckoned among Israelites, many were gross, carnal, and slavish in\ntheir conceptions of things. They had not learned thoroughly nor\nassimilated the lessons they had been taught. Only the elect among\nthem had done that; and the danger from contact with races, superior\nin culture, and religiously not so far below the position occupied\nby the multitude of Israel, was extreme. The nation was born in a\nday, but it had been educated only for a generation; it was raw and\nignorant in all that concerned the Yahwistic faith. In fact it was\nprecisely in the condition in which spiritual disease could be most\neasily contracted and would be most deadly. The new religion had not\nbeen securely organised; the customs and habits of the people still\nneeded to be moulded by it, and could not, consequently, act as the\nstay and support of religion as they did at later times. Further,\nthe people were at the critical moment when they were passing from\none stage of social life to another. At such moments there is\nimmense danger to the health and character of a nation, for there is\nno unity of ideal present to every mind. That which they are moving\naway from has not ceased to exert its influence, and that _to_\nwhich they are moving has not asserted itself with all its power.\nAt such crises in the career of peoples emerging from barbarism,\neven physical disease is apt to be deadlier and more prevalent\nthan it is among either civilised or entirely savage men. The old\nSemitic heathenism had not been entirely overcome, and the new and\nhigher religion had not succeeded in establishing full dominion.\nContact with the Canaanites in almost any shape would under such\ncircumstances be like the introduction of a contagious disease, and\nat almost any price it had to be avoided. The customs of the world\nat that time, and of the Semitic nations in particular, offered this\nterribly effective weapon of the \"ban,\" and for this higher purpose\nit was accepted; and it was enforced with a stringency which nothing\nwould justify short of the fact that life or death to the great hope\nof mankind was involved in it.\n\nBut it may be and should be asked, Would any circumstances justify\nChristian men, or a Christian nation, in entering upon a war of\nextermination now? and if not, how can a war of extermination\nagainst the Canaanities have been sanctioned by God? In answer to\nthe first question, it must be said that, while circumstances can be\nconceived under which the extermination of a race would certainly\nbe carried out by nations called Christian, it is hardly possible\nto imagine Christian men taking part in such a massacre. Even the\nsupposed command of God could not induce them to do so.[57] It would\nbe so contrary to all that they have learned of God's will, both\nas regards themselves and others, that they would hesitate. Almost\ncertainly they would decide that they were bound to be faithful to\nwhat God had revealed of Himself; they would feel that He could not\nwish to blunt their moral sense and undo what He had done for them,\nand they would put aside the command as a temptation. But the case\nwith the Israelites was altogether different. The question is not,\nhow could God destroy a whole people? Were it only that, there would\nbe little difficulty. Everywhere in His action through nature God\nis ruthless enough against sin. Vice and sin are every day bringing\nmen and women and innocent children to death, and to suffering\nworse than death. For that every believer in God holds the Divine\nlaw responsible. And when the Divine command was laid upon the\nIsraelites to do, more speedily, and in a more awe-inspiring way,\nwhat Canaanite vices were already doing, there can be no difficulty\nexcept in so far as the effect upon the Israelites is concerned.\nIt is by death, inflicted as the punishment of vice, and sparing\nneither woman nor child, that nations have, as a rule, been blotted\nout; and, except to the confused thinker, so far as the Divine\naction is concerned there is no difference between such cases and\nthis of the Canaanites. The real question is, Can a living, personal\nGod deliberately set to men a task which can only lower them in the\nscale of humanity--brutalise them, in fact? No, is of course the\nonly possible answer; therefore a supposed Divine command coming\nto us to do such things would rightly be suspected. We could not,\nwe feel sure, be called upon by God to slay the innocent with the\nguilty, to overwhelm in one common punishment individual beings who\nhave each of them an inalienable claim to justice at our hands. But\nthe Israelites had not and could not have the feeling we have on\nthe subject. The feeling for the individual did not exist in early\ntimes. The clan, the tribe, the nation was everything, and the\nindividual nothing. Consequently there was not existent in the world\nthat keen feeling in regard to individual rights, which dominates us\nso completely that we can with difficulty conceive any other view.\nIn this world the early Israelite scarcely perceived the individual\nman, and beyond this world he knew of no certain career for him.\nHe consequently dealt with him only as part of his clan or tribe.\nHis tribe suffered for him and he for his tribe, and in early penal\nlaw the two could hardly be separated. Indeed it may almost be said\nthat, when the individual suffered for his own sin, the satisfaction\nfelt by the wronged was rather due to the tribe having suffered so\nmuch loss in the individual's death than to the retribution which\nfell upon him. Moreover war was the constant employment of all, and\ndeath by violence the most common of all forms of death. Manners and\nfeelings were both rude, and the pains as well as the pleasures of\ncivilised and Christian men lay largely beyond their horizon. There\nwas consequently no danger of doing violence to nobler feelings or\nof leaving a sting in the conscience by calling such men to such\nwork. The stage of moral development they had reached did not forbid\nit, and the work therefore might be given them of God.\n\n  [57] Mozley's _Lectures on the Old Testament_, p. 102.\n\nBut the grounds for the action were immeasurably raised. Instead\nof being left on the heathen level, \"the usage was utilised so as\nto harmonise with the principles of their religion, and to satisfy\nits needs. It became a mode of secluding and rendering harmless\nanything which peculiarly imperilled the religious life of either\nan individual or the community, such objects being withdrawn from\nsociety at large, and presented to the sanctuary, which had power,\nif needful, to authorise their destruction.\"[58] The Deuteronomic\ncommand is not given shamefacedly. The interests at stake are too\ngreat for that. Israel is utterly to smite the Canaanite nations,\nto put them to the ban, to make no covenant with them nor to\nintermarry with them. \"Thus shall ye deal with them: ye shall break\ndown their altars, and dash in pieces their obelisks, and hew down\ntheir Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.\" There is a\nfierce, curt energy about the words which impresses the reader with\nthe vigour needed to defend the true religion. The danger was seen\nto be great, and this tremendous weapon of the ban was to be wielded\nwith unsparing rigour, if Israel was to be true to its highest\ncall. \"For,\" ver. 6 goes on to say, \"thou art a holy people unto\nYahweh thy God; Yahweh thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar\npeople unto Himself, out of all peoples that are upon the face of\nthe earth.\" They were the elect of God; they were a holy people,\na people separated unto their God, and the Divine blessing was to\ncome upon all nations through them if they remained true. Their\nseparateness must therefore be maintained. As a people marked out\nby the love of God, they could not share in the common life of the\nworld as it then was. They could not lift the Canaanites to their\nlevel by mingling with them. So they would only obscure, nay, in\nso far as this rigorous command was not carried out, they did all\nbut fatally obscure, the higher elements of national and personal\nlife which they had received. They were too recently converted to\nbe the people of Yahweh, too weak in their own faith, to be able\nto do anything but stand in this austere and repellent attitude\ntowards the world. Centuries passed before they could relax without\ndanger. It may even be said that until the coming of our Lord they\ndared not take up any other than this separatist position, though\nas the ages passed and the prophetic influence grew, the yearning\nafter a gathering in of the Gentiles, and the promise of it in the\nMessianic day, became more markedly prominent. Only when men could\nlook forward to being made perfect in Jesus Christ did they receive\nthe command to go unreservedly out into the world, for only then had\nthey an anchor which no storm in the world could drag.\n\n  [58] Driver, _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_, p.\n  101.\n\nBut we must be careful not to exaggerate the separation called for\nhere. It does not authorise anything like the fierce, intolerant\nthirst for conquest and domination which was the very keynote of\nIslam.[59] In Deut. ii. 5, 6, 19, the lands of Edom, Moab, and Ammon\nare said to be Yahweh's gift to these peoples in the same way as\nCanaan was to Israel. Nor did the law ever authorise the bitter\nand contemptuous feeling with which Pharisaic Israelites often\nregarded all men beyond the pale of Judaism. There was no general\nprohibition against friendly intercourse with other peoples. It was\nagainst those only, whose presence in Canaan would have frustrated\nthe establishment of the theocracy, and whose influence would have\nbeen destructive of it when established, that the \"ban\" was decreed.\nWhen war arose between Israel and cities farther off than those of\nCanaan, they were not to be put to the \"ban.\" Though they were to be\nhardly treated according to our ideas, they were to suffer only the\nfate of cities stormed in those days, for the danger of corruption\nwas proportionately diminished (Deut. xx. 17) by their distance.\nThe right of other peoples to their lands was to be respected, and\nfriendly intercourse might be entered on with them. But the right\nof Israel to the free and unhindered development to which it had\nbeen called by Yahweh was the supreme law. The suspicion of danger\nto that was to make things otherwise harmless, or even useful, to be\nabhorred. If men are to live nearer to God than others, they must\nsacrifice much to the higher call.\n\n  [59] Riehm, _Old Testament Theology_, p. 98.\n\nTo press home this, to induce Israel to respond to this demand, to\nconvince them anew of their obligation to go any length to keep\ntheir position as a people holy to Yahweh, our chapter urges a\nvariety of reasons. The first (vv. 7-11) is that the history and\ngrounds of their election exhibit the character of Yahweh in such a\nway as to heighten their sense of their privileges and the danger\nof losing them. He had chosen them, only because of His own love to\nthem; and having chosen them and sworn to their fathers, He is true\nto His covenant. He brought them out of the house of bondage, and\nhas led them until now. In Yahweh they had a spiritual ideal, whose\ncharacteristics were love and faithfulness. But though He loves He\ncan be wrathful, and though He has made a covenant with Israel,\nit must be fulfilled in accordance with righteousness. In dealing\nwith such a God they must beware of thinking that their election\nis irrespective of moral conditions, or that His love is mere good\nnature. He can and does smite the enemies of good, for anger is\nalways possible where love is. It is only with good nature that\nanger is not compatible, just as warm and self-sacrificing affection\nalso is. Those who turn away from Him, therefore, He requites\nimmediately to their face, as surely as \"He keepeth covenant and\nmercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments.\" All the\nblessed and intimate relations which He has opened up with them, and\nin which their safety and their glory lie, can be dissolved by sin.\nThey are, therefore, to strike fiercely at temptation, to regard\nneither their own lives nor the lives of others when that has to be\nput out of the way, to smite and spare not, for the very love of God.\n\nA second reason why they should obey the Divine commands, as in\nother matters, so in this terrible thing, is this. If they be\nwilling and obedient, then God will bless them in temporal ways as\nwell as with spiritual blessings. Even for their earthly prosperity\na loyal attitude to Yahweh would prove decisive. \"Thou shalt be\nblessed above all peoples; there shall not be a male or female\nbarren among you, or among your cattle. And Yahweh will take away\nfrom thee all sickness, and He will put none of the evil diseases\nof Egypt which thou knowest upon thee; but will lay them upon all\nthem that hate thee.\" The same promises are renewed in more detail\nand with greater emphasis in the speech contained in chapters\nxxviii. and xxix. There the significance of such a view, and the\ndifficulties involved in it for us, will be fully discussed. Here it\nwill be sufficient to note that the profit of obedience is brought\nin to induce Israel to enforce the \"ban\" most rigorously.\n\nThe last verses of our chapter, vv. 17-26, set before Israel a third\nincitement and encouragement. Yahweh, who had proved His might\nand His favour for them by His mighty deeds in Egypt, would be\namong them, to make them stronger than their mightiest foes (ver.\n21): \"Thou shalt not be affrighted at them, for Yahweh thy God is\nin the midst of thee, a great God and a terrible.\" The previous\ninducements to obey Yahweh their God and be true to Him were founded\non His character and on His acts. He was merciful; but He could be\nterrible, and He would reward the faithful with prosperity. Now His\npeople are encouraged to go forward because His presence will go\nwith them. In the conflicts which obedience to Him would provoke,\nHe would be with them to sustain them, whatever stress might come\nupon them. Step by step they would drive out those very peoples whom\nthey had dreaded so when the spies brought back their report of the\nland. The terror of their God would fall upon all these nations. A\ngreat God and a terrible He would prove Himself to be, and with Him\nin their midst they might go forth boldly to execute the ban upon\nthe Canaanites. The sins and vices of these peoples had brought this\nupon them; their horrible worship left an indelible stain wherever\nits shadow fell. Israel, led and directed by Yahweh Himself, was to\nfall upon them as the scourge of God.\n\nNotwithstanding the Divine urgency, the command to destroy the\nCanaanites and their idols was not carried out. After a victory\nor two the enemy began to submit. Glad to be rid of the toils of\nwar, Israel settled down among the people of the land. All central\ncontrol would seem to have disappeared. The Canaanite worship and\nthe Canaanite customs attracted and fascinated the people, and\nenemy after enemy broke in upon them and triumphed over them. The\nhalf-idolatrous masses were led away into depraved forms of worship,\nand for a time it looked as if the work of Moses would be utterly\nundone. Had the purer faith he taught them not been revived, Israel\nwould probably not have survived the period of the Judges. As it\nwas, they just survived; but by their lapse the leavening of the\nwhole of the nation with the pure principles of Yahweh-worship had\nbeen stopped. Instead of being cured, the idolatrous inclinations\nthey had brought with them from the pre-Mosaic time had been revived\nand strengthened. Multitudes, while calling Yahweh their God, had\nsunk almost to the Canaanite level in their worship, and during the\nwhole period of their existence as a nation Israel as a whole never\nagain rose clear of half-heathen conceptions of their God. The\nprophets taught and threatened them in vain, until at last ruin fell\nupon them and the Divine threats of punishment were fulfilled.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\n_THE BAN IN MODERN LIFE_\n\n\nIn our modern time this practice of the ban has, of course, become\nantiquated and impossible. The _Cherem_, or ban, of the modern\nsynagogue is a different thing, based upon different motives, and is\ndirected to the same ends as Christian excommunication. But though\nthe thing has ceased, the principles underlying it, and the view of\nlife which it implies, are of perpetual validity. These belong to\nthe essential truths of religion, and especially need to be recalled\nin a time like ours, when men tend everywhere to a feeble, lax, and\ncosmopolitan view of Christianity. As we have seen, the fundamental\nprinciple of the _Cherem_ was that, however precious, however\nsacred, however useful and helpful in ordinary circumstances a thing\nmight be, whenever it became dangerous to the higher life it should\nat once be given up to Yahweh. The lives of human beings, even\nthough they were men's dearest and nearest, should be sacrificed;\nthe richest works of art, the weapons of war, and the wealth which\nwould have adorned life and made it easy, were equally to be given\nup to Him, that He might seclude them and render them harmless to\nmen's highest interests. Neighbourliness to the Canaanites was\nabsolutely forbidden, and the Church of the Old Testament was\ncommanded to take up a position of hostility, or at best of armed\nneutrality, to all the pleasures, interests, and concerns of the\npeoples who surrounded them. Now the prevailing modern view is\nthat not only the ban itself, but these principles have become\nobsolete. Notwithstanding that the Church of the New Testament is\nthe bearer of the higher interests of humanity, we are taught that\nwhen it is least definite in its direction \u1f04as to conduct, when it\nis most tolerant of the practices of the world, then it is most\ntrue to its original conception. We are told that an indulgent\nChurch is what is wanted; rigour and religion are now supposed to be\nfinally divorced in all enlightened minds. This view is not often\ncategorically expressed, but it underlies all fashionable religion,\nand has its apostles in the golden youth who forward enlightenment\nby playing tennis on Sundays. Because of it too, Puritan has become\na name of scorn, and careless self-gratification a mark of cultured\nChristianity. Not only asceticism, but \u1f04\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 has been discredited,\nand the moral tone of society has perceptibly fallen in consequence.\nIn wide circles both within and without the Church it seems to be\nheld that pain is the only intolerable evil, and in legislation as\nwell as in literature that idea has been registering itself.\n\nFor much of this progress, as some call it, no reasoned\njustification has been attempted, but it has been defended in part\nby the allegation that the circumstances which make the \"ban\"\nnecessary to the very life of the ancient people of God have passed\naway, now that social and political life has been Christianised.\nEven those who are outside the Church in Christian lands are no\nlonger living at a moral and spiritual level so much below that\nof the Church. They are not heathen idolaters, whose moral and\nreligious ideas are contagiously corrupting, and nothing but\nPharisaism of the worst type, it is said, can justify the Church\nin taking up a position to society in any degree like that which\nwas imposed upon ancient Israel. Now it cannot be denied that\nthere is truth here, and in so far as the Christian Church or\nindividual Christians have taken up precisely the same position to\nthose without as is implied in the Old Testament ban, they are not\nto be defended. Modern society, as at present constituted, is not\ncorrupting like that of Canaan. No one in a modern Christian state\nhas been brought up in an atmosphere of heathenism, and what an\nincredible difference that involves only those who know heathenism\nwell can appreciate. If spiritual life is neither understood\nnor believed in by all, yet the rules of morals are the same in\nevery mind, and these rules are the product of Christianity. As a\nconsequence, the Church is not endangered in the same way and to\nthe same degree by contact with the world as in the ancient days.\nIndeed to the Israelite of the post-Mosaic time our \"world,\" which\nsome sects at least would absolutely ignore and shut out, would\nseem a very definite and legitimate part of the Church. The Jewish\nChurch was certainly to a very large extent made up of precisely\nsuch elements, while those who were to be put to the ban were far\nmore remote than any citizens of a modern state, except a portion of\nthe criminal class. Further, those not actively Christian are, on\naccount of this community of moral sentiments, open to appeal from\nthe Church as the heathen Canaanites were not. In English-speaking\nlands, while there are multitudes indifferent to Christianity, most\nacknowledge the obligation of the Christian motives. In nations at\nleast nominally Christian, therefore, both because the danger of\ncorruption is greatly less, and because the world is more accessible\nto the leaven of Christian life, no Church can, or dare, without\nincurring terrible loss and responsibility, withdraw from or show\na merely hostile front to the world. The sects which do so live an\ninvalid life. Their virtues take on the sickly look of all \"fugitive\nand cloistered virtue.\" Their doctrines become full of the \"idols\nof the cave,\" and they cease to have any perception of the real\nneeds of men.\n\nNevertheless the austere spirit inculcated in this chapter must be\nkept alive, if the Church is to be the spiritual leader of humanity,\nfor strenuousness is the great want of modern life. Dr. Pearson,\nwhose book on _National Life and Character_ has lately expounded the\ntheory that the Church, \"being too inexorable in its ideal to admit\nof compromises with human frailty, is precisely on this account\nunfitted for governing fallible men and women,\" i.e. governing them\nin the political sense, has elsewhere stated his view of the remedy\nfor one of the great evils of modern life.[60] \"The disproportionate\ngrowth of the distributing classes, as compared with the producing,\nis due, I believe, to two moral causes--the love of amusement and\nthe passion for speculation. Men flock out of healthy country lives\nin farms or mines into our great cities, because they like to be\nnear the theatre and the racecourse, or because they hope to grow\nrich suddenly by some form of gambling. The cure for a taint of\nthis kind is not economical but religious, and can only be found,\nI am convinced, in a return to the masculine asceticism that has\ndistinguished the best days of history, Puritan or Republican.\" This\nis emphatically true of Australia, where and of which the words were\nfirst spoken; and masculine asceticism of the Puritan type would\ncure many another evil there besides these. But the same thing is\ntrue everywhere; and if religion is to cure slackness in social or\npolitical life, how much more must it cultivate this austere spirit\nfor itself! The function of the Church is not to govern the world;\nit seeks rather to inspire the world. It should lead the advance\nto a higher, more ennobling life, and should exhibit that in its\nown collective action and in the kind of character it produces.\nIts greatest gift to the world should be itself, and it is useful\nonly when it is true to its own _ethos_ and spirit. To keep that\nunimpaired must therefore be its first duty, and to fulfil that duty\nit must keep rigorously back from everything which, in relation to\nits own existing state, would be likely to lower the power of its\npeculiar life. The State must often compromise with human frailty.\nOften there will be before the legislator and the statesman only\na choice between two evils, or at least two undesirable courses,\nunless a worse thing is to be tolerated. The Church, on the other\nhand, should keep close to the ideal as it sees it. Its reason for\nexistence is that it may hold up the ideal to men, and exhibit it\nas far as that may be. Compromise in regard to that is impossible\nfor the Church, for that would be nothing else than disloyalty to\nits own essential principle. The spirit, therefore, that inspired\nthe \"ban\" must always be living and powerful in the Church. Whatever\nis dangerous to the special Christian life must cease to exist for\nChristians. It should be laid at the feet of their Divine Head, that\nHe may seclude it from His people and render it innocuous. Many\nthings that are harmless or even useful at a lower level of life\nmust be refused a place by the Christian. Gratifications that cannot\nbut seem good to others must be refused by him; for he seeks to be\nin the forefront of the battle against evil, to be the pioneer to a\nmore whole-hearted spiritual life.\n\n  [60] _The Social Movements of the Age_, by Professor Pearson,\n  Melbourne Church Congress, 1882.\n\nBut that does not imply that we should seek to renew the various\nimperfect and external devices by which past times sought to attain\nthis exceedingly desirable end. Experience has taught the folly\nand futility of sumptuary laws, for example. Their only effect\nwas to do violence to the inwardness which belongs of necessity\nto spiritual life. They externalised and depraved morality, and\nfinally defeated themselves. Nor would the later Puritanism, with\nits rigidity as regards dress and deportment, and its narrow and\nlimited view of life, help us much more. It began doubtless with\nthe right principle; but it sought to bind all to its observances,\nwhether they cared for the spirit of them or not; and it showed a\nmeasureless intemperance in regard to the things which it declared\nhostile to the life of faith. In that form it has been charged with\n\"isolation from human history, human enjoyment, and all the manifold\nplay and variety of human character.\" For a short time, however,\nPuritanism did strike the golden mean in this matter, and probably\nwe could not in this present connection find a better example for\nmodern days than in the Puritanism of Spenser, of Colonel Hutchinson\n(one of the regicides so called), and of Milton. Their united lives\ncovered the heroic period of Puritanism, and taken in their order\nthey represent very fairly its rise, its best estate, and its\ntendencies towards harsh extremes, when as yet it was but a tendency.\n\nSpenser, born in the \"spacious times of great Elizabeth,\" was\npolitically and nationally a Puritan, and in aim and ideal, at\nleast, was so in his stern view of life and religion.[61] His\nattachment to Lord Grey of Wilton, that personally kind yet\nabsolutely ruthless executor of the English \"ban\" against the\nuntamable Irish, and his defence of his policy, show the one;\nwhile his _Fairy Queen_, with its representation of religion as\n\"the foundation of all nobleness in man\" and its dwelling upon\nman's victory over himself, reveals the other. But he had in him\nalso elements belonging to that strangely mingled world in which\nhe lived, and which came from an entirely different source. He\nhad the Elizabethan enthusiasm for beauty, the large delight in\nlife as such even where its moral quality was questionable, and\nthe artist's sensitiveness and adaptability in a very high degree.\nThese diverse elements were never fully interfused in him. Amid\nall the gracious beauty of his work, there is the trace of discord\nand the mark of conflict; and at times perhaps his life fell into\ncourses which spoke little of self-control. But his face was always\nin the main turned upwards. In the main, too, his life corresponded\nwith his aspirations. He combined his poetic gift, his love of\nmen and human life, with a faithfulness to his ideal of conduct\nwhich, if not always perfect, was sincere, and was, too, as we may\nhope, ultimately victorious. The Puritan in him had not entire\nvictory over the worldling, but it had the mastery; and the very\nimperfection of the victory kept the character in sympathy with the\nwhole of life.\n\n  [61] Vide Church's _Spenser_, p. 16.\n\nIn Colonel Hutchinson,[62] as depicted in that stately and tender\npanegyric which speaks to us across more than two centuries\nso pathetically of his wife's almost adoring love, we see the\nPuritan character in its fullest and most balanced form. We do\nnot, of course, mean that his mind had the imaginative power of\nSpenser's, or his character the force of Milton's; but partly from\ncircumstances, partly by singular grace of nature, his character\npossessed a stability and an equilibrium which had not come when\nSpenser lived, and which was beginning to go in the evil days upon\nwhich Milton fell. At the root of all his virtues his wife sets\n\"that which was the head and spring of them all, his Christianity.\"\n\"By Christianity,\" she says, \"I intend that universal habit of\ngrace which is wrought in a soul by the regenerating Spirit of God,\nwhereby the whole creature is resigned up into the Divine will and\nlove, and all its actions designed to the obedience and glory of its\nMaker.\" He had been trained in a Puritan home, and though when he\nwent out into the world he had to face quite the average temptations\nof a rich and well-born youth, he fled all youthful lusts. But he\ndid not retire from the world. \"He could dance admirably well,\nbut neither in youth nor riper years made any practice of it; he\nhad skill in fencing such as became a gentleman; he had a great\nlove to music, and often diverted himself with a viol, on which he\nplayed masterly; he had an exact ear, and judgment in other music;\nhe shot excellently in bows and guns, and much used them for his\nexercise; he had great judgment in painting, graving, sculpture,\nand all liberal arts, and had many curiosities of value in all\nkinds. He took much pleasure in improvement of grounds, in planting\ngroves and walks and fruit-trees, in opening springs and making\nfishponds. Of country recreations he loved none but hawking, and\nin that was very eager, and much delighted for the time he used\nit.\" Hutchinson was no ascetic, therefore, in the wrong sense, but\nlived in and enjoyed the world as a man should. But perhaps his\ngreatest divergence from the lower Puritanism lay in this, that\n\"everything that it was necessary for him to do he did with delight,\nfree and unconstrained.\" Moreover, though he adopted strong Puritan\nopinions in theology, \"he hated persecution for religion, and was\nalways a champion for all religious people against all their great\noppressors. Nevertheless self-restraint was the law of his life, and\nhe many times forbore things lawful and delightful to him, rather\nthan he would give any one occasion of scandal.\" In public affairs\nhe took the courageous part of a man who sought nothing for himself,\nand was moved only by his hatred of wrong to leave the prosperity\nand peace of his home-life. He became a member of the Court which\ntried the King against his will, but signed the warrant for his\ndeath, simply because he conceived it to be his duty. When the\nRestoration came and he was challenged for his conduct, scorning the\nsubterfuges of some who declared they signed under compulsion, he\nquietly accepted the responsibility for his acts. This led to his\ndeath in the flower of his age, through imprisonment in the Tower;\nbut he never flinched, \"having made up his accounts with life and\ndeath, and fixed his purpose to entertain both honourably.\" From\nthe beginning of his life to the end there was a consistent sanity,\nwhich is rare at any time, and was especially rare in those days.\nHis loyalty to God kept him austerely aloof from unworthiness, while\nit seemed to add zest to the sinless joys which came in his way.\nAbove all, it never suffered him to forget that the true Christian\ntemper and character was the pearl of price which all else he had\nmight lawfully be sacrificed to purchase.\n\n  [62] _Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson_, by his wife.\n\nIn the character of Milton we find the same essential elements, the\nsame purity in youth, which, with his beauty, won for him the name\nof the Lady of his College; the same courage and public spirit in\nmanhood; the same love of music and of culture. After his University\ncareer he retired to his father's house, and read all Greek and\nLatin literature, as well as Italian, and studied Hebrew and some\nother Oriental languages. All the culture of his time, therefore,\nwas absorbed by him, and his mind and speech were shot through and\nthrough with the brilliant colours of the history and romance of\nmany climes. Almost no kind of beauty failed to appeal to him, but\nthe austerity of his views of life kept him from being enslaved by\nit. In his earlier works even, he caught in a surprising way all the\nglow, and splendour, and poetic fervour of the English Renaissance;\nbut he joined with it the sternest and most uncompromising\nPuritan morality, not only in theory and desire like Spenser,\nbut in the hard practice of actual life. When the idea of duty\ncomes to dominate a man, the grace and impetuosity of youth, the\novermastering love of beauty, and the appreciation of the mere joy\nof living are apt to die away, and the poetic fire burns low. But it\nwas not so with Milton. To the end of his life he remained a true\nElizabethan, but an Elizabethan who had always kept himself free\nfrom the chains of sensual vice, and had never stained his purity\nof soul. That fact makes him unique almost in English history, and\nhas everywhere added a touch of the sublime to all that his works\nhave of beauty. \"His soul was like a star, and dwelt apart:\" and we\nmay entirely believe what he tells us of himself when he returned\nfrom his European travels: \"In all the places in which vice meets\nwith so little discouragement, and is protected with so little\nshame, I never once turned from the path of integrity and virtue,\nand perpetually reflected that, though my conduct might escape the\nnotice of men, it could not elude the inspection of God.\" Like the\ntrue Puritan he was, Milton not only overcame evil in himself, but\nhe thought his own life and health a cheap price to pay for the\noverthrow of evil wherever he saw it. When the civil war broke out,\nhe returned at once from his travels, to help to right the wrongs\nof his country. In the service of the Government he sacrificed his\npoetic gift, his leisure for twenty years, and finally his sight, to\nthe task of defending England from her enemies. But he did not stop\nthere. His severity became excessive, at times almost vindictive.\nWhen he wrote prose he scarcely ever wrote without having an enemy\nto crush, and much that he uttered in this vein cannot possibly be\napproved. His pamphlets are unfair to a degree which shows that\nhis mind had lost balance in the turmoil of the great struggle,\nso that he approached at moments the narrower Puritanism. But he\nstill proved himself too great for that, and emerged anew as a\ngreat and lofty spirit, held down very little by earthly bonds, and\nstrenuously set against evil as a true servant of God.\n\nNow the temper of Puritanism such as this of these old English\nworthies is precisely what Christians need most to cultivate in\nthese days. They must be animated by the spirit which refuses to\ntouch, and refers to God, whatever proves hostile to life in God;\nbut they must also combine with this aloofness a sympathetic hold\non ordinary life. It is easy on the one hand to solve all problems\nby cutting oneself off from any relation with the world, lest\nthe inner life should suffer. It is also easy to let the inner\nlife take care of itself, and to float blithely on with all the\ncurrents of life which are not deadly sins. But it is not easy to\nkeep the mind and life open to all the great life-streams which\ntend to deepen and enrich human nature, and yet to stand firm in\nself-control, determined that nothing which drags down the soul\nshall be permitted to fascinate or overpower. To this task Christian\nmen and the Christian Church seem at present to be specially called.\nIt is admitted on all hands that the ordinary Puritanism became\ntoo intolerant of all except spiritual interests; so that it could\nnot, without infinite loss, have been accepted as the guide for all\nlife. But hence what was good in it has been rejected along with the\nbad; and it needs to be restored, if a weak, self-indulgent temper,\nwhich resents hardship or even discipline, is not to gain the upper\nhand. In social life especially this is needful, otherwise so much\ndebate would never have been expended on the question of amusements.\nOn the face of it, a Christianity which can go with the world in\nall those of its amusements which are not actually forbidden by the\nmoral law must be a low type of Christianity. It can be conscious\nof no special character which it has to preserve, of no special\nvoice which it has to utter in the antiphony of created things.\nWhatever others allow themselves, therefore, the vigilant Christian\nmust see to it that he does nothing which will destroy his special\ncontribution to the world he lives in. It is precisely by that\nthat he is the salt of the earth; and if the salt have lost its\nsavour wherewith will you season it? No price is too great for the\npreservation of this savour, and in reference to the care of it each\nman must ultimately be a law unto himself. No one else can really\ntell where his weakness lies. No one else can know what the effect\nof this or that recreation upon that weakness is.\n\nWhen men lose spiritual touch with their own character they are\napt to throw themselves back for guidance in such matters upon\nthe general opinion of the Christian community, or the tradition\nof the elders. In doing so they are in danger of losing sincerity\nin a mass of formalism. But if a vivid apprehension of the need\nof individuality in the regulation of life is maintained, the\nformulated Christian objection to certain customs or certain\namusements may be a most useful substitute for painful experience\nof our own. Some such amusements may have been banned in the\npast without sufficient reason; or they may have been excluded\nonly because of the special openness to temptation of a certain\ncommunity; or they may have so changed their character that they do\nnot now deserve the ban which was laid upon them once justly enough.\nAny plea, therefore, for the revisal or abolition of standing\nconventions on such grounds must be listened to and judged. But,\non the whole, these standing prohibitions of the Church represent\naccumulated experience, and all young people especially will do\nwisely not to break away from them. What the mass of Christians in\nthe past have found hurtful to the Christian character will in most\ncases be hurtful still. For if it can be said of the secular world\nin all matters of experience that \"this wise world is mainly right,\"\nit may surely be said also of the Christian community. In our time\nthere is a quite justifiable distrust of conventionality in morals\nand in religion; but it should not be forgotten that conventions\nare not open to the same objection. They represent, on the whole,\nmerely the registered results of actual experience, and they may be\nestimated and followed in an entirely free spirit. It is not wise,\ntherefore, to revolt against them indiscriminately, merely because\nthey may be used cruelly against others, or may be taken as a\nsubstitute for a moral nature by oneself. Thackeray in his constant\nrailing at the judgment of the world seems to make this mistake.\nHe is never weary in pointing out how unjust the broad general\njudgments of the world are to specially selected individuals. Harry\nWarrington in _The Virginians_, for instance, though innocent,\nlives in a manner and with associates which the world has generally\nfound to indicate intolerable moral laxity; and because the world\nwas wrong in thinking that to be true in his case which would\nhave been true in ninety-five out of a hundred similar cases, the\nmoralist rails at the evil-hearted judgments of the world. But \"this\nwise world is mainly right,\" and its rough and indiscriminating\njudgments fit the average case. They are part of the great sanitary\nprovision which society makes for its own preservation. And the case\nis precisely similar with the conventions of the religious life.\nThey too are in the main sanitary precautions, which a conscience\nthoroughly alive and a strong intelligence may make superfluous,\nbut which for the unformed, the half-ignorant, the less original\nnatures, in a word, for average men and women, are absolutely\nnecessary. Spontaneity and freedom are admirable qualities in\nmorals and religion. They are even the conditions of the highest\nkinds of moral and religious life, and the necessary presuppositions\nof health and progress. But something is due to stability as well;\nand a world of original and spontaneous moralists, trusting only to\ntheir own \"genial sense\" of truth, would be a maddening chaos. In\nother words, conventions if used unconventionally, if not exalted\ninto absolute moral laws disobedience to which excludes from\nreputable society, if taken simply as indications of the paths in\nwhich least danger to the higher life has been found to lie, are\nguides for which men may well be thankful.\n\nIn the world of thought too, as well as in the world of action,\na wise austerity of self-control is absolutely necessary. The\nprevailing theory is that every one, young men more especially,\nshould read on all sides on all questions, and that they should\nknow and sympathise with all modes of thought. This is advocated\nin the supposed interests of freedom from external domination and\nfrom internal prejudice. But in a great number of cases the result\ndoes not follow. Such catholicity of taste does produce a curious\n_dilettante_ interest in lines of thought, but as a rule it weakens\ninterest in truth as such. It delivers from the domination of a\nChurch or other historic authority; but only, in most cases, to\nhand over the supposed freeman to the narrower domination of the\nthinker or school by which he happens to be most impressed. For\nit is vain and impotent to suppose that in regard to morals and\nreligion every mind is able to find its way by free thought, when in\nregard to bodily health, or even in questions of finance, the free\nthought of the amateur is acknowledged to end usually in confusion.\nThose only can usefully expose their minds to all the various\ncurrents of modern thought who have a clear footing of their own.\nWhatever that may be, it gives them a point on which to stand,\nand a vantage-ground from which they can gather up what widens or\ncorrects their view. But to leave the land altogether, and commit\noneself to the currents, is to render any after-landing all but\nimpossible. With regard to the books read, the lines of thought\nfollowed, and the associations formed, the Christian must exercise\nself-denial and self-examination. Whatever is manifestly detrimental\nto his best life, whatever he feels to be likely to taint the purity\nof his mind or lower his spiritual vitality, should be put under\nthe \"ban,\" should be resolutely avoided in all ordinary cases. Of\ncourse modes of thought that deserve to be weighed may be found\nmingled with such elements; also views of life which have a truth\nand importance of their own, though their setting is corrupt. But it\nis not every one's business to extricate and discuss these. Those\nwho are called to it will have to do it; and in doing it as a duty\nthey may expect to be kept from the lurking contagion. Every one\nelse who investigates them runs a risk which he was not called upon\nto run. The average Christian should, therefore, note all that tends\nto stunt or deprave him spiritually, and should avoid it. It is not\nmanliness but folly which makes men read filthy literature because\nof its style, or sceptical literature because of its ability, when\nthey are not called upon to do so, and when they have not fortified\nthemselves by the purity of the Scriptures and the power of prayer.\nTo make such literature or such modes of thought our staple mental\nfood, or to make the writers or admirers of such books our intimate\nfriends, is to sap our own best convictions and to disregard our\nhigh calling.\n\nLastly, however common it may be for men to sit down in selfish\nisolation and devote themselves to their own interests, even though\nthese be spiritual, in the face of remediable evils, that is not\nthe Christian manner of acting. Of the great Puritans we mentioned,\nSpenser endured hardness in that terrible Irish war which the men of\nElizabeth's day regarded as the war of good against evil; Hutchinson\nfought for and died in the cause of political and religious freedom;\nand Milton devoted his life and health to the same cause. All of\nthem, the two latter especially, might have kept out of it all,\nin the peace and comfort of private life; but they judged that\nthe destruction of evil was their first duty. At the trumpet call\nthey willingly took their side, and prepared to give their lives,\nif necessary, for the righteous cause. Now it is not enough for\nus to avoid evil any more than it was for them. Though personal\ninfluence and example are undoubtedly among the most potent weapons\nin the warfare for the Kingdom of God, there must be, besides\nthese, the power and the will to put public evils under the ban.\nWhatever institution or custom or law is ungodly, whatever in our\nsocial life is manifestly unjust, should stir the Christian Church\nto revolt against it, and should fill the heart of the individual\nChristian with an undying energy of hatred. It is not meant that\nthe Christian Churches as such should transform themselves into\npolitical societies or social clubs. To do that would simply be\nto abdicate their only real functions. But they should be the\nsources of such teaching as will turn men's thoughts towards social\njustice and political righteousness, and should prepare them for\nthe sacrifice which any great improvement in the social state must\ndemand of some. Further, every individual Christian should feel\nthat his responsibility for the condition of his brethren, those\nof his own nation, is very great and direct; that to discharge\nmunicipal and political duty with conscientious care is a primary\nobligation. Only so can the power be gained to \"ban\" the bad laws,\nthe unjust practices, the evil social customs, which disfigure our\ncivilisation, which degrade and defraud the poor.\n\nA militant Puritanism here is not only a necessity for further\nsocial progress, but it is also a necessity for the full exhibition\nof the power and the essential sympathies of Christianity. For\nwant of it the working classes in their movement upward have not\nonly been alienated from the Churches, but they have learned to\ndemand of their leaders that they shall \"countenance the poor man\nin his cause.\" They are tempted to require their leaders to share\nnot only their common principles, but their prejudices; and they\noften look with suspicion upon those who insist upon applying the\nplumb-line of justice to the demands of the poor as well as to the\nclaims of the rich. The whole popular movement suffers, for it is\ndegraded from its true position. From being a demand for justice,\nit becomes a scramble for power--power too which, when gained, is\nsometimes used as selfishly and tyrannically by its new possessors\nas it sometimes was by those who previously exercised it. Into all\nbranches of public life there is needed an infusion of a new and\nhigher spirit. We want men who hate evil and will destroy it where\nthey can, who seek nothing for themselves, who feel strongly that\nthe kind of life the poor in civilised countries live is intolerably\nhard, and are prepared to suffer, if by any means they may improve\nit. But we want at the same time a type of reformer who, by his hold\nupon a power lying beyond this world, is kept steady to justice even\nwhere the poor are concerned, who, though he passionately longs for\na better life for them, does not make more food, more leisure, more\namusement, his highest aim. Men are needed who think more nobly of\ntheir brethren than that: men, on the one hand, who know that the\nChristian character and the Christian virtues may exist under the\nhardest conditions, and that the Christian Church exists mainly to\nbrighten and rob of its degradation the otherwise cheerless life of\nthe multitude; but, on the other, who recognise that our present\nsocial state is fatal in many ways to moral and spiritual progress\nfor the mass of men, and must be in some way recast.\n\nAll this means the entrance into public life of Christian men of the\nhighest type. Such men the Christian community must supply to the\nState in great numbers, if the higher characteristics of our people\nare not to be lost. Through a long and eventful history, by the\nmanifold training afforded by religion and experience, the English\nnation has become strong, patient, hopeful, and self-reliant, with\nan instinct for justice and a hatred of violence which cannot easily\nbe paralleled. It has, too, retained a faith in and respect for\nreligion which many other nations seem to have lost. That character\nis its highest achievement, and its decay would be deplorable.\nChristianity is specially called to help to preserve it, by bringing\nto its aid the power of its own special character, with its great\nspiritual resources. The sources of its life are hid, and must be\nkept pure; the power of its life must be made manifest in actual\nunion with the higher elements in the national character for mutual\ndefence. Above all, Christianity must not, timidly or sluggishly,\ndraw upon itself the curse of Meroz by not coming to the help of the\nLord against the mighty. Nor can it permit the immediate interests\nof the respectable to blind or hold it back. That which is best\nin its own nature demands all this; and in seeking to answer that\ndemand the Churches will attain to a quite new life and power. The\nLord their God will be in the midst of them, and they will feel it;\nfor they will then have made themselves channels for the Divine\npurity and power.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\n_THE BREAD OF THE SOUL_\n\nDEUT. viii.\n\n\nIn the chapters which follow, viz. viii., ix., and x. 1-11, we have\nan appeal to history as a motive for fulfilling the fundamental duty\nof loving God and keeping His commandments. In its main points it is\nsubstantially the same appeal which is made in chapters i.-iii., is,\nin fact, a continuation of it. Its main characteristics, therefore,\nhave already been dealt with; but there are details here which\ndeserve more minute study. Coming after Yahweh's great demand for\nthe love of His people, the references to the Divine action in the\npast assume a deeper and more affectionate character than when they\nwere mere general exhortations to obedience and submission. They\nbecome inducements to the highest efforts of love; and the first\nappeal is naturally made to the gracious and fatherly dealing of\nYahweh with His people in their journey through the wilderness.\nOf all the traditions or reminiscences of Israel, this of the\nwilderness was the most constantly present to the popular mind, and\nit is always referred to as the most certain, the most impressive,\nand the most touching of all Israel's historic experiences. Yet\nStade and others push the whole episode aside, saying, if any\nIsraelites came out of Egypt, we do not know who they were. Such\na mode of dealing with clear, coherent, and in themselves not\nimprobable historical memories, is too arbitrary to have much\neffect, and the wilderness journey remains, and is likely to\nremain, one of the indubitable facts which modern critical research\nhas established rather than shaken.\n\nTo this, then, our author turns, and he deals with it in a somewhat\nunusual way. As we have seen, the prevalent notion that piety and\nrighteousness are rewarded with material prosperity is firmly\nrooted in his mind. But he did not feel himself limited to that as\nthe solitary right way of regarding the providence of God. Men's\nminds are never quite so simple and direct in their action as many\nstudents and critics are tempted to suppose. Every great conception\nwhich holds the minds of men produces its effects, even from the\nfirst moment it is grasped, by _all_ that is in it. Implications\nand developments which are made explicit, or are called out into\nvisibility, only by the friction of new environments, have been\nthere from the beginning; and minds have been secretly moulded by\nthem though they were not conscious of them. Hard and fast lines,\nthen, are not to be drawn between the stages of a great development,\nso that one should say that before such and such a moment, when a\nnew aspect of the old truth has emerged into consciousness, that\naspect was not effective in any wise. The outburst of waters from\na reservoir is indubitable evidence of steady persistent pressure\nfrom within in that direction before the overflow. Similarly, in the\nregion of thought and feeling the emergence of a new aspect of truth\nis of itself a proof that the holders of the root conception were\nalready swayed in that direction.\n\nThe history of Christianity affords proof of this. It is a\ncommonplace to-day that the world is only beginning to do justice\nto some aspects of the teaching of our Lord. But the teaching,\nalways present, always exerted its influence, and was felt before\nit could be explained. In the Old Testament development the same\nthing was most emphatically true. Individual responsibility to God\nwas not, so far as we can now see, distinctly present in Israelite\nreligious thought till the time of Jeremiah, but it would be\nabsurd to say that any mind that accepted the religion of Yahweh\nhad ever been without that feeling. So with the doctrine of God's\nprovidence over men: we are not to say that before the Book of Job\nthe explanation of suffering as testing discipline had been entirely\nhid from Israel, by the view that material prosperity and adversity\nwere regulated in the main according to moral and religious life.\nConsequently, notwithstanding previous strong assertions of the\nlatter view which we find in Deuteronomy, we need not be in the\nleast surprised to find that here the hardships of the wilderness\njourney are regarded, not as a punishment for Israel's sins, but\nsimply as a trial or test to see what their heart was towards Him.\nThis is essentially the point of view of the Book of Job, the only\ndifference being that here it is applied to the nation, there to the\nindividual. But our chapter rises even above that, for the first\nverses of it plainly teach that the experiences of the wilderness\nwere made to be what they were, in order that the people might\nlearn to know the spiritual forces of the world to be the essential\nforces, and that they might be induced to throw themselves back upon\nthem as that which is alone enduring. In the words of ver. 3, they\nwere taught by this training that man does not live by bread alone,\nbut by everything that proceeds from the mouth of God.\n\nThese two then, that hardship was testing discipline for Israel,\nand that it was also intended to be the means of revealing spirit\nas the supreme force even in the material world, are the main\nlessons of the eighth chapter. Of these the last is by far the\nmost important. Casting back his eye upon the past, the author of\nDeuteronomy teaches that the trials and the victories, the wonders\nand the terrors of their wilderness time were meant to humble\nthem, to empty them of their own conceits, and to make them know\nbeyond all doubting that God alone was their portion, and that apart\nfrom Him they had no certainty of continuance in the future and no\nsustainment in the present. \"All the commandment which I command\nthee this day shall ye observe to do, _that ye may live_,\" is the\nfundamental note, and the physical needs and trials of the time are\ncited as an object-lesson to that effect. \"He humbled thee, and\nsuffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna which thou knewest\nnot; that He might make thee to know that man doth not live by bread\nalone, but by everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of Yahweh\ndoth man live.\" Of course the first reference of the \"everything\nthat proceedeth\" is to the creative word of Yahweh. The meaning is\nthat the sending of the manna was proof that the ordinary means of\nliving, _i.e._ bread, could be dispensed with when Yahweh chose to\nmake use of His creative power. Many commentators think that this\nexhausts the meaning of the passage, and they regard our Lord's use\nof these words in the Temptation as limited in the same fashion.\nBut both here and in the New Testament more must be intended. Here\nwe have the statement in the first verse that Israel is to keep the\ncommandments, which certainly are a part of \"all that proceeds\" from\nthe mouth of God, that they may _live_. This implies that the mere\npossession of material sustenance is not enough for even earthly\nlife. Impalpable spiritual elements must be mingled with \"bread\" if\nlife is not to decay. This, our chapter goes on to say, would be\nplain to them if they would carefully consider God's dealing with\nthem in the wilderness, for the sending of the manna was meant to\nemphasise and bring home to them that very truth. It was meant, in\nshort, to convey a double lesson--the direct one above referred to,\nand the more remote but deeper one which had been asserted in the\nfirst verse.\n\nIn the Temptation narrative the same deeper meaning is surely\nimplied. The temptation suggested to Jesus was that He should use\nthe miraculous powers given to Him for special purposes to make\nstones into bread for Himself. Now that would have been precisely\nan instance of the literal primary meaning of our passage; it would\nhave been a case of supplying the absence of bread by the use of the\ncreative word of God. To meet that temptation and to put it aside\nour Lord uses these words: \"It is written, Man shall not live by\nbread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of\nGod.\" Thereupon He was no more importuned to supply the place of\nbread by a creative word. The implication is that the life of the\nSon of God found sustenance in spiritual strength derived from His\nFather. In other words, the passage is really parallel to John iv.\n31 ff: \"In the mean while the disciples prayed Him, saying, Rabbi,\neat. But He said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not. The\ndisciples therefore said one to another, Hath any man brought Him to\neat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that\nsent Me, and to accomplish His work.\" Understanding it thus, the\nTemptation passage is entirely in accord with that from which it is\nquoted, if the first and third verses be taken together. Both teach\nthat abundance of material resources, all that visibly sustains the\nmaterial life, is not sufficient for the life of such a creature\nas man. Not only his inner life, but his outer life, is dependent\nfor its permanence upon the inflow of spiritual sustenance from the\nspiritual God. For animals, bread might be enough; but man holds of\nboth the spiritual and the material as animals do not. It is not\nmere mythical dreaming when man is said to be made in the image of\nGod; it expresses the essential fact of his being. Consequently,\nwithout inbreathings from the spiritual, even his physical life\npines and dies. But how wonderful is this insight in a writer so\nancient, belonging to so obscure a people as the Jews! How can we\naccount for it? There was nothing in their character or destiny as\na people to explain it, apart from the supernatural link that binds\nthem and their thoughts at all times to the coming Christ, and draws\nthem, notwithstanding all aberrations, even when they know it not,\ntowards Him.\n\nHow great an attainment it is we may see, if we reflect for a moment\nupon the state of Christian Europe at the present day. Nowhere\namong the masses of the most cultured nations is this deeply simple\ntruth accepted by the vast majority of men. Nowhere do we find that\nhistory has succeeded in bringing it home to the conscience as a\ncommonplace. The rich or well-to-do cling to riches, the means of\nmaterial enjoyment, as if their life did consist in the abundance\nof things they possess. They strive and struggle for them with an\nindustry, a forethought, a perseverance, which would be justified\nonly if man could live by bread alone. That is largely the condition\nof those who have bread in abundance or hope to gain it abundantly.\nWith those who do not have it the case is perhaps even worse. Worn\nand fretted by the hopeless struggle against poverty, driven wild\nby the exigencies of a daily life so near starvation point that a\nstrike, a fall in prices, a month's sickness, bring them face to\nface with misery, the toiling masses in Europe have turned with a\nkind of wolfish impatience upon those who talk of God to them, and\ndemand \"bread.\" As a German Socialist mother said publicly some\nyears ago, \"He has never given me a mouthful of bread, or means to\ngain it: what have I to do with your God?\" Their only hope for the\nfuture is that they may eat and be full; and of this they have made\na political and religious ideal which is attracting the European\nworking classes with most portentous power.\n\nIn all countries men are passionately asserting that man _can_ live\nby bread alone, and that he will. For this dreadful creed increasing\nnumbers are prepared to sacrifice all that humanity thought it had\ngained, and shut their ears to any who warn them that, if they had\nall they seek, earth might be still more of a Pandemonium than they\nthink it at present. But they have much excuse. They have never\nhad wealth so as to know how very little it can do for the deepest\nneeds of men; and their faith in it, their belief that if they were\nassured of a comfortable maintenance all would be right with the\nworld, is pathetic in its simplicity. Yet the secret that is hid\nto-day from the mass of men was known among the small Israelite\npeople two thousand five hundred years ago. Since then it has formed\nthe very keynote of the teaching of our Lord; but save by the\ngenerations of Christians who have found in it the key to much of\nthe riddle of the world it has been learned by nobody.\n\nYet history has never wearied in proclaiming the same truth. Israel\nas we have seen, had verified it in the history of the pre-Canaanite\nraces whose disappearance is recorded in the first section of our\nbook, and in the doom which was impending over the Canaanites. But\nto our wider experience, enriched by the changes of more than two\nthousand years, and by the still more striking vicissitudes of\nancient days revealed by arch\u00e6ology, the fact that intelligence of\nthe highest kind, practical skill, and the courage of conquerors\ncannot secure \"life,\" is only more impressively brought home.\nIf we go back to the pre-Semitic empire of Mesopotamia, to what\nis called the Akkadian time, we find that, before the days of\nAbraham, a great civilisation had arisen, flourished for more than\none thousand years, and then decayed so utterly that the very\nlanguage in which its records were written had to be dealt with\nby the Semites, who inherited the former culture, as we deal with\nLatin. Yet these early people had made a most astonishing advance\ninto the ocean of unknown truth. They had invented writing; they\nhad elaborate systems of law and social life; they had in other\ndirections made remarkable discoveries in science, especially in\nmathematical and astronomical science, and had built great cities in\nwhich the refinement and art of modern times was in many directions\nanticipated. In all ways they stood far higher above neighbouring\npeoples than any civilised nation of Europe stands now in comparison\nwith its neighbours. But if they were at all inclined to put their\ntrust in the immortality of science, if they ever valued themselves,\nas we do, on the strength of the advances they had made, time\nhas had them in derision. Very much of what they knew had to be\nrediscovered painfully in later times. Their very name perished out\nof the earth; and it has been discovered now to make them an object\nof abiding interest only to the few who make ethnology their study.\nNeither material wealth and comfort nor assiduous culture of the\nmind could save them. For their religion and morals were, amid all\nthis material success, of the lowest type. They heard little of\nwhat issues from the mouth of God in the specially Divine sphere of\nmorality, and did not give heed to that little, and they perished.\nFor man does not live by bread alone, but by that also, and neglect\nof it is fatal.\n\nIt may be said that they flourished for more than a thousand years,\nand neglect of the Divine word, if it be a poison, must (as F\u00e9n\u00e9lon\nsaid of coffee) be a very slow one, so far as nations are concerned.\nBut it has always been a snare to men to mistake the Divine patience\nfor Divine indifference and inaction. The movement, though to us\ncreatures of a day it seems slow, is as continuous, as crushing,\nand as relentless as the movement of a glacier. \"The mills of God\ngrind slowly, but they grind exceeding small,\" and all along the\nages they have thrown out the crushed and scattered fragments of\nthe powers that were deaf to the Divine voice. So persistently has\nthis appeared that it would by this time have passed beyond the\nregion of faith into that of sight, were it not always possible to\nignore the moral cause and substitute for it something mechanical\nand secondary. The great world-empires of Egypt and Assyria passed\naway, primarily owing to neglect of the higher life. Secondarily,\nno doubt, the ebbs and flows of their power, and their final\nextinction, were influenced by the course of the Indian trade; and\nmany wise men think they do well to stop there. But in truth we\ndo not solve the difficulty by resting in this secondary cause;\nwe only shift it a step backwards. For the question immediately\narises, Why did the trade change its course from Assyria to Egypt,\nand back again from Egypt to Assyria? Why did a rivulet of it flow\nthrough the land of Israel in Solomon's day and afterwards cease?\nThe answer must be that it was when the character of these various\nnations rose in vigour by foresight and moral self-restraint that\nthey drew to themselves this source of power. They \"lived,\" in fact,\nby giving heed to some word of God. Nor does the history of Greek\nsupremacy in Europe and Asia, or the rise and fall of the Roman\nEmpire, contradict that view. The modern historian, whatever his\nfaith or unfaith may be, is driven to find the motive power which\nwrought in these stupendous movements in the moral and spiritual\nsphere. This transforms history from being merely secular into a\nBible, as Mommsen finely says,[63] \"And if she cannot any more than\nthe Bible hinder the fool from misunderstanding and the devil from\nquoting her, she too will be able to bear with and to requite them\nboth.\" She utters her voice in the streets, and in the end makes her\nmeaning clear. For she gives us ever new examples.\n\n  [63] _History of Rome_, vol. iv., Part II., p. 467.\n\nProbably her grandest object-lesson at present is the wasting\nand paralysis that is slowly withering up all Mohammedan states.\nWhere they have been left to themselves, as in Morocco and Persia,\ndepopulation and the break-up of society has come upon them, and\nwhere Muslim populations are really prospering it is under the\ninfluence of Christian Powers. And the reason is plain. Islam is\na revolt from, and a rejection of, the higher principles of life\ncontained in Christianity, and a return to Judaism. But the Judaism\nto which it returned had already lost its finest bloom. All that was\nleft to it of tenderness or power of expansion Islam rejected, and\nof the driest husks of Old Testament religion it made its sole food.\nNaturally and necessarily, therefore, it has been found inadequate.\nIt cannot permanently live under present conditions, and it is\ncapable of no renewal. Here and there, especially in India, attempts\nto break out of the prison house which this system builds around\nits votaries are being made, but in the opinion of experts like\nMr. Sell[64] they cannot succeed. \"Such a movement,\" he tells us,\n\"may elevate individuals and purify the family life of many, but it\nwill, like all reform movements of the past, have very little real\neffect on Islam as a polity and as a religion.\" If he be right, we\nlearn from a Mohammedan whom he quotes, the Naual Mulisin-ul-Mulk,\nwhat alone can be looked for. \"To me it seems,\" he says, \"that as a\nnation and a religion we are dying out; our day is past, and we have\nlittle hope of the future.\" More conspicuously and deliberately\nperhaps than any one did Mohammed choose to go back from the best\nlight that shone in the world of his day. Some at least of his\ncontemporaries knew what a spiritual religion meant. He was guilty,\ntherefore, of the \"great refusal\"; and his work, great as it was,\nseems to some even of his own disciples to be hastening to its end.\nMaterial success, bread in all senses, the kingdoms founded by him\nand his successors had in abundance, and still might have. But man\ncannot live by that alone, and the absence of the higher element has\ntaken even that away.\n\n  [64] _Contemporary Review_, August 1893 p. 293.\n\nIn Christendom, too, the same lesson is being taught. Of all\nEuropean countries France perhaps is that where the corroding\npower of materialistic thought has been most severely felt. Yet\nfew countries are so rich in material wealth, and if bread was\nall that \"life\" demanded, no country should be so full of it. But\nit is in no sense so. Even its intellectual life is drooping, and\nits population, if not decreasing, is standing still. This, all\nserious writers deplore; and the dawn of what may perhaps be a new\nera is seen in the earnestness with which the sources of this evil\nare sought out and discussed. Men like the Vicomte de Vog\u00fc\u00e9[65]\ndepict the new generation as weary of negations, sick of the\nmaterial positivism of their immediate predecessors, disgusted with\n\"realism,\" which, as another recent writer defines it, \"in thought\nis mere provincialism, in affection absolute egoism, in politics the\ndeification of brute force; in the higher grades of society tyranny;\nin the lower, unbridled licence.\" And the only cure is faith and\nmoral idealism. \"Society can apply to itself to-day,\" says De Vog\u00fc\u00e9,\n\"the beautiful image of Plotinus; it resembles those travellers\nlost in the night, seated in silence on the shore of the sea,\nwaiting for the sun to rise above the billows.\" In Germany similar\nconditions have produced similar though much mitigated results. Yet\neven there, Lange, the historian of materialism, tells us that there\nruns through all our modern culture a tendency to materialism, which\ncarries away every one who has not found somewhere a sure anchor.\n\"The ideal has no currency; all that cannot prove its claim on the\nbasis of natural science and history is condemned to destruction,\nthough a thousand joys and refreshments of the masses depend upon\nit.\" He concludes by saying that \"ideas and sacrifices may still\nsave our civilisation, and change the path of destructive revolution\ninto a path of beneficent reforms.\" Through all history, then, and\nloudest in our own day, the cry of our passage goes up; and where\nthe path marked out by the faith of Israel, and carried to its goal\nby Jesus Christ, has been forsaken, the peoples are resting in\nhungry expectation. Words from the mouth of God can alone save them;\nand if the Churches cannot make them hear, and no new voice brings\nit home to them, there would seem to be nothing before them but a\nslower or quicker descent into death.\n\n  [65] \"_Heures d'Histoire._\"\n\nBut it may be that the nations are deaf to the Churches' voice\nbecause these have not learned thoroughly that life for them too\nis conditioned in the same fashion. They can live truly, fully,\ntriumphantly only when they take up and absorb \"everything that\nissues from the mouth of God.\" All Christians must admit this;\nbut most proceed at once to annul what they have stated by the\nlimitations of meaning they impose upon it. An older generation\nvehemently affirmed this faith, meaning by it every word and letter\nwhich Scripture contained. We do not find fault with what they\nassert, for the first necessity of spiritual life is the study and\nlove of the Holy Scriptures. No one who knows what the higher life\nin Christ is, needs to be told that the very bread of life is in\nthe Bible. Neglect it, or, what is perhaps worse, study it only\nfrom the scientific and intellectual point of view, and life will\nslowly ebb away from you, and your religion will bring you none of\nthe joy of living. Bring your thoughts, your hopes, your fears,\nand your aspirations into daily contact with it, and you will feel\na vigour in your spiritual nature which will make you \"lords over\ncircumstance.\" Every part of it contributes to this effect when it\nis properly understood, for experience proves the vanity of the\nattempt to distinguish between the Bible and the word of God. As it\nstands, wrought into one whole by labours the strenuousness, the\nmultiplicity, the skill, and the religious spirit of which we are\nonly now coming to understand, it is the word of God; it has issued\nfrom His mouth, and from it, searched out and understood, the most\nsatisfying \"bread\" of the soul must come. Only by use of it can the\nChristian soul live. But though the Bible is the word of God _par\nexcellence_, it is not the only word that issues from the mouth of\nGod to man. Because the Church has often too much refused to listen\nto any other word of God, those who are without are \"sitting looking\nout over the sea towards the west for the rising of the sun which\nis behind them.\" For if it is death to the spirit to turn away from\nScripture, it means sickness and disease to refuse to learn the\nother lessons which are set for us by the God of truth. All true\nscience must contain a revelation of Him, for it is an exposition\nof the manner of His working. History too is a Bible, which has\nbeen confirming with trumpet tongue the truths of Scripture as we\nhave seen. Nay, it is a commentary upon the special revelation\ngiven to us through Israel, set for our study by the Author of\nthat revelation. Further, we may say that the progress of our\nChristian centuries has shown us heights and depths of wisdom in the\nrevelation mankind has received in Christ which, without its light,\nwe should not have known.\n\nThe spirit of Christ in regard to slavery, for instance, was made\nmanifest fully only in our day. The true relations of men to each\nother, as conceived by our blessed Lord, are evidently about to be\nforced home upon the world by the turmoils, the strikes, and the\noutrages, by the wild demands, and the wilder hopes which are the\ncharacteristic of our epoch. In the future, too, there must lie\nexperiences which will make manifest to men the brand which the\nspirit of Christ puts upon war, with its savagery and its folly.\nThese are only noteworthy instances of the explanation of revelation\nby the developments of the Divine purpose in the world. But in\ncountless ways the same process is going on, and the Church which\nrefuses to regard it is preparing a decay of its own life. For man\nlives by _every_ word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and\nevery such word missed means a loss of vitality. The Christian\nChurch, therefore, if it is to be true to its calling, should be\nseriously watchful lest any Divinely sent experience should be lost\nto it. It cannot be indifferent, much less hostile, to discoveries\nin physical science; it cannot ignore any fact or lesson which\nhistory reveals; it cannot sit apart from social experiments, as if\nholding no form of creed in such things, without seriously impairing\nits chances of life. For all these things are pregnant with most\nprecious indications of the mind of God, and to turn from them is\nto sit in darkness and the shadow of death. In the most subtle\nand multifarious way, the inner spiritual life of man is being\nmodified by the discoveries of scientists, historians, philologists,\narch\u00e6ologists, and critics, and by the new attention which is being\ngiven to the foundations of society and social life. All the truth\nthat is in these discoveries issues from the mouth of God. They too\nare a Bible, as Mommsen says, and if the Christian Church cannot\n\"hinder the fool from misunderstanding and the devil from quoting\nthem,\" it can itself listen with open ear to these teachings, and\nwork them into coherent unity with the great spiritual Revelation.\nThis is the perennial task which awaits the Church at every stage of\nits career, for on no other terms can it live a healthy life.\n\nHere we find the answer to timid Christians who address petulant\ncomplaints to those who are called to attempt this work. If, say\nthey, these new thoughts are not essential to faith, if in the forms\nto which we have been accustomed the essence of true religion has\nbeen preserved, why do you disturb the minds of believers by outside\nquestions? The reply is that we dare not refuse the teaching which\nGod is sending us in these ways. To refuse light is to blaspheme\nlight. Though we might save our generation some trouble by turning\nour back upon this light, though we might even save some from\nmanifest shipwreck of faith, we should pay for that by sacrificing\nall the future, and by rendering faith impossible perhaps for\ngreater multitudes of our successors.\n\nYet this does not imply that the Church is to be driven about by\nevery wind of doctrine. Some men of science demand, apparently, that\nevery new discovery, in its first crude form, should be at once\nadopted by the Church, and that all the inferences unfavourable\nto received views of religion, which occur to men accustomed to\nthink only truths that can be demonstrated by experiment, should\nbe registered in its teachings. But such a demand is mere folly.\nThe Church has in its possession a body of truth which, if not\nverifiable by experiment, has been verified by experience as no\nother body of truth has been. Even its enemies being judges, no\nother system of a moral or spiritual kind has risen above the\nhorizon which can for a moment be compared with Christianity as\nthe guide of men for life and death.[66] Through all changes of\nsecular thought, and amid all the lessons which the world has taught\nthe Church, the fundamental doctrines have remained in essence\nthe same, and by them the whole life of man, social, political,\nand scientific, has ultimately been guided. Immense practical\ninterests have therefore been committed to the Church's keeping,\nthe interests primarily of the poor and the obscure. She ought\nnever to be tempted, consequently, to think that she is moving\nand acting in a vacuum, or manage her affairs after the manner of\na debating society. It is no doubt a fault to move too slowly;\nbut in circumstances like that of the Church, it can never be so\ndestructive to the best interests of mankind as to move with wanton\ninstability. Her true attitude must be to prohibit no lines of\ninquiry, to open her mind seriously to all the demonstrated truths\nof science with gladness, to be tolerant of all loyal effort to\nreform Christian thought in accordance with the new light, when\nthat has become at all possible. For her true food is everything\nthat issues from the mouth of God; and only when she receives with\ngratitude her daily bread in this way also, can her life be as\nvigorous and as elevated as it ought to be.\n\n  [66] Cf. Lange, _Geschichte des Materialismus_, vol. ii., pp. 510,\n  528.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\n_ISRAEL'S ELECTION, AND MOTIVES FOR FAITHFULNESS_\n\nDEUT. ix-xi.\n\n\nThe remaining chapters of this special introduction to the statement\nof the actual laws beginning with chapter xii., contain also an\nearnest insistence upon other motives why Israel should remain true\nto the covenant of Yahweh. They are urged to this, not only because\nlife both spiritual and physical depended upon it, as was shown\nin the trials of the wilderness, but they are also to lay it to\nheart that in the conquests which assuredly await them, it will be\nYahweh alone to whom they will owe them. The spies had declared, and\nthe people had accepted their report, that these peoples were far\nmightier than they, and that no one could stand before the children\nof Anak. But the victory over them would show that Yahweh had been\namong them like a consuming fire, before which the Canaanite power\nwould wither as brushwood in the flame.\n\nUnder these circumstances the thought would obviously lie near that,\nas they had been defeated and driven back in their first attempt\nupon Canaan because of their unrighteousness and unbelief, so they\nwould conquer now because of their righteousness and obedience.\nBut this thought is sternly repressed. The fundamental doctrine\nwhich is here insisted on is that Israel's consciousness of being\nthe people of God must at the same time be a consciousness of\ncomplete dependence upon Him. If His gifts were ultimately to be\nthe reward of human righteousness, then obviously that feeling of\ncomplete dependence could not be established. They are to move\nso completely in the shadow of God that they are to see in their\nsuccesses only the carrying out of the Divine purposes. Instead\nof feeling fiercely contemptuous of the Canaanites they destroy,\nbecause they stand on a moral and spiritual height which gives them\na right to triumph, the Israelites are to feel that, while it is\nfor wickedness that the Canaanite people are to be punished, they\nthemselves had not been free from wickedness of an aggravated kind.\nTheir different treatment, therefore, rests upon the fact that\nthey are to be Yahweh's chosen instruments. In the patriarchs he\nchose them to become the means, the vehicle, by which salvation and\nblessing were to be brought to all nations. While, therefore, the\nevil that comes upon the peoples they are to conquer is deserved,\nthe good they themselves are to receive is equally undeserved. That\nwhich alone accounts for the difference is the faithfulness of God\nto the promises He made for the sake of His purposes. He needs an\ninstrument through which to bless mankind. He has chosen Israel\nfor this purpose, partly doubtless because of some qualities, not\nnecessarily spiritual or moral, which they have come to have, and\npartly because of their historical position in the world. These\ntaken together make them at this precise moment in the history of\nthe world's development the fittest instruments to carry out the\nDivine purpose of love to mankind. And they are elected, made to\nenter into more constant and intimate communion with God than other\nnations, on that account. In the words of Rothe, \"God chooses or\nelects at each historical moment from the totality of the sinful\nrace of mankind that nation by whose enrolment among the positive\nforces which are to develop the kingdom of God the greatest possible\nadvance towards the complete realisation of it may be attained,\nunder the historical circumstances of that moment.\" Whether that\ncompletely covers the individual election of St. Paul, as Rothe\nthinks, or not, it certainly precisely expresses the national\nelection of the Old Testament, and exhausts the meaning of our\npassage. Israelite particularism had universality of the highest\nkind as its background, and here the latter comes most insistently\nto its rights.\n\nIt was not only the election of Israel to be a peculiar people\nwhich depended upon the wise and loving purpose of God; the\nprovidences which befell them also had that as their source. To\nfit them for their mission, and to give them a place wherein they\ncould develop the germs of higher faith and nobler morality which\nthey had received, Yahweh gave them victory over those greater\nnations, and planted them in their place. This, and this only,\nwas the reason of their success; and with scathing irony the\nauthor of Deuteronomy stamps under his feet (ix. 7 ff.) any claim\nto superior righteousness on their part. He points back to their\ncontinuous rebellions during the forty years in the wilderness.\nFrom the beginning to the end of their journey towards the promised\nland, they are told, they have been rebellious and stiff-necked\nand unprofitable. They have broken their covenant with their God.\nThey have caused Moses to break the tables of stone containing the\nfundamental conditions of the covenant, because their conduct had\nmade it plain that they had not seriously bound themselves to it.\nBut the mercy of God had been with them. Notwithstanding their sin,\nYahweh had been turned to mercy by the prayer of Moses (vv. 25 ff.),\nand had repented of His design to destroy them. A new covenant was\nentered into with them (chap. x.) by means of the second tables,\nwhich contained the same commands as were engraven on the first. The\nrenewal, moreover, was ratified by the separation of the tribe of\nLevi (x. 8 ff.) to be the specially priestly tribe, \"to bear the Ark\nof the Covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister\nunto Him and to bless in His name.\" From beginning to end it was\nalways Yahweh, and again Yahweh, who had chosen and loved and cared\nfor them. It was He who had forgiven and strengthened them; but\nalways for reasons which reached far beyond, or even excluded, any\nmerit on their part.\n\nThe grounds of Moses' successful intercession for them (ix. 25 ff.)\nare notable in this connection. They have no reference at all to\nthe needs, or hopes, or expectations of the people. These are all\nbrushed aside, as being of no moment after such unfaithfulness as\ntheirs had been. The great object before his mind is represented\nto be Yahweh's glory. If this stiff-necked people perish, then\nthe greatness of God will be obscured and His purposes will be\nmisunderstood. Men will certainly think, either that Yahweh,\nIsrael's God, attempted to do what He was not able to do, or that\nHe was wroth with His people, and drew them out into the wilderness\nto slay them there. It is God's purpose with them, God's purpose\nfor the world through them, which alone gives them importance.\nWere it not for that, they would be as little worth saving as they\nhave deserved to be saved. For his people, and, we may be sure,\nfor himself, Moses recognises no true worth save in so far as he\nor they were useful in carrying out Divine purposes of good to the\nworld. Nor is the absence of any plea on Israel's behalf, that it is\nmiserable or unhappy, due merely to a desire to keep the rebellious\npeople in the background for the moment, and to appeal only to the\nDivine self-love for a pardon which would, on the merits of the\ncase, be refused. It is the God of the whole earth, before whom \"the\ninhabitants of the earth are as grasshoppers,\" who is appealed to;\na God removed far above the petty motives of self-interested men,\nand set upon the one great purpose of establishing a kingdom of God\nupon the earth into which all nations might come. If His glory is\nappealed to, that is only because it is the glory of the highest\ngood both for the individual and for the world. If fear lest doubt\nshould be cast upon His power is put forward as a reason for His\nhaving mercy, that is because to doubt His power is to doubt the\nsupremacy of goodness. If the Divine promise to the patriarchs is\nset forth here, it is because that promise was the assurance of the\nDivine interest in and Divine love of the world.\n\nUnder such circumstances it would need a very narrow-hearted\nliteralism, such as only very \"liberal\" theologians and critics\ncould favour, to reduce this appeal to a mere attempt to flatter\nYahweh into good-humour. It really embodies all that can be said\nin justification of our looking for answers to prayer at all; and\nrightly understood it limits the field of the answer as strictly as\nthe expressed or implied limitations of the New Testament, viz. that\neffectual prayer can only be for things according to the will of\nGod. Moreover it expresses an entirely natural attitude towards God.\nBefore Him, the sum of all perfections, the loving and omniscient\nand omnipresent God, what is man that he should assert himself in\nany wise? When the height and the depth, the sublimity and the\ncomprehensiveness of the Divine purpose is considered, how can a\nman do aught save fall upon his face in utter self-forgetfulness,\nimmeasurably better even than self-contempt? The best and holiest\nof mankind have always felt this most; and the habit of measuring\ntheir attainments by the faithfulness and knowledge, the virtue and\npower which is in God, has impressed some of the greatest minds and\npurest souls with such humility, that to men without insight it\nhas seemed mere affectation. But the pity, the condescension, the\nlove of Christ has so brought God down into our human life, that\nwe are apt at times to lose our awe of God as seen in Him. Were we\nchildren of the spirit we should not fall into that sin. We cannot,\nconsequently, be too frequently or too sharply recalled to the more\naustere and remote standpoint of the Old Testament. For many even\nof the most pious it would be well if they could receive and keep a\nmore just impression of their own worthlessness and nullity before\nGod.\n\nIn the section from the twelfth verse of chapter x. to the end of\nchapter xi. the hortatory introduction is summed up in a final\nreview of all the motives to and the results of obedience and love\nto God. The fundamental exhortation as to love to God is once more\nrepeated; only here fear is joined with love and precedes it; but\nthe necessity of love to God is expanded and dwelt upon, as at\nthe beginning, with a zeal that never wearies. The Deuteronomist\nillustrates and enforces it with old reasons and new, always\nspeaking with the same pleading and heartfelt earnestness. He does\nnot fear the tedium of repetition, nor the accusation of moving\nin a narrow round of ideas. Evidently in the evil time when he\nwrote this love towards God had come to be his own support and his\nconsolation; and it had been revealed to him as the source of a\npower, a sweetness, and a righteousness which could alone bring the\nnation into communion with God. In affecting words resembling very\nclosely the noble exhortation in Micah vi., \"He hath showed thee,\nO man, what is good; and what doth Yahweh require of thee, but to\ndo justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?\"\nhe teaches much the same doctrine as his contemporary: \"And now,\nIsrael, what doth Yahweh thy God require of thee, but to fear Yahweh\nthy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve\nYahweh thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the\ncommandments of Yahweh and His statutes which I command thee this\nday for thy good?\"[67]\n\n  [67] Chap. x. 12.\n\nIn spirit these passages seem identical; but it is held by many\nwriters on the Old Testament that they are not so, that they\nrepresent, in fact, opposite poles of the faith and life of Israel.\nMicah is supposed by Duhm, for instance, to mean by his threefold\ndemand that justice between man and man, love and kindliness\nand mercy towards others, and humble intercourse with God are,\nin _distinction from sacrifice_, true religion and undefiled.\nRobertson Smith also considers that these verses in Micah contain\na repudiation of sacrifice. In Deuteronomy, on the contrary, fear\nand love of God and walking in His ways are placed first, but they\nare joined with a demand for the heartfelt service of God and\nthe keeping of His statutes as about to be set forth. Now these\ncertainly include ritual and sacrifice. The one passage, written\nby a prophet, excludes sacrifice as binding and acceptable service\nof God; the other, written perhaps by a priest, certainly by a\nman upon whom no prophetic lessons of the past had been lost,\nincludes it. To use the words of Robertson Smith in discussing\nthe requisites of forgiveness in the Old Testament, \"According\nto the prophets Yahweh asks only a penitent heart and desires no\nsacrifice; according to the ritual law, He desires a penitent heart\napproaching Him in certain sacrificial sacraments.\"[68] The author\nof Deuteronomy teaches the second view; the author of Micah chap.\nvi., who is probably his contemporary, teaches the former. How is\nsuch divergence accounted for? The answer generally made is that\nDeuteronomy was the product of a close alliance between priests\nand prophets. A common hatred of Manasseh's idolatry and a common\noppression had brought them together as never perhaps before. With\none heart and mind they wrought in secret for the better day which\nthey saw approaching, and Deuteronomy was a reissue of the ancient\nMosaic law adapted to the prophetic teaching. It represented a\ncompromise between, or an amalgamation of, two entirely distinct\npositions.\n\n  [68] _Old Testament in Jewish Church_, 2nd edition, p. 308.\n\nBut even on this view it would follow that from the time of Josiah,\nwhen Deuteronomy was accepted as the completest expression of\nthe will of God, the doctrine that ritual and sacrifice as well\nas penitence were essential things in true religion was known,\nand not only known but accepted as the orthodox opinion. Putting\naside, then, the question whether sacrifice was acknowledged by the\nprophets before this or not, they must have accepted it from this\npoint onward, unless they denied to Deuteronomy the authority which\nit claimed and which the nation conceded to it. Jeremiah clearly\nmust have assented to it, for his style and his thought have been so\nclosely moulded on this book that some have thought he may have been\nits author. In any case he did not repudiate its authority; and all\nthe prophets who followed him must have known of this view, and also\nthat it had been sanctioned by that book which was made the first\nJewish Bible.\n\nWe have here, at all events, the keynote of the supremacy of moral\nduty over Divine commands concerning ritual which distinguishes\nthe prophetic teaching in Micah and elsewhere, joined with the\nenforcement of ritual observances. But there are few purely\nprophetic passages which raise the higher demand so high as it is\nraised here.\n\nTo love and fear God are anew declared to be man's supreme duties,\nand the author presses these home by arguments of various kinds.\nAgain he returns to the election of Israel by Yahweh, without\nmerit of theirs; and to bring home to them how much this means, the\nDeuteronomist exhibits the greatness of their God, His might, His\njustice, and His mercy, which, great as it is to His chosen people,\nis not confined to them, but extends to the stranger also. This most\ngracious One they are to serve by deeds, to Him they are to cleave,\nand they are to swear by Him only, that is, they are solemnly to\nacknowledge Him to be their God in return for His undeserved favour.\nFor their very existence as a nation is a wonder of His power, since\nthey were only a handful when they went down to Egypt, and now were\n\"as the stars of heaven for multitude.\"\n\nThen once more, in chapter xi., he repeats his one haunting thought\nthat love is to be the source of all worthy fulfilment of the law;\nand he endeavours to shed abroad this love to God in their hearts\nby reminding them once more of all the marvels of their deliverance\nfrom Egypt, and of their wilderness journey. Their God had delivered\nthem first, then chastised them for their sins, and had trained them\nfor the new life that awaited them in the land promised to their\nfathers.\n\nEven in the security of the land they were to find themselves not\nless dependent upon God than before. Rather their dependence would\nbe more striking and more impressive than in Egypt. As we have\nseen repeatedly, this inspired writer belonged in many respects\nto the childhood of the world, and the people he addressed were\nprimitive in their ideas. Yet his thoughts of God in their highest\nflight were so essentially true and deep, that even to-day we\ncan go back upon them for edification and inspiration. But here\nwe have an appeal based upon a distinction which to-day should\nhave almost entirely lost its meaning. The Deuteronomist yields\nquite simply and unreservedly to the feeling that the regular,\nunvarying processes of nature are less Divine, or at least are less\nimmediately significant of the Divine presence, than those which\ncannot be foreseen, which vary, and which defy human analysis. For\nhe here contrasts Egypt and Canaan, in both of which he represents\nIsrael as having been engaged in agricultural pursuits, and speaks\nas if in the former all depended upon human industry and ingenuity,\nand might be counted upon irrespective of moral conduct, while in\nthe latter all would depend upon Divine favour and a right attitude\ntowards God. It is quite true that in preceding chapters he has been\nteaching that, even for worldly material success, the higher life is\nnecessary, that man nowhere lives by bread alone; and that we may\nassuredly assume is his deepest, his ultimate thought. But he has\na practical end in view at this moment. He wishes to persuade his\npeople, and he appeals to what both he and they felt, though in the\nlast resort it might hardly perhaps be justified. In Egypt, he says,\nyour agricultural success was certain if only you were industrious.\nThe great river, of which the land itself is the gift, came down in\nflood year after year, and you had only to store and to guide its\nwaters to ensure you a certain return for your labour. You had not\nto look to uncertain rains, but could by diligence always secure\na sufficiency of the life-giving element. In Canaan it will not\nbe so. It \"drinketh water only of the rain of heaven.\" God's eye\nhas to be upon it continually to keep it fertile, and the sense of\ndependence upon Him will force itself upon you more constantly and\npowerfully in consequence. They could hope to prosper only if they\nnever forgot, never put away His exhortations out of their sight.\nOtherwise, he says, the life-giving showers will not fall in their\ndue season. Your land will not yield its fruits, and \"ye shall\nperish quickly off the good land which Yahweh giveth you.\"\n\nNow what are we to say of this appeal? There can be no doubt\nthat the Divine omnipotence was really, in the Deuteronomist's\nview as well as in ours, as irresistible in Egypt as in Canaan.\nFundamentally, no doubt, life or death, prosperity or adversity,\nwere as much in the hand of God in the one case as in the other; and\nthe Deuteronomist, at least, had no doubt that rebellion against\nGod could and would destroy Egypt's prosperity as much as Canaan's.\nBut he felt that somehow there was a tenderer and more intimate\ncommunion of love between Yahweh and His people under the one set\nof circumstances than under the other. We are not entitled to\nimpute to him a questionable distinction which modern minds are apt\nto make, viz. that where long experience has taught men to regard\nthe course of providence as fixed, there the sphere of prayer for\nmaterial benefit ends, and that only in the region where the Divine\naction in nature seems to us more spontaneous, and less capable of\nbeing foreseen, can prayer be heartily, because hopefully, made.\nBut the feeling that suggests that was certainly in his mind. He\nfelt the difference between the fixed conditions of life in Egypt\nand the more variable conditions in Canaan, to be much the same as\nthe difference between the circumstances of a son receiving a fixed\nyearly allowance from his father, in an independent and perhaps\ndistant home, and those of a son in his father's house, who receives\nhis portion day by day as the result and evidence of an ever-present\naffection. Both are equally dependent upon the father's love, and\nboth should theoretically be equally filled with loving gratitude.\nBut as a fact, the latter would be more likely to be so, and would\nbe held more guilty if he were not so. Upon that actual fact the\nDeuteronomist takes his stand. As they were now to enter into\nYahweh's land, His chosen dwelling-place, he sees in the different\nmaterial conditions of the new country that which should make the\nunion between Yahweh and His people more intimate and more secure,\nand He presses home upon them the greater shame of ingratitude, if\nunder such circumstances they should forget God and His laws.\n\nFinally (xi. 22-25) he promises them the victorious extension of\ntheir dominion if they will love Yahweh and keep His laws. From\nLebanon to the southern wilderness, from the Euphrates to the\nwestern sea, they should rule, if they would cleave unto their God.\nAt no time was this promise fulfilled save in the days of David\nand Solomon. For only then had Lebanon and the wilderness, the\nEuphrates and the sea, been the boundaries of Israel. This must,\nthen, be regarded as the time of Israel's greatest faithfulness.\nBut it is striking that it is in Josiah's day, after the adoption\nof Deuteronomy as the national law, that we meet with a conscious\neffort to realise this condition of things once more. There would\nseem to be little doubt that the good king took an equally literal\nview of what the book commanded and of what it promised. He\ninaugurated a period of complete external compliance with the law,\nand like the young and inexperienced man he was, he regarded that\nas the fulfilment of its requirements, and looked for a similar\ninstantaneous fulfilment of the promises. Bit by bit he had absorbed\nthe ancient territory of the Northern Kingdom; and in the decay of\nthe Assyrian power he saw the opportunity for the enlargement of his\ndominion to the limit here defined. He consequently went out against\nPharaoh Necho in the full confidence that he would be victorious.\nBut if the Divine promise and its conditions were taken up too\nsuperficially by him, Divine providence soon and terribly corrected\nthe error. The defeat and death of Josiah revealed that the\nreformation had not been real and deep enough, and that the nation\nwas not faithful enough to make such triumph possible. Indeed, so\nfar as we can see, the time for any true fulfilment of Israel's\ncalling in that fashion had then passed by. The harvest was past,\nand Israel was not saved, and could not now be saved, for it was in\nits deepest heart unfaithful.\n\nIt may be questioned by some, of course, whether an Israel faithful\neven in the highest degree could at any time have kept possession\nof so wide a dominion in the face of the great empires of Assyria\nand Egypt. These were rich, and had a far larger command both\nof territory and men: how then could the Israelites ever have\nmaintained themselves in face of them? But the question is how to\nmeasure the power of the higher ideas they held. It is not force\nbut truth that rules the world; and absolutely no limit can be set\nto the possibilities which open out to a free, morally robust, and\nfaithful people, who have become possessed of higher spiritual ideas\nthan the peoples that surround them. Even in this sceptical modern\nday the transformation as regards physical strength which takes\nplace when certain classes of Hindus become either Mohammedans or\nChristians is so startling and so rapid that it appears almost a\nmiracle. As regards courage, too, it is even more rapid and equally\nremarkable. The great majority of the struggles of nations are\nfought out on the level of mere physical force and for material\nends, and the strongest and richest wins: but whenever a people\npossessed of higher ideas and absolutely faithful to them does\nappear, the opposing power, however great it may be in wealth\nand numbers, is whirled away in fragments as by a tornado, or it\ndissolves like ice before the sun. What Israel might have been,\ntherefore, had it been penetrated by the principles of the higher\nreligion, and been passionately true to it, can in no way be judged\nby that which it actually was. Among the untried possibilities\nwhich it was too unfaithful to realise, the possession of such an\nempire as Deuteronomy promises would seem to be one of the least.\n\nOur chapter sums up what precedes with the declaration on the part\nof Yahweh, \"See, I am setting before you this day a blessing and a\ncurse,\" according as they might obey or disobey the Divine command.\nIt is stated, in short, that the whole future of the people is to\nbe determined by their attitude to Yahweh and the commands He has\ngiven them. In these two words \"blessing\" and \"curse,\" as Dillmann\nobserves, He sets before them the greatness of the decision they are\ncalled upon to make. Just as at the end of chapter iii. the vision\nof Yahweh's stretched-out hand, which has strewn the world with the\nwrecks and fragments of destroyed nations, is relied on to prepare\nthe people for contemplating their own calling, so here the gain or\nloss which would follow their decision is solemnly set before them.\nBy Dillmann and others it is supposed that vv. 29 and 31, which\ninstruct the people to \"lay the blessing upon Mount Gerizim and the\ncurse upon Mount Ebal,\" have been transferred by the later editor\nfrom chapter xxvii., where they would come in very fittingly after\nver. 3. But whether that be so or not, they are evidently so far in\nplace here that they add to the solemnity with which the fate of the\nnation in the future is insisted upon. Their \"choice is brief and\nyet endless\"; it can be made in a moment, but in its consequence it\nwill endure.\n\nBut here a difficulty arises. Dr. Driver in his _Introduction_ says\nof this hortatory section of our book that its teaching is that\n\"duties are not to be performed from secondary motives, such as fear\nor dread of consequences; they are to be the spontaneous outcome of\na heart from which every taint of worldliness has been removed, and\nwhich is penetrated by an all-absorbing sense of personal devotion\nto God.\" Yet in these later chapters we have had little else but\nappeals to the gratitude and hopes and fears of Israel. Chapters\nviii. to xi. are wholly taken up with incitements to love and obey\nGod, because He has been immeasurably good to them, never letting\ntheir ingratitude overcome His lovingkindness; because they are\nwholly dependent upon Him for prosperity and the fertility of their\nland; and because evil will come upon them if they do not. That\nwould seem to be the opposite of what Driver has declared to be the\ninforming spirit and the fundamental teaching of Deuteronomy.\n\nYet his view is the true one. Even if the Deuteronomist had added\nthese lower motives to attract and gain over those who were not\nso open to the higher, that would not deprive him of the glory of\nhaving set forth disinterested love as the really impelling power\nin true religion. We are not required to lower our esteem of that\nachievement, even if, like the reasonable and wise teacher he is, he\nboldly uses every motive that actually influences men, whether it\nshould do so or not, to win them to the higher life. But it is not\nnecessary to suppose that he does so. His demand is that men shall\nlove Yahweh their God with all their heart and strength, and to\nwin them to that he sets forth what their God has revealed Himself\nto be. Men cannot love one whom they do not know; they cannot\nlove one who has not proved himself lovable to them. As his whole\neffort is to get men to love God, and show their love by obedience\nto His expressed will, the Deuteronomist brings to mind all His\nloving thoughts and acts towards them, and so continually keeps\nhis appeal at the highest level. He does not ask men to serve God\nbecause it will be profitable to them, but because they love God;\nand he endeavours to make them love God by reciting all His love and\nfriendliness and patience to His people, and by pointing out the\nevil which His love is seeking to ward off. The plea is not the\nignoble one that they must serve Yahweh for what they can gain by\nit, but that they should love Yahweh for His love and graciousness,\nand that out of this love continual obedience should flow as a\nnecessary result. That is his central position; and if he points\nout the necessary results of a refusal to turn to God in this way,\nhe does not thereby set forth slavish fear or calculating prudence\nas in themselves religious motives. They are only natural and\nreasonable means of turning men to view the other side. He uses them\nto bring the people to a pause, during which he may win them by the\nlove of God. That is always the true appeal; and Christianity when\nit is at its finest can do nothing but follow in this path. Having\nbefore his mind the results of evil conduct, he does urge men to\nescape from the wrath that may rest upon them. But the only means so\nto escape is to yield to the love of God. No self-restraint dictated\nby fear of consequences, no turning from evil because of the lions\nthat are seen in the path, satisfies the demand of either Old\nTestament or New Testament religion. Both raise the truly religious\nlife above that into the region of self-devoting love; and they both\ndeny spiritual validity to all acts, however good they may be in\nthemselves, which do not follow love as its free and uncalculating\nexpression. Yet they both deal with men as rational beings who can\nestimate the results of their acts, and warn them of the death which\nmust be the end of every other way of supposed salvation. In this\nmanner they keep the path between extremes, ignoring neither the\ninner heart of religion nor winding themselves too high for sinful\nmen.\n\nHow hard it is to keep to this reasonable but spiritual view is seen\nby popular aberrations both within and without the Church. At times\nin the history of the Church Christian teachers have allowed their\nminds to be so dominated by the terror of judgment that judgment\nhas seemed to the world to be the sole burden of their message. As a\nreaction from that again, other teachers have arisen who put forward\nthe love of God in such a one-sided way as to empty it of all its\nsevere but glorious sublimity; as if, like Mohammed, they believed\nGod was minded mainly \"to make religion easy\" unto men. Outside the\nChurch the same discord prevails. Some secular writers praise those\nreligions which declare that a man's fate is decided at the judgment\nby the balance of merit over demerit in his acts; while others mock\nat any judgment, and commit themselves with a light heart to the\nhalf-amused tolerance of the Divine good-nature. But the teaching\nwhich combines both elements can alone sustain and bear up a worthy\nspiritual life. To rely upon terror only, is to ignore the very\nessence of true religion and the better elements in the nature of\nman; for that _will_ not be dominated by fear alone. To think of\nthe Divine love as a lazy, self-indulgent laxity, is to degrade the\nDivine nature, and to forget that the possibility of wrath is bound\nup in all love that is worthy of the name.\n\nOne other point is worthy of remark. In these chapters, which\ndeal with the history of God's chosen people in their relations\nwith Him, there come out the very elements which distinguish the\npersonal religion of St. Paul. The beginning and end of it all is\nthe free grace of God. God elected His people that they might be\nHis instrument for blessing the world, not because of any goodness\nin them, for they were perverse and rebellious, but because He had\nso determined and had promised to the fathers. He had delivered\nthem from the bondage of Egypt by His mighty power, and dwelt among\nthem thenceforth as among no other people. He gave them a land to\ndwell in, and there as in His own house He watched and tended them,\nand strove to lead them upwards to the height of their calling\nas the people of God by demanding of them faith and love. It is a\nvery enlightening remark of Robertson Smith's that the deliverance\nout of Egypt was to Israel in the Old Testament what conversion is\nto the individual Christian according to the New Testament. Taking\nthat as our starting-point, we see that the thought of Deuteronomy\nis precisely the thought of Romans. It is said, and truly enough,\nthat the Pauline theology was a direct transcript of Paul's own\nexperience; but we see from this that he did not need to form the\nmoulds for his own fundamental thoughts. Long before him the author\nof Deuteronomy had formed these, and they must have been familiar\nto every instructed Jew. But the recognition of this is not a loss\nbut a gain. If St. Paul had founded a theory of the universal action\nof God upon the soul only on the grounds of his own very peculiar\nexperience, it might be argued that the basis of his teaching had\nbeen too personal to permit us to feel sure that his view was\nreally as exhaustive as he thought. We see, however, that what he\nexperienced the Deuteronomist had long before traced in the history\nof his people; and most probably he would not have traced it with\nso firm a hand had he not himself had experience of a similar kind\nin his personal relations with God. This method of conceiving the\nrelation of God to the higher life of man, therefore, is stated\nby the Scriptures as normal. The free grace of God is the source\nand the sustainer of all spiritual life, whether in individuals or\ncommunities. Ultimately, behind all the successful or unsuccessful\nefforts of the human heart and will, we are taught to see the great\nGiver, waiting to be gracious, willing that all men should be saved,\nbut acting with the strangest reserves and limitations, choosing\nIsrael among the nations, and even within Israel choosing _the_\nIsrael in whom alone the promises can be realised. Made to serve by\nhuman sin, He waits upon the caprices of the wills He has created.\nHe does not force them; but with compassionate patience He builds\nup His Holy Temple of such living stones as offer themselves, and\n\"without haste as without rest\" prepares for the consummation of His\nwork in the redemption of a people that shall be all prophets, a\nkingdom of priests, a holy nation unto whom all nations shall join\nthemselves when they see that God is in them of a truth. That is\nthe Old Testament conception of the source, and guarantee, and goal\nof all spiritual life in the world, and St. Paul's view is merely\na more mature and definite form of the same thing. And wherever\nspiritual life has manifested itself with unusual power, the same\nconsciousness of utter unworthiness on the part of man, and entire\ndependence upon the grace and favour of God, has also manifested\nitself. The intellectual difficulties connected with this view,\ngreat as they are, have never suppressed it; the pride of man and\nhis faith in himself have not been able permanently to obscure it.\nThe greater men are, the more entirely do they dread any approach to\nthat self-exaltation which puts away as unnecessary the Divine hand\nstretched out to them. As Dean Church points out,[69] \"not Hebrew\nprophets only, but the heathen poets of Greece looked with peculiar\nand profound alarm upon the haughty self-sufficiency of men.\"\nNothing can, they think, ward off evil from the man who makes the\nmistake of supposing, even when carrying out the Divine will, that\nhe needs only his own strength of brain and will and arm to succeed,\nthat he is accountable to no one for the character which he permits\nsuccess to build up within him.\n\n  [69] _Cathedral Sermons_, p. 26.\n\nEven the agnostic of to-day, as represented by Professor Huxley,\ncannot do without some modicum of \"grace\" in his conception of\nman's relation to the powers of nature, though to admit this is to\nrun a rift of inconsistency through his whole system of thought.\n\"Suppose,\" he says in his _Lay Sermons_, \"it were perfectly certain\nthat the life and future of every one of us would, one day or other,\ndepend on his winning or losing a game at chess.... The chessboard\nis the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the\nrules of the game are what we call the laws of nature. The player on\nthe other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always\nfair, just, patient. But we know to our cost that he never overlooks\na mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance. To the man\nwho plays well the highest stakes are paid with that overflowing\ngenerosity with which the strong shows delight in strength, and one\nwho plays ill is checkmated without haste, but without remorse. My\nmetaphor will remind you of the famous picture in which the Evil\nOne is depicted playing a game of chess with man for his soul.\nSubstitute for the mocking fiend in that picture a calm, strong\nangel, playing, as we say, for love, and who would rather lose than\nwin, and I should accept it as the image of human life.\" Even in a\nworld without God, therefore, the facts of life suggest \"justice,\"\n\"patience,\" \"generosity,\" and a pity which \"would rather lose than\nwin.\" With all the inexorable rigour and hardness of man's lot there\nis mingled something that suggests \"grace\" in the power that rules\nthe world; and from the Deuteronomist to St. Paul, from Augustine\nto Calvin and Professor Huxley, the resolutely thorough thinkers\nhave found, in the last analysis, these two elements, the rigour of\nlaw and the election of grace, working together in the moulding of\nmankind.\n\nThe statement of these facts in Deuteronomy is as thorough as any\nthat succeeded it. The rigour of law could not be more precisely\nand pathetically declared than in this insistence on the blessing\nor the curse which must inevitably follow right choice or wrong.\nBut the tenderness of grace could not be more attractively displayed\nthan in this picture of Yahweh's dealings with Israel. Love never\nfaileth here, no more than elsewhere. It persists, notwithstanding\nstiff-necked rebellion, and in spite of coarse materialism of\nnature. Even a childish fickleness, more utterly trying than any\nother weakness or defect, cannot wear it out. But inexorable\nblessing or curse is blended with it, and helps to work out the\nfinal result for Israel and mankind. That is the manner of the\ngovernment of God, according to the Scriptures. History in its long\ncourse as known to us now confirms the view; and the author of\nDeuteronomy, in thus blending love and law together in the end of\nthis great exhortation, has rested the obligation to obedience on a\nfoundation which cannot be moved.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\n_LAW AND RELIGION_\n\nDEUT. xii.-xxvi.\n\n\nWith this section (chapters xii.-xxvi.) we have at length reached\nthe legislation to which all that has gone before is, in form at\nleast, a prelude. But in its general outline this code, if it can\nbe so called, has a very unexpected character. When we speak of a\ncode of laws in modern days, what we mean is a series of statutes,\ncarefully arranged under suitable heads, dealing with the rights\nand duties of the people, and providing remedies for all possible\nwrongs. Then behind these laws there is the executive power of\nthe Government, pledged to enforce them, and ready to punish any\nbreaches of them which may be committed. In most cases, too,\ndefinite penalties are appointed for any disregard or transgression\nof them. Each word has been carefully selected, and it is understood\nthat the very letter of the laws is to be binding. Every one tried\nby them knows that the exact terms of the laws are to be pressed\nagainst him, and that the thing aimed at is a rigorous, literal\nenforcement of every detail. Tried by such a conception, this\nDeuteronomic legislation looks very extraordinary and unintelligible.\n\nIn the first place, there is very little of orderly sequence in\nit. Some large sections of it have a consecutive character; but\nthere is no perceptible order in the succession of these sections,\nand there has been very little attempt to group the individual\nprecepts under related heads. Moreover in many sections there is no\nmention of a penalty for disobedience, nor is there any machinery\nfor enforcing the prescriptions of the code. There is, too, much in\nit that seems rather to be good advice, or direction for leading\na righteous life, a life becoming an Israelite and a servant of\nYahweh, than law. For instance, such a prescription as this, \"If\nthere be with thee a poor man, one of thy brethren, within any of\nthy gates, in thy land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee, thou shalt\nnot harden thine heart nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother,\"\ncan in no sense be treated as a law, in the hard technical sense of\nthat word. It stands exactly on a level with the exhortations of the\nNew Testament, _e.g._ \"Be not wise in your own conceits,\" \"Render\nto no man evil for evil,\" and rather sets up an ideal of conduct\nwhich is to be striven after than establishes a law which must be\ncomplied with. There is no punishment prescribed for disobedience.\nAll that follows if a man do harden his heart against his poor\nbrother is the sting of conscience, which brings home to him that he\nis not living according to the will of God. In almost every respect,\ntherefore, this Deuteronomic code differs from a modern code, and in\ndealing with it we must largely dismiss the ideas which naturally\noccur to us when we speak of a code of laws. Our conception of that\nis, clearly, not valid for these ancient codes; and we need not be\nsurprised if we find that they will not bear being pressed home\nin all their details, as modern codes must be, and are meant to\nbe. Great practical difficulties have arisen in India, Sir Henry\nMaine assures us, from applying the ideas of Western lawyers to\nthe ancient and sacred codes of the East. He says that the effect\nof a procedure under which all the disputes of a community must\nbe referred to regular law-courts is to stereotype ascertained\nusages, and to treat the oracular precepts of a sacred book as\ntexts and precedents that must be enforced. The consequence is that\nvague and elastic social ordinances, which have hitherto varied\naccording to the needs of the people, become fixed and immutable,\nand an Asiatic society finds itself arrested and, so to speak,\nimprisoned unexpectedly within its own formulas. Inconsistencies\nand contradictions, which were never perceived when these laws\nwere worked by Easterns, who had a kind of instinctive perception\nof their true nature, became glaring and troublesome under Western\nrule, and much unintentional wrong has resulted. May it not be\nthat the same thing has happened in the domain of literature in\nconnection with these ancient Hebrew laws? Discrepancies, small and\ngreat, have been the commonplace of Pentateuch criticism for many\nyears past, and on them very far-reaching theories have been built.\nIt may easily be that some of these are the result rather of our\nfailure to take into account the elastic nature of Asiatic law, and\nthat a less strained application of modern notions would have led to\na more reasonable interpretation.\n\nBut granting that ordinary ancient law is not to be taken in our\nrigorous modern sense, yet the fact that what we are dealing with\nhere is Divine law may seem to some to imply that in all its details\nit was meant to be fulfilled to the letter. If not, then in what\nsense is it inspired, and how can we be justified in regarding it\nas Divinely given? The reply to that is, of course, simply this,\nthat inspiration makes free use of all forms of expression which\nare common and permissible at the time and place at which it utters\nitself. From all we know of the Divine methods of acting in the\nworld, we have no right to suppose that in giving inspired laws\nGod would create entirely new and different forms for Himself. On\nthe contrary, legislation in ancient Israel, though Divine in its\nsource, would naturally take the ordinary forms of ancient law.\nMoreover in this case it could hardly have been otherwise. As has\nalready been pointed out, a large part of the Mosaic legislation\nmust have been adopted from the customs of the various tribes who\nwere welded into one by Moses. It cannot be conceived that the laws\nagainst stealing, for example, the penalties for murder, or the\nprescriptions for sacrifice, can have been first introduced by the\ngreat Lawgiver. He made much ancient customary law to be part and\nparcel of the Yahwistic legislation by simply taking it over. If so,\nthen all that he added would naturally, as to form, be moulded on\nwhat he found pre-existing. Consequently we may apply to this law,\nwhether Divinely revealed or adopted, the same tests and methods\nof interpretation as we should apply to any other body of ancient\nEastern law.\n\nNow of ancient Eastern codes the laws of Manu are the nearest\napproach to the Mosaic codes, and their character is thus stated by\nthemselves (chap. i., ver. 107): \"In this work the sacred law has\nbeen fully stated, as well as the good and bad qualities of human\nactions and the immemorial rule of conduct to be followed by all.\"\nThat means that in the code are to be found ritual laws, general\nmoral precepts, and a large infusion of immemorial customs. And its\nhistory, as elicited by criticism, has very interesting hints to\ngive us as to the probable course of legal development in primitive\nnations. It is sometimes said that the results of the criticism\nof the Old Testament, if true, present us with a literature which\nhas gone through vicissitudes and editorial processes for which\nliterary history elsewhere affords absolutely no parallel. However\nthat may be as regards the historical and prophetical books, it is\nnot true with regard to the legal portions of the Pentateuch. The\nvery same processes are followed in Professor Buhler's Introduction\nto his translation of the _Laws of Manu_, forming Vol. XXV. of\n_The Sacred Books of the East_, as are followed in the critical\ncommentaries on the Old Testament law codes. Pages lxvii. _seq._ of\nBuhler's Introduction read exactly like an extract from Kuenen or\nDillmann; and the analysis of the text, with its resultant list of\ninterpolations, runs as much into detail as any similar analysis\nin the Old Testament can do. Moreover the conjectures as to the\ngrowth of Manu's code are, in many places, parallel to the critical\ntheories of the growth of the Mosaic codes. The foundation of Manu\nis, in the last resort, threefold--the teaching of the Vedas, the\ndecisions of those acquainted with the law, and the customs of\nvirtuous Aryas. At a later time the teachers of the Vedic schools\ngathered up the more important of these precepts, decisions, and\ncustoms into manuals for the use of their pupils, written at first\nin aphoristic prose, and later in verse. These, however, were not\nsystematic codes at all. As the name given them implies, they were\nstrings of maxims or aphorisms. Later, these were set forth as\nbinding upon all, and were revised into the form of which the _Laws\nof Manu_ is the finest specimen.\n\nIn Israel the process would appear to have been similar, though much\nsimpler. It was similar; for though there are radical differences\nbetween the Aryan and the Semitic mind which must not be overlooked,\nthe former being more systematic and fond of logical arrangement\nthan the latter, a great many of the things which are common to\nMoses and Manu are quite independent of race, and are due to the\nfact that both legislations were to regulate the lives of men at\nthe same stage of social advancement. But Manu was much later than\nMoses. Indeed, as we now have them, the laws of Manu are as late as\nthe post-Ezraite Judaic code, and in temper and tone these two codes\nvery nearly resemble each other. Consequently the earlier codes\nof the Pentateuch are simpler than Manu. When Israel left Egypt,\ncustom must have been almost alone the guide of life. Moses' task\nwas to promulgate and force home his fundamental truths; in this\nview he must adopt and remodel the customary law so as to make it\ninnocuous to the higher principles he introduced, or even to make it\na vehicle for the popularising of them. So far as he made codes, he\nwould make them with that end. Consequently he would take up mainly\nsuch prominent points as were most capable of being, or which most\nurgently needed to be, moralised, leaving all the rest to custom\nwhere it was harmless. This is the reason, too, most probably,\nwhy the earlier codes are so short and so unsystematic. They are\nselections which needed special attention, not complete codes\ncovering the whole of life. In fact the form and contents of all the\nOld Testament codes can be accounted for only on this supposition.\nAs the codes lengthen, they do so simply by taking up, in a modified\nor unmodified form, so much more of the custom; and under the\npressure of Yahwistic ideas these selected codes became more and\nmore weighted with spiritual significance and power.\n\nThat would seem to have been the process by which the inspired\nlegislators of Israel did their work; and if it be so, some of\nthe variations which are now taken to be certain indications\nof different ages and circumstances may simply represent local\nvarieties of the same custom. Custom tends always to vary with the\nlocality within certain narrow limits. It would be quite in accord\nwith the general character of ancient customary law to believe\nthat, provided the law was on the whole observed, there would be no\ninclination to insist upon excluding small local variations; and\nequally so that in a collection like the Pentateuch the custom of\none locality should appear in one place, that of another in another.\nIn that case, to insist that a certain sacrifice, for example,\nshall always consist of the same number of animals, and that any\nvariation means a new and later legislation on the subject, is\nonly to make a mistake. The discrepancy is made important only by\napplying modern English views of law to ancient law. Professor A. B.\nDavidson has shown in the Introduction to his _Ezekiel_ (p. liii.)\nthat this latter was probably Ezekiel's view. \"On any hypothesis\nof priority,\" he says, \"the differences in details between him\n(_i.e._ Ezekiel) and the law (_i.e._ P) may be easiest explained by\nsupposing that, while the sacrifices in general and the ideas which\nthey expressed were fixed and current, the particulars, such as the\nkind of victims and the number of them, the precise quantity of\nmeal, oil, and the like, were held non-essential and alterable when\na change would better express the idea.\" The same principle would\napply to the differences between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, _e.g._ the\nomission of the feast of weeks and of the law of the offering of the\nfirstlings of the flock. If so, then obviously Ezekiel must have\nthought that the previous ritual law was not meant to be as binding\nas we make it.\n\nBut, as has already been remarked, this law was elastic in more\nimportant matters; often, even when it seems to legislate, it is\nonly setting up ideals of conduct. Before we leave this subject an\nexample should be given, and the law of war may serve, especially if\nwe compare it with the corresponding section of Manu. The provisions\nin Deuteronomy chap. xx. according to which on the eve of a battle\nthe officers should proclaim to the army that any man who had built\na new house and had not dedicated it, or who had planted a vineyard\nand had not yet used the fruit of it, or who had betrothed a wife\nand not yet taken her, or who was afraid, should retire from the\ndanger, as also the provisions that forbid the destruction of\nfruit-trees belonging to a besieged city, cannot have been meant\nas absolute laws. Yet that is no ground for supposing that they\ncould have been introduced only after Israel, having ceased to\nbe a sovereign state, waged no war, and that consequently they\nare interpolations in the original Deuteronomy. For the similar\nprovisions of the laws of Manu were given while kings reigned, and\nwere addressed to men constantly engaged in war. Yet this is what we\nfind: \"When he (the king) fights with his foes in battle, let him\nnot strike with weapons concealed (in wood), nor with (such as are)\nbarbed, poisoned, or the points of which are blowing with fire. Let\nhim not strike one who (in flight) has climbed on an eminence, nor a\neunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hands (in supplication),\nnor one (who flees) with flying hair, nor one who sits down, nor\none who says 'I am thine,' nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost\nhis coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed,\nnor one who looks on without taking part in the fight, nor one who\nis fighting with another foe, nor one whose weapons are broken,\nnor one afflicted (with sorrow), nor one who has been grievously\nwounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flight;\nbut in all these cases let him remember the duty (of honourable\nwarriors).\" With an exact and unremitting obligation to observe\nthese precepts war would be impossible, and we may be sure that in\nneither case were they meant in that sense. They simply set forth\nthe conduct which a chivalrous soldier would desire to follow, and\nwould on fitting occasions actually follow; but by no means what\nhe must do, or else break with his religion. Only by hypotheses\nlike these can the form and the character of such laws be properly\nexplained, and if we keep them constantly in mind, some at least of\nthe difficulties which result from a comparison of the law and the\nhistories may be mitigated.\n\nSuch being the character of the Deuteronomic code, the question\nhas been raised whether its introduction and acceptance by Josiah\nwas not a falling away from the spirituality of ancient religion.\nMany modern writers, supported by St. Paul's _dicta_ concerning\nthe law, say that it was. Indeed the very mention of law seems to\ndepress writers on religion in these days, and Deuteronomy appears\nto be to them a name of fear. But whatever tendencies of modern\nthinking may have brought this about, it is nevertheless true that\nexperience embodied in custom and law is the kindly nurse, not the\ndeadly enemy, of moral and spiritual life. Without law a nation\nwould be absolutely helpless; and it is inconceivable that at any\nstage of Israel's history they were without this guide and support.\nAs we have seen, they never were. First they had customary law; then\nalong with that short special codes, _e.g._ the Book of the Covenant\nand the Deuteronomic code; and even when the whole Pentateuchal\nlaw as we have it had been elaborated, a good deal must still have\nbeen left to custom. Consequently there was nothing so startling\nand revolutionary in the introduction of Deuteronomy as many have\ncombined to represent. Indeed it is difficult to see how it altered\nanything in this respect. Of all forms of law, customary law is\nperhaps that which demands and receives most unswerving obedience.\nUnder it, therefore, the pressure of law was heavier than it could\nbe in any other form. It does not appear how the fact that those\nobserving it did not think of that which they obeyed as law, but\nsimply custom, altered the essential nature of their relation to\nit. They were guided by ordinances which did not express their own\ninward conviction, and were not a product of their own thought.\nThey obeyed ordinances from without, and these ought therefore\nto have had the same effect upon the moral and spiritual life as\nwritten laws. For they cannot be said to have regulated only civil\nlife. Religious life (even if the Book of the Covenant be Mosaic\nor sub-Mosaic, as I believe; much more if it be post-Davidic,\nas many say) must have been largely regulated by the customs of\nIsrael. If law then be in its own nature, as the antinomians tell\nus, destructive of spontaneity and progress, if it necessarily\nexternalises religion, then there would have been as little room for\nthe religion of the prophets before Deuteronomy as after it.\n\nBut, as a matter of fact, no falling off in spirituality took place\nafter Deuteronomy. Wellhausen says that with law freedom came to\nan end, and this was the death of prophecy. But he can support his\nthesis only by denying the name of prophet to all the prophets after\nJeremiah. It is difficult to see the basis of such a distinction. It\nis judged by this, if by nothing else--that it compels Wellhausen\nto deny that the author of Second Isaiah is a prophet. That he\nwrote anonymously is held to prove that he felt this himself. Now a\nview so extraordinarily superficial has no root, and every reader\nof that most touching and sublime of all the Old Testament books\nwill simply stand amazed at the depth of the critical prejudice\nwhich could dictate such a judgment. If the post-Deuteronomic\nprophets are not prophets, then there are no prophets at all, and\nthe whole discussion becomes a useless logomachy. But even if\nEzekiel and Second Isaiah and the rest are not prophets, they are\nat least full of spiritual life and power, so that the decay of\nspiritual religion which the adoption of Deuteronomy is supposed\nto have brought about must be considered purely imaginary on that\nground also. And this contention is strengthened by the theories\nof the critical school themselves. If the bulk of the Psalms, as\nall critics incline to believe, or all of them, as some say, are\npost-exilic, then the first centuries of the post-exilic period must\nhave been the most spiritually minded epoch in Israelite history.\nThe depth of religious feeling exhibited in the Psalms, and the\ncomprehension of the inwardness of man's true relation to God by\nwhich they are penetrated, are the exact contrary of the externality\nand superficiality which the introduction of written law is said to\nhave produced. So long as the Psalms were being written religious\nlife must have been vigorous and healthy, and to date the beginnings\nof Pharisaic externalism from Josiah's day must consequently be an\nerror.\n\nAfter what has been said it is scarcely necessary to discuss Duhm's\nviews of the opposition between prophecy and Deuteronomy. It will be\nsufficient to ask how the latter can have turned against prophecy,\nwhen it is in its essence an embodiment of prophetic principles in\nlaw, and was introduced and supported by prophets. But, it may be\nsaid, after all prophecy did decay, and ultimately die, and that too\nduring the period after Deuteronomy. Is there not in that admitted\nfact a presumption that this law did work against prophecy? If so,\nthen it is more than met by the fact that the decay of spiritual\nreligion became noticeable only some centuries after this, and\nthat the immediate effect of Deuteronomy was rather to deepen and\nintensify religion, and to keep it alive amid all the vicissitudes\nof the Captivity and Return. Moreover the break-up of the national\nlife was sufficient to account for the slow decay and final\ncessation of prophecy. From the first, prophecy had been concerned\nwith the building up of a nation which should be faithful to Yahweh.\nIts main function had been to interpret and to foretell the great\nmovements and crises of national life--to read God's purpose in\nthe great world-movements and to proclaim it. With Israel's death\nas a nation the field of prophecy became gradually circumscribed,\nand ultimately its voice ceased. Consequently, though in the main\nthe final cessation of prophecy was connected with the rise of\nexternalism in religion and with the great decay of spiritual life\nin the two or three centuries before Christ, the destruction of the\nnation would account for the feebleness of prophecy during a period\nwhen the inner spiritual life was flourishing as it flourished after\nDeuteronomy. Moreover, as religion became more inward and personal,\nprophecy, in the Old Testament sense, had less place. Though in New\nTestament times spiritual life and spiritual originality and power\nwere more present than at any time in the world's history, prophecy\ndid not revive. In the whole New Testament there is not one purely\nprophetic book save the Revelation, and that is apocalyptic more\nthan simply prophetic; and though there was an order of prophets in\nthe early Church, if they had any special function other than that\nof preachers their office soon died out. If then the denationalising\nof religion and its growth in individualism and inwardness in New\nTestament times prevented the revival of prophecy, we may surely\ngather that the same things, and not the introduction of written\nlaw, brought it to an end in the Old Testament.\n\nNor does St. Paul's judgment as to the meaning and use of law,\nin Galatians, when rightly understood, contradict this. No doubt\nhe seems to say that the Mosaic law by its very nature as law is\nincompatible with grace, that it necessarily stands out of relation\nto faith, and that its principle is a purely external one, so much\nwages for so much work. Further, he clearly regards it as having\nbeen interpolated into the history of Israel between the promises\ngiven to Abraham and the fulfilment of them in the redemption by\nChrist, and as having served only to increase sin and to drive men\nthus to Christ. But when he says this he is replying mainly to the\nPharisaic view of the law which was represented by the Judaizers,\nand finds himself all the more at home in refuting it that it was\nhis own view before he became a Christian. According to that view,\nthe whole law, both the moral and ceremonial provisions of it, was\nnecessary to obtain moral righteousness, and the mere doing of the\nlegally prescribed things gave a claim to the promised reward. So\ninterpreted, law had all the evil qualities he states, and stood\nin absolute hostility to grace and faith, the great Christian\nprinciples. The only difficulty is that St. Paul does not say, as we\nshould expect him to do, that originally the law was not meant to\nbe so regarded. He seems to admit by his silence that the Pharisaic\nview of the law was the right one. But if he does, he cannot have\nmeant to include Deuteronomy. For there law is made to have its root\nand ground in grace. It is given to Israel as a token of the free\nlove of God, and it is a law of life which, if kept, would make\nthem a peculiar people unto God. Further, love to God is to be the\nmotive from which all obedience springs, so that this law is bound\nup with both grace and faith. But the probability is that St. Paul\nadmits the Pharisaic view only because it is that view with which\nalone he has to contend in the case in hand. For in Romans vii. he\ngives us quite another conception of the Mosaic law.[70] There he is\nthinking of it mainly from an ethical point of view, and he regards\nit as full of the Spirit of God, as a norm of moral life which not\nonly continues to be valid in Christianity, but which finds in the\nChristian life the very fulfilment which it was intended to have.\nIt presses home too the moral ideal upon the man with extraordinary\npower, and marks and emphasises the terrible divergence between\nhis aspirations and his actual performance. This is a much higher\noffice than that which he assigns to law in Galatians; and hence\none gathers that he is not speaking in Galatians exhaustively and\nconclusively, but is condemning rather a way of regarding the Mosaic\nlaw with which he had once sympathised than that law in its own\nessential character. In its moral aspects, as represented by the\nDecalogue, the law is of eternal obligation. From it comes the light\nwhich brings to the Christian that moral unrest and dissatisfaction\nwhich is one of God's Divinest gifts to His people. In this aspect,\nthe law is holy and just and good: instead of favouring the critical\nview St. Paul leaves it without any fragment of real support.\n\n  [70] Ritschl's _Rechtfertigung und Vers\u00f6hnung_, vol. ii., pp. 311 ff.\n\nOur conclusion is, therefore, that the antinomianism, which makes\nthe acknowledgment of Deuteronomy by Josiah and his people the\nturning-point for the worse in the religious history of Israel,\nis unfounded. The nation had always been under law, and previous\nto Deuteronomy under even written law. This code was not in any\npreviously unheard-of way made the law of the kingdom. Its very\ncontents are conclusive against that view, for it contains much\nthat could not be enforced by the State. Instead of trying to do by\nexternal means that which the persuasions of the prophets had failed\nto do, Josiah and his people did just what they would have had to\ndo, when they became convinced that the prophetic principles ought\nto be carried out. They made an agreement to follow these Divine\ncommands, these God-given principles, in actual life. But there is\nno hint that they regarded Deuteronomy as the sum of the Divine\nordinances for the life of men. Indeed there are many references\nto other Divine laws; and the priestly oracle remained, after\nDeuteronomy as before it, a source of Divine guidance. Deuteronomy\ntherefore did not destroy prophecy; the post-exilic Psalms are proof\nthat it did not destroy spiritual life: and the Pauline view of the\nlaw, in at least one series of passages, coincides entirely with the\nview that law stated as it is stated in Deuteronomy may be one of\nthe mightiest influences to mould, and enrich, and deepen, moral and\nspiritual life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\n_LAWS OF SACRIFICE_\n\nDEUT. xii.\n\n\nIt is a characteristic of all the earlier codes of law--the Book of\nthe Covenant, the Deuteronomic Code, and the Law of Holiness--that\nat the head of the series of laws which they contain there should\nbe a law of sacrifice. Probably, too, each of the three had, as\nfirst section of all, the Decalogue. The Book of the Covenant and\nDeuteronomy undeniably have it so, and the earlier element which\nforms the basis of Lev. xvii.-xxvi. not improbably had originally\nthe same form. If so, we may assume that the order of the precepts\nhas in a measure been determined by the order of the commandments.\nOn this account the laws for the cultus would naturally come first.\nFor just as the first commandment is, \"Thou shalt have no other\ngod before Me,\" and the second forbids all idolatrous images,\nso the laws begin with provisions meant in the main to ward off\nidolatry. Israel's great calling was to receive and to spread the\ntruth concerning God. That was the centre of the sacred deposit of\nDivine and revealed truth committed to that nation; and it is most\ninstructive to see how, not only in historical statements, but even\nin the form in which early Israelite legislation is handed down to\nus, the Decalogue dominates all the details of it. It formulated\nin as concrete a shape as was possible the Divine demand that\nIsraelites should love God and their neighbour, and _therefore_ the\nlegislative provisions and statutes begin with ordinances dealing\nwith sacrifice.\n\nTo us in modern times it may seem almost bathos to connect such an\nantecedent with such a consequent; but it seems so, only because\nwe have difficulty in apprehending the meaning and importance of\nsacrifice in primitive religion. For sacrifice had in Israel a\nmeaning and importance of its own, and a present value at every\nperiod, which in no way depended upon its typical or prophetic\nvalue as pointing forward to the sacrifice of Christ. It supplied\nthe religious needs of men even apart from the clearness of their\nknowledge about its ultimate purpose. Sacrifice, especially in\nits simplest meaning, was in heathenism absolutely essential as a\nmeans of approach to God. To come before a great _man_ without a\ngift was in ancient days an outrage. It was therefore inevitable\nthat men should approach their gods in the same manner. Sacrificial\ngifts expressed the dependent's joy in a gracious lord, and also\nthe homage and reverence due from a subject to a king. Further, as\nall good things were regarded as the gifts of the gods to their\nworshippers, the sacrifices conveyed thanks for good gifts received,\nand joined the gods and their worshippers by a common participation\nin the Divine gift which connected them as eaters at the same\ntable. But sacrifices had a higher reach of expression even than\nthat. As they were brought to the gods they were the symbols of the\nself-devotion of the offerer to the service of his god; and where\nthere was need of propitiation because of offence consciously given,\nor offence felt by the deity for unknown reasons, these gifts took\non in some measure a reconciling or propitiatory quality.\n\nNow the Old Testament sacrifices had in them, unquestionably, all\nthese elements: but as Yahweh was high above all heathen deities in\nmoral character, they also took on a depth and intensity of meaning\nwhich they could never have on the soil of heathen religious\nconceptions. Along this line of sacrificial ritual, therefore,\nall the spiritual emotions of Israel flowed; and to hold that\nsacrifice had no real place in the religion of Yahweh would be\nalmost equivalent to saying that neither love, nor penitence, nor\nprayer, had any real place in it either. All these found utterance\nin sacrifice and along with it; and it has yet to be shown that they\nhad any regular and acceptable utterance otherwise. To regulate\nsacrifice and keep it pure must, therefore, have been one chief\nmeans of guarding against the degradation of Yahweh to the level of\nthe gods of the heathen.\n\nBut there is another and very important reason for it. Both in the\ndays when Moses parted from his people, and also in the time of\nManasseh, the people stood confronted by very special danger just at\nthis point.\n\nAt the earlier period they were about to enter upon intimate contact\nwith the Canaanites, their superiors in culture and in all the arts\nof civilised life, but corrupted to the core. Further, the Canaanite\ncorruption was focussed in their religious rites and worship, and\nevil could not fail to follow if the people suffered themselves to\nbe drawn into any participation in it. For if Professor Robertson\nSmith be right, the central point of ancient sacrifice was the\ncommunion between the god and his worshippers in the sacrificial\nfeast. They became of one kin with each other and with the god, and\nthis close relationship made the communication of spiritual and\nmoral infection almost a certainty.\n\nIn Manasseh's day again it was natural that legislation on the\nsame subject, and warnings of even a more solemn kind, should be\nrepeated. A prophetic lawgiver writing at that date had before him,\nnot only the possibility of evil, but actual experience of it. The\nlaws and warnings of the earlier code had been defied and neglected.\nThe faith of the chosen people had been miserably perverted by\ncontact with the Canaanites; the whole history of prophecy had\nbeen a struggle against corrupt and insincere worship; and now the\nmonstrous sacrifices to Moloch and the invasion of Assyrian idolatry\nhad degraded Yahweh and destroyed His people, so that scarce any\nhope of recovery remained. In bracing himself for one more struggle\nwith this desperate corruption, the Deuteronomist naturally repeated\nin deeper tones the Mosaic warnings. The command utterly to uproot\nand trample under foot the symbols and instruments of Canaanite\nworship, he brings, from the less prominent place it occupies in the\nBook of the Covenant, to the first place in his own code. To break\nwith that and all other forms of idolatry, utterly and decisively,\nhad come to be the first condition of any upward movement. The\ndegrading and defiling bondage to idolatry into which his people had\nfallen must end. With trumpet tongue he calls upon them to break\ndown the Canaanite altars, dash in pieces their obelisks, and burn\ntheir Asherim with fire.\n\nTo some moderns it may seem that such excessive energy might, with\nbetter effect, have been expended upon the denunciation of moral\nevils, such as cruelty and lust and oppression, rather than of\nidolatry. We have grown so accustomed to the distinctions drawn\nby the Church of Rome, and in later times by the neo-classicists,\nbetween worshipping God through an image or a picture, or in any\nnatural object or natural force, and the actual worship of the image\nor picture or natural object itself, that we have sophisticated our\nminds. But the author of Deuteronomy knew by bitter experience that\nsuch subtle, and, in great part, sophistical distinctions had no\napplication to his people and his time. Their worst immoralities\nwere, he knew well, rooted in their idol-worship. For idolatry\nin any form binds all that is highest in man to the sphere of\nnature, _i.e._ of moral indifference. Just as a conception of God\nwhich rigorously separated Him from nature, which made His will\nthe supreme impelling force in the world, and which conceived His\nessential attributes to be entirely ethical, was the fountain of\nthe higher life in Israel, so a lapse into idolatry of any kind\nwas the negation of it all. No doubt some moral life would have\nremained in Israel, even if the lapse had become universal. But,\neven at its best, this natural morality of self-preservation has no\nfuture and no goal. It does not lead the van of human progress; it\nmerely comes after, to ratify the results of it. Only when social\nmorality is taken up into a wider sphere than its own,--only when\nit is conceived as the path by which man can co-operate with a\nsublime purpose lying beyond himself,--can it maintain itself as\nthe inspiration of human life, impelling to progress and guiding\nit.[71] Now, so far as history teaches, this energy of moral life\nhas been attained only where the conception of God which makes\nmoral perfection to be His essential nature has been accepted and\ncherished. But no natural religion can rise to that; hence idolatry\nmust always be destructive of ethical religion. It must destroy\nfaith in the moral character of God.\n\n  [71] Cf. Riehm, _Old Testament Theology_, p. 25.\n\nFurther, it must destroy the moral character of man. In the last\nresort all idolaters are equally acceptable to their god, if\nonly they bring the prescribed gifts and accurately perform the\nprescribed ceremonies. The lewd and the chaste, the cruel and\nthe merciful, the revengeful and the forgiving, are all equally\naccepted when they sacrifice. Non-moral or positively immoral gods\ncan care nothing about such differences. Of this fact and its\nresults no man acquainted with the history of Israel could doubt.\nThe main zeal of the prophets was at all times directed against\nthose who were steeped in moral evil, but were zealous in all that\nconcerned sacrifice, and against the amazing folly of a people who\nthought to bind the living God to their cause and their interests\nby mere bribes, in the shape of thousands of bullocks and ten\nthousand rivers of oil. This conception was bound up essentially\nwith idolatry. But the evil of it was intensified in the Semitic\nidolatries with which Israel specially defiled itself. Their cruelty\nand obscenity were unspeakable. Now by Israel's idolatry Yahweh was\nmade to appear tolerant of Moloch and Baal, as if they were equals.\nEvery quality which the Mosaic revelation had set forth as essential\nto the character of Yahweh--His purity, His mercy, His truth--was\noutraged by the society which His worshippers in Manasseh's days had\nthrust upon Him. No reform, then, had the least chance of stability\ntill the axe was laid at the root of this wide-spreading upas tree.\n\nDeuteronomy, therefore, grapples first and grapples thoroughly with\nthe evil, and strikes it a blow from which it was never to recover.\nThe inspired writer repeats with new energy the old decrees of utter\ndestruction against the Canaanite sanctuaries; for though these were\nfor the most part no longer in Canaanite hands, the High Places\nstill existed; and the principle of that old prohibition was more\nclamant for recognition and realisation than it had ever been in the\nhistory of Israel before.\n\nThen he goes on to proclaim the new law, that no sacrifice should\nany longer be offered save at the one central sanctuary chosen by\nYahweh. There is no such provision in the Book of the Covenant, and\nthere is no hint in the legislation of Deuteronomy that its author\nknew of the Tabernacle and its sole right as a place of sacrifice.\nFrom beginning to end of the code he never mentions the Tabernacle\nnor the sacrifices there; and in the very terms in which he\npermits the slaughter of animals for food in vv. 15, 16, and 20-25,\nthough he obviously repeals a custom which has been embodied in the\nPriestly Code as a law (Lev. xvii. 3 ff.), he makes no reference\nto that passage. Consequently this at least may be said, that he\nmay quite conceivably have been ignorant of Lev. xvii. 3 ff. In\nignorance of it, he might write as he has done; and if not ignorant,\nit would be much more natural to refer to it. When we add to this\nnegative testimony the positive testimony of verses 8 and 13, which\nwe have already discussed in Chapter I., there would seem to be\nlittle room for doubt that the priestly law on this subject was not\nbefore the writer of Deuteronomy. Consequently we are justified in\nregarding this as the first written law actually promulgated on this\nsubject. Hezekiah had attempted the same reform; but he had, so far\nas we know, neither published nor referred to any law commanding it,\nand his work was entirely undone. The Deuteronomist, more convinced\nthan he that this step was absolutely necessary to complete the\nMosaic legislation on idolatry, and filled with the same inspiration\nof the Almighty, completed it; and though a reaction followed\nJosiah's enforcement of this law also, its existence saved the life\nof the nation. Its principles kept the nation holy, _i.e._ separate\nto their God, during the Exile, and at the return they were dominant\nin the formation of the \"congregation.\"\n\nCertainly there is no lack of earnestness in the way in which\nthese principles are urged. With that love of repetition which\nis a distinguishing mark of this writer, he expresses the\ncommandment first positively, then negatively. Then he brings in\nthe consequential alteration in the law regarding the slaughtering\nof animals for food. Again he returns to the command, explaining,\nenlarging, insisting, and concludes with a reiteration of the\npermission to slaughter. Efforts, of course, have been made to\nshow that this repetition is due to the amalgamation here of no\nfewer than seven separate documents! But little heed need be given\nto such fantastic attempts. It is, once for all, a habit of this\nwriter's mind to shrink from no monotony of this kind. There is\nnot one important idea in his book which he does not repeat again\nand again; and where repetition is so constant a feature, and\nwhere the language and thought is so consistent as it is here, it\nis worse than useless to assert separate documents. The writer's\nearnestness is sufficient explanation. He saw plainly that, so long\nas the provincial High Places existed and were popular, it would\nbe impossible to secure purity of worship. The heathen conceptions\nof the Canaanites clung about their ancient sanctuaries, and,\nlike the mists from a fever swamp, infected everything that came\nnear. Inspection sufficiently minute and constant to be of use\nwas impracticable; there remained nothing but to decree their\nabandonment. When the whole worship of the people was centred at\nJerusalem, corruption of the idolatrous kind would, it was hoped,\nbe impossible. There, a pious king could watch over it; there,\nthe Temple priesthood had attained to worthier ideas in regard to\nsacrifice and the fulfilment of the law than the priests elsewhere.\nJosiah accordingly rigorously enforced this new law.\n\nSuch a change, aimed solely at religious ends, did not stop there.\nIn many ways it affected the social life of the people; in vv. 15,\n16, and 20, 24, the author meets one hardship connected with the\nnew law, by allowing men to slay for food at a distance from the\naltar. According to ancient custom, no flesh could be eaten by\nany Israelite, save when the fat and the blood had been presented\nat the altar. During the wilderness journey there would be little\ndifficulty regarding this. In the desert very little meat is eaten;\nand so long as life was nomadic there would be no hardship in\ndemanding that those who wished to make sacrificial feasts should\nwander towards the central place of worship rather than from it.\nIt has been disputed whether there was in those days a tabernacle\nsuch as the Priestly Code describes; but there certainly was,\naccording to the earliest documents, a tent in which Yahweh revealed\nHimself and gave responses. As we have seen, there must have been\nsacrifice in connection with it; and though worship at other places\nwhere Yahweh had made His name to be remembered was permitted,\nthis sanctuary in the camp must have had a certain pre-eminence. A\ntendency, but according to the words of Deuteronomy nothing stronger\nthan a tendency, must have shown itself to make this the main place\nof worship.\n\nWhen the people crossed the Jordan into the land promised to the\nfathers, and had abandoned the nomadic life, great difficulty must\nhave arisen. For those at a distance from the place where the\nTabernacle was set up, the eating of meat and the enjoyment of\nsacrificial feasts would, by this ancient customary law, have been\nrendered impossible, if the attendance at one sanctuary had been\nobligatory. Only if men could come to local sanctuaries, each in his\nown neighbourhood, could the religious character of the festivals at\nwhich meat was eaten be preserved. The nature of men's occupations,\nnow that they had become settled agriculturists, and the dangers\nfrom the Canaanites so long as they were not entirely subdued and\nabsorbed, alike forbade such long and frequent journeys to a central\nsanctuary. The conquest must consequently at once have checked any\ntendency to centralisation that may have existed; and there is\nreason to believe that the acceptance of the Canaanite High Places\nas sanctuaries of Yahweh was in great part caused by the demands\nof this ancient law concerning the \"zebhach.\" In any case it must\nhave helped to overcome any scruples that may have existed. But when\nthe Tabernacle and Ark were brought to Zion, and still more when\nthe Temple was built, the centripetal tendency, never altogether\ndead, must have revived. For there was peace throughout the land and\nbeyond it. No danger from the Canaanites existed; and the political\ncentralisation which Solomon aimed at, and actually carried out,\nas well as the superior magnificence of the Solomonic Temple and\nits priests, must have attracted to Jerusalem the thoughts and the\nreverence of the whole people. What Deuteronomy now makes law may\nhave then first arisen as a demand of the Jerusalem priests. At all\nevents, the very existence of the Temple must have been a menace to\nthe High Places; and we may be sure that among the motives which led\nthe ten tribes to reject the Davidic house, jealousy for the local\nsanctuaries must have been prominent.\n\nBut the separation of the ten tribes would only strengthen the claim\nof the Temple on Zion to be for Judah the one true place of worship.\nThe territory ruled from Jerusalem was now so small that resort to\nthe central sanctuary was comparatively easy. The glorious memories\nof the Davidic and Solomonic time would centre round Jerusalem. Any\nlocal sanctuaries would be entirely dwarfed and overshadowed by\nthe splendour and the, at least comparative, purity of the worship\nthere. Priests of local altars too must inevitably have sunk in\nthe popular estimation, and even in their own, to a secondary and\nsubordinate position, as compared with the carefully organised and\nstrictly graded Jerusalem priests. Even without a positive command,\ntherefore, the people of Judah must have been gradually growing\ninto the habit of seeking Yahweh at Jerusalem on all more solemn\nreligious occasions; and though the High Places might exist,\ntheir repute in the Southern Kingdom must have been decreasing. Of\ncourse if a command was given in the Mosaic time which had been\nneglected, the tendencies here traced must have been stronger\nand more definite than we have depicted them. When the prophetic\nteachings of Isaiah which proclaimed Jerusalem to be \"Ariel,\" the\n\"sacrificial hearth,\" or \"the hearth of God,\" were so wondrously\nconfirmed by the destruction of Sennacherib's host before the city,\nthe unique position of Zion must have been secured; and after that\nonly those who were set upon idolatry can have had much interest\nin the High Places. Hezekiah's effort to abolish these latter is\nquite intelligible in these circumstances; and we may feel assured\nthat, as Wellhausen says,[72] \"The Jewish royal temple had early\novershadowed the other sanctuaries, and in the course of the seventh\ncentury they were extinct or verging on extinction.\"\n\n  [72] Wellhausen, _History_, p. 420.\n\nAlong with this there must have grown up a measure of laxity in\nregard to the provision that all slaughtering for food should take\nplace at the sanctuary. Many would doubtless go to Zion, many would\ncontinue to resort to the High Places, and a number, from a mere\nhalting between two opinions, would probably take their \"zebhachim\"\nto neither. Consequently the law before us would by no means be so\nrevolutionary as Duhm, for instance, pictures it. He says: \"I do\nnot know if in the whole history of the world a law can be pointed\nto which was so fitted to change a whole people in its innermost\nnature and in its outward appearance, at one stroke, as this was.\nThe Catholic Church even has never by all her laws succeeded in\nanything in the least like it.\" But we have seen evidence of a very\nstrong and continuous pressure to this point, at least in Judah.\nHistory during centuries had justified and intensified it; so\nthat in all probability the true worshippers of Yahweh found in\nthe new law not so much a revolution as a ratification of their\nalready ancient practice. To idolaters, of course, its adoption\nmust have meant a cessation of their idolatry; but the change in\nthe people and in their life would, though extensive, be only such\nas any ordinary reform would produce. Duhm overlooks altogether\nthe very small territory which the law affected. A long day's walk\nwould bring men from Jericho, from Hebron, from the borders of the\nPhilistine country, and from Shechem and Samaria to Jerusalem. If\nDeuteronomy made a revolution, it must have been confined within the\nmodest limits of substituting a whole for a half-day's journey to\nthe Sanctuary.\n\nMoreover it is a mistake to say that sacrifice at one central\nsanctuary \"took religion away from the people,\" as Duhm says. If\nspiritual religion be meant, it ultimately brought religion more\nvitally home to them. For when the priestly system was fully carried\nout, the demands of household religion were met, as the post-exilic\nPsalms show, by the adoption of the practice of household prayer\nwithout reference to sacrifice, and finally by the institution\nof the synagogue. A more spiritual method of approach to God was\nsubstituted for a less spiritual in the remote places and in\nthe homes of the people. And the public worship even gained. It\nbecame deeper, and more penetrated with a sense of the necessity\nof deliverance from sin. It is true, of course, that in the end\nPharisaic legalism perverted the new forms of worship, as heathen\nexternalism had perverted the old. But in neither case was the\nperversion a necessity. In both it was simply a manifestation of\nthe materialistic tendency which dogs the footsteps of even the\nmost spiritual religion, when it has to realise itself in the life\nof man. It is enough for the justification of the whole movement\nled by Josiah to say that it held the Jud\u00e6an exiles together; that\nit kept alive in their hearts, as nothing else did, their faith in\nGod and in their future; and that on their return it gave them the\nform which their institutions could most profitably take. Further,\nunder the forms of religious and social life which this movement\ngenerated, the true, heartfelt piety which the prophets so mourned\nthe want of became more common than ever it had been before.\n\nThe establishment of the central altar as the only one was the main\nobject of this law; but there is much to be learned from the very\nterms in which this is expressed. They breathe the same love for man\nand sympathy with the poor which forms one of the most attractive\ncharacteristics of our book. The gracious bonds of family affection,\nthe kindly feeling that should unite masters and servants, the\nhelpfulness which ought to distinguish the conduct of the rich to\nthe poor, and above all the cheerful enjoyment of the results of\nhonest labour, are to be preserved and sanctified even in the ritual\nof sacrifice. \"Thou shalt rejoice before Yahweh in all that thou\nputtest thine hand unto,\" is here the motto, if we may so speak, of\nreligious service. That, indeed, is to be made the opportunity for\nthe discharge of all humane and brotherly duties; and the religious\nlife is at its highest when the worshipper rejoices himself, and\nshares and sheds abroad his joy upon others. The love of God is\nhere most intimately blended with love of the brethren. Masters\nand servants, slaves and free, the high and the low, are to be\nreminded of their equal standing in the sight of God, by their\ncommon participation in the sacrificial meals; and the poorest are\nto be permitted an equal enjoyment of the luxuries of the rich in\nthese solemn approaches to Yahweh. The Deuteronomist here reaches\nthe highest stage of religious life, in that he shows himself in\nnowise afraid of human joy. As we have seen, he knows the value\nof austerity in religion. He is well enough aware that war against\nevil is not made with rose-water. But then he is equally far from\nthe extreme of suspecting all affection not directly turned to God,\nof regarding natural gladness as a ruinous snare to the soul. This\nfinely balanced, this just attitude to all aspects of life, is a\nmost notable thing at this epoch in the history of the world, and\nconsidering the circumstances of the time it is little short of\na marvel. It is true, of course, that the religion of Israel was\nalways finely human. It could run into excesses, and was marked by\nmany imperfections; but asceticism, the doctrine which holds pain\nand self-denial to be in themselves good, when it did intrude into\nIsrael, always came from without. Nevertheless the heartiness and\nthoroughness with which all gracious human feelings and all kindly\nhuman relations are here taken up into religion is remarkable, even\nin the Old Testament. More, perhaps, than anything else in this\nbook, it shows the sweetening and wholesome effect of demanding\nsupreme love to God as man's first duty. \"If any man come to Me\nand hate not his father and mother,\" says Christ, \"he cannot be My\ndisciple,\"[73] and many purblind critics have found this to be a\nhard saying. But all who know men know, that when God in Christ is\nmade so much the supreme object of love that even the most sacred\nhuman obligations seem to be disregarded in comparison, the human\naffection so thrust into the background is only made richer far than\nit otherwise could be.\n\n  [73] Luke xiv. 26.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\n_THE RELATION OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE TO CHRISTIANITY_\n\n\nBut it may be asked, What is the relation of this Divinely\nsanctioned ritual law of sacrifice to our religion in its present\nphase? To that question various answers are being returned, and\nindeed it may be said that on this point almost all the main\ndifferences of Christians turn. The Church of Rome maintains in\nessence the sacerdotal view of the later Old Testament times, though\nin a spiritualised Christian shape, and to this the High Anglican\nview is a more or less pronounced return. The Protestant Churches,\non the other hand, regard priests and sacrifices as anachronisms\nsince the death of Christ. In that, for the most part, they regard\nthe significance of sacrifice as being summed up and completed; and\nthe present dispensation is for them the realisation in embryo of\nthat which Old Testament saints looked forward to--a people of God,\nevery true member of which is both priest and prophet, _i.e._ has\nfree and unrestricted access to God, and is authorised and required\nto speak in His name. The interest of Protestant Christians,\ntherefore, in priesthood and sacrifice in the Old Testament\nsense, though very great and enduring, has no connection with the\ncontinuation of sacrifice. They look upon the Old Testament ritual\nas wholly obsolete now. It was simply a stage in the religious\ndevelopment of the chosen people, and as such it has no claim to be\ncontinued among Christians.\n\nBy a curious allegorical process, however, some devout Protestants\nkeep alive their interest in Old Testament ritual by finding in\nit an elaborate symbolism covering the whole field of evangelical\ntheology. But this revivification of the old law is too arbitrary\nand subjective, as well as too improbable, to have an abiding place\nin Christianity. It is, moreover, useless for the guidance of life;\nfor all that is thus ingeniously put into the Levitical ordinances\nis found more clearly and directly expressed elsewhere. The amount\nof religious symbolism in the earlier stages of Israelite religion\nis small, and very simple and direct. Even in the most elaborate\nparts of the Levitical legislation, _e.g._ in the directions\nregarding the Tabernacle, the purposely allegorical element is kept\nwithin comparatively narrow limits; and we may boldly say that the\nmind which delights in finding spiritual mysteries in every detail\nof the sacrificial ritual is Rabbinical rather than Christian. On\nthe other hand we need not enter upon a discussion of the view held\nby \"Modern\" or Broad Church theologians and by Unitarians, that\nsacrifice was merely a heathen form taken over into Mosaism, that\nit had no special significance there, and that the ideas connected\nwith it have absolutely no place in enlightened Christian theology.\nThe Christianity which attaches no sacrificial signification to the\ndeath of Christ has, so far as I know, never shown itself to be a\ntype of religion able to create a future, and it is only with types\nof Christianity that do and can live we have to do. Our question\nhere therefore is limited to this, Which of the two types of view,\nthe Roman Catholic or the Protestant, is truest to the Old Testament\nteaching?\n\nExternally, perhaps, the evidence seems to favour the Roman\nCatholic position; for the prophets either directly say, or imply,\nthat sacrifice shall be restored with new purity and power in the\nMessianic time. This is so patent a fact that it led Edward Irving\nto say that it was the Old Testament economy that should abide,\nand that of the New Testament which should pass away. But the\ninner progress and development of Old Testament religion is quite\nas decisively on the other side. As we have seen, Old Testament\npiety had at the beginning almost no recognised expression save in\nconnection with sacrifice, and the Exile first trained the people\nto faithfulness to God without it, sowing the seed of a religious\nlife largely separate from the sacrificial ritual. Then the\nordinance demanding sacrifice at one central altar, which, though\nintroduced by Deuteronomy, was made the exclusive law only by the\npost-exilic community, furthered the growth of these germs, so that\nthey produced the synagogue system. This completed the severance\nof the ordinary daily religion of the bulk of the people from\nsacrificial ritual, so far as that was attained within the limits\nof Judaism, and prepared the way for Pauline Christianity, in which\nall allegiance to ritual Judaism is cast off. Now, as between the\nexternal and internal evidence, there can be little doubt that the\nlatter has by far the greater weight, especially as the external\nevidence can, perfectly well, be read in a different sense. The Old\nTestament promises that sacrifice should be restored may be held\nto have been fulfilled by the sacrificial death of Christ, which\ncompleted and filled up all that had gone before. In that case the\nevidence that sacrifice and ritual are now obsolete for Christians\nis left standing alone, and the Protestant view is justified.\n\nAnd the case for this view is strengthened immeasurably by observing\nthat the modern sacerdotalism has taken up as essential what was\nthe main vice of sacrificial worship in the old economy. That was,\nas we have seen, the tendency to rest on the mere performance of\nthe external rite, without reference to the disposition of the\nheart or even to conduct. Rivers of oil and hecatombs of victims\nwere thought sufficient to meet all possible demands on God's part,\nand against this the polemic of the prophets is unceasing. Now in\nalmost all modern sacerdotalism the doctrine of the efficacy of\nsacraments duly administered, apart from right dispositions in\neither him who administers them or in him who receives them, has\nbeen affirmed. It is not now, as it was in the \"old time,\" an evil\ntendency which had to be assiduously fought against, but which\ncould not be overcome. It is openly incorporated in the orthodox\nteaching, and is distinctly provided for in the ideal of Christian\nworship. That marks a considerable falling away from the prophetic\nideal: it can hardly be regarded as the appointed end of that great\nreligious movement which the prophets dominated and directed for so\nlong. The teaching of Deuteronomy certainly is, that wherever mere\nexternal acts are supposed to have power to secure entrance into the\nspiritual world of life and peace, there the character of God is\nmisconceived and religion degraded. What it demands is the inward\nand spiritual allegiance of faithful men to God. What it depicts as\nthe essence of religious life is a set of the whole nature Godward,\nas deep and irresistible as the set of the tides--\n\n    \"Such a tide as moving seems asleep,\n        Too full for sound and foam.\"\n\nUnder no sacerdotal system can that view be unreservedly accepted,\nand therein lies the condemnation of every such system. So far as it\nis allowed to prevail, the force of the prophetic polemic has to be\nignored or evaded, and in greater or less degree the same spiritual\ndecay which the prophets mourned over in Israel must appear.\n\nBut it is not only where trust in the mere _opus operatum_ is\ntheoretically justified that it makes its baleful presence felt. It\nmay surreptitiously creep in where the door is theoretically shut\nagainst it. The tendency is very deep-seated in human nature; and\nmany evangelical preachers, who repudiate all sacramentarianism, and\nthrow the full emphasis of Christian religious life upon grace and\nfaith, yet bring back again in subtler shape that very thing which\nthey have rejected. For example, instead of the reception of the\nsacrament at the hands of ordained ministers, a man's acceptance\nwith God is sometimes made to depend upon a declaration of belief\nthat Christ has died for him, or that he has been redeemed and saved\nby Christ. Wherever such statements are forced upon men, there is\na tendency to assume that a decisive step in the spiritual life is\ntaken by the mere utterance of them. The motives which actuate the\nutterer are taken for granted; the existence of such a set of the\nspiritual nature to God as Deuteronomy demands is supposed to be\nproved by the mere spoken words; and men who cannot or will not say\nsuch things glibly are unchurched without mercy. What is that but\nthe _opus operatum_ in its most offensive shape? But in whatever\nshape it appears, the Deuteronomic demand for love to God, with the\nheart and soul and strength, as essential to all true spiritual\nservice and sacrifice, condemns it. Love to God and men are the main\nthings in true religion. All else is subordinate and secondary.\nSacrifice and ritual without these are dead forms. That is the\nDeuteronomic teaching, and by it, once for all, the true relation of\nthe cultus to the life is fixed.\n\nNevertheless the priestly and sacrificial system of the Old\nTestament has even for Christians a present importance, for it is\nan adumbration of that which was to be done in the death of Christ.\nIt has an unspeakable value, when rightly used, as an object-lesson\nin the elements which are essential to a right approach to a Holy\nGod on the part of sinful men. Even in heathenism there were such\nforeshadowings; and nothing is more fitted to exalt our views of the\nDivine wisdom than to trace, as we can now do, the ways in which\nman's seekings after God, even beyond the bounds of the chosen\npeople, took forms that were afterwards absorbed and justified in\nthe redeeming work of our Blessed Lord. For example, Professor\nRobertson Smith says of certain ancient heathen piacular sacrifices,\n\"The dreadful sacrifice is performed, not with savage joy, but with\nawful sorrow, and in the mystic sacrifices the deity himself suffers\nwith and for the sins of his people and lives again in their new\nlife.\" Now if we admit that he is not unduly importing into these\nsacrifices ideas which are really foreign to them, surely awe is the\nonly adequate emotion wherewith a believer in Christ can meet such a\nstrange prophecy, in the lowest religion, of that which is deepest\nin the highest.[74] The sacrificial system in general was founded,\nin part at least, on belief in the possibility and desirability of\ncommunion with God. In the sacrificial feasts this was supposed to\nbe attained, and the essential religious needs of mankind found\nexpression in much of the ritual. If the death of the god, and his\nreturning to life again in his people found a prominent place in\npiacular sacrifices in various lands, that suggests that in some\ndim way even heathen men had learned that sin cannot be removed and\nforgiven without cost to God as well as to man, and that communion\nin suffering as well as in joy is a necessary element of life with\nGod. The human heart, Divinely biassed, asserted itself in effort\nafter such association with Deity, and in the feeling that sin was\nthat element in life which it would make the highest demand upon the\nDivine love to set effectively aside.\n\n  [74] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxi., p. 138.\n\nBut if such preparation for the fulness of the time was going on in\nheathenism, if the mind and heart of man, driven forward by Divinely\nordered experience and its own needs, could produce such forecasts\nin the ritual of heathen religion, we surely must admit that the\nreligious ritual in Israel had an even more intimate connection with\nthat which was to come. For we claim that in guiding the destinies\nof Israel God was, in an exceptional manner, revealing Himself,\nthat among them He established the true religion, unfolded it in\ntheir history, and prepared as nowhere else for the advent of Him\nwho should make real and objective the union of God and man. Here\nconsequently, if anywhere, we should expect to find the permanent\nfactors in religion recognised even in the forms of worship, and\nthe less permanent allowed to fall away. We should also expect the\nritual of the cultus to grow in depth of meaning with time, and that\nit would more and more recognise the moral and spiritual elements\nin life. Finally, we should expect that it would be the parent of\nconceptions rising above and beyond itself, and more fully consonant\nwith the revelation given by Christ than anything in heathenism.\n\nNow all these expectations would seem to have been fulfilled; and\nit is reasonable to assume that those sacrificial ideas which\ncorresponded to the deepened consciousness of sin, and synchronised\napparently with the decay of Israel's political independence, are\nrightly applied to the elucidation of the meaning of Christ's death.\nOf course mistakes may be and have been made in the application of\nthis principle; the most common being that of forcing every detail\nof the imperfect and temporary provision into the interpretation of\nthe perfect and eternal. Sometimes, too, the significance of the\nlife and coming of Christ are obscured by a too exclusive attention\nto His sacrificial death. But the principle in itself must be sound,\nif Christianity is in any sense to be regarded as the completion\nand full development of the Old Testament religion. Besides the\nimmediate significance of sacrifice which the worshippers perceived\nand by which they were edified, there was another significance\nwhich belonged to it as a step in the long progress which had been\nmarked out for this people in the Divine purpose. Regarded from that\nstandpoint, the sacrifices, and the ritual connected with them, had\na meaning for the future also, were in fact typical of the final\nsacrifice which would need to be offered only once for all. How\nmuch of this was understood by the men of ancient Israel we have no\nmeans of knowing. Some, doubtless, had a faint perception of it; but\nat its clearest it was probably more a dissatisfaction with what\nthey had, leading them to look for some better sacrifice, than any\nmore definite understanding. But what they only dimly guessed was,\nas we can now see, the inner meaning of all; and it is perfectly\nlegitimate to use both the provisional and the perfected revelations\nto explain each other. On these grounds the New Testament freely\nmakes use of the ancient ritual to bring out the full significance\nof the sacrifice of Christ.\n\nNo doubt a different view has to be reckoned with. Many say that\nthe whole of this typical reference is a begging of the question.\nIn the infancy of mankind sacrifice was a natural way of expressing\nadoration and of seeking the favour of the gods. In the heathen\nworld it reached its highest manifestation in those piacular\nsacrifices of which Robertson Smith speaks, but which nevertheless\nwere merely an outgrowth of Totemism. In Israel sacrifice was taken\nup by the religion of Yahweh and embodied in it. The spiritual\nforces which were at work in that nation used it as a means whereby\nto express themselves; and when Christ came to complete the\nrevelation, His purely ethical and spiritual work was unavoidably\nexpressed in sacrificial terms. But that is no guarantee that\nthe essential thing in the work of Christ was sacrifice. On the\ncontrary, the sacrificial language used about it is of no real\nimportance. It is simply the natural and unavoidable form of\nexpression, in that place and at that time, for any spiritual\ndeliverance. In short, had there been really nothing sacrificial in\nthe death of Christ, the religious meaning and significance of it\nwould have been expressed in sacrificial language, for no other was\navailable. Consequently the presence of such language in the New\nTestament does not prove that the sacrificial meaning belongs to\nits main and permanent significance. The sacrificial idea, on this\nview of things, belongs, both in Israel and in heathenism, to the\nelements which Christianity superseded and did away with; and it is\nconsequently an anachronism to bring it in to explain and elucidate\nanything done or taught under this new dispensation.\n\nBut such a view is singularly narrow, and unjust to the past. It\nsurely is more honouring to both God and man to suppose that the\ncapital religious ideas of the race, those ideas which have been\neverywhere present and have been seen to deepen and refine with\nevery advance man has made, have permanent value. Moreover, on any\nview, it is probable that in them the essential religious needs of\nhuman nature have found expression. If so, we should expect that\nthey would in the end be met, and that the perfect religion, when it\ndid come, would not ignore but satisfy the demand which the nature\nof man and the providence of God had originated and combined to\nstrengthen. Further, it is the very essence of the Scriptural view\nof Christ that He perfected and carried to their highest power all\nthe essential features in the religious constitution of Israel. He\n_was_ indeed the true Israel, and all Israel's tasks fell to Him.\nAs Prophet, Priest, and Messianic King alike, He excelled all His\npredecessors, who were what they were only because they had, in\ntheir degree, done part of the work which He was to come to finish.\nApart from the religion of the Old Testament, therefore, Christ\nis unintelligible, and that, in turn, without Him, has neither a\nprogress nor a goal. Belief in a Divine direction of the world\nwould in itself be sufficient to forbid the separation of one from\nthe other. If so, it will follow that the sacrificial idea is\nessential to the interpretation of our Lord's work. That idea grew\nin complexity with the growth of the higher religion. It was at\nits deepest when religious thought and feeling had done its most\nperfect work; and on every principle of evolution we should expect\nthat, instead of disappearing at the next stage, it would, though\ntransformed, be more influential than ever. It is so if Christ's\ndeath is regarded from the point of view of sacrifice; whereas,\nif that is laid aside like a worn-out garment, it can never have\nbeen anything anywhere but an excrescence and a superstition. That\nhas not been so; the essential ideas connected with sacrifice, and\nforgiveness by means of it, were lessons Divinely taught in the\nchildhood of the world, to prepare men to understand the Divinest\nmystery of history when it should be manifested to the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\n_LAWS AGAINST IDOLATROUS ACTS AND CUSTOMS_\n\nDEUT. xiii., xiv.\n\n\nHaving thus set forth the law which was to crown and complete the\nlong resistance of faithful Israel to idolatry, our author goes on\nto prohibit and to decree punishment for any action likely to lead\nto the worship of false gods. He absolutely forbids any inquiry into\nthe religions of the Canaanites. \"Take heed to thyself that thou\ninquire not after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve\ntheir gods? even so will I do likewise.\" All that was acceptable to\nYahweh was included in the law of Israel, and beyond that they were\non no account to go in their worship. \"What thing soever I command\nyou, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto nor\ndiminish from it.\" But it should be observed that the inquiry here\nforbidden has nothing in common with the scientific inquiries of\nComparative Religion in our time. Curiosity of that kind, supported\nby the motive of discovering how religion had grown, was unknown\nat that early age of the world, probably everywhere, certainly in\nIsrael. The only curiosity powerful enough to result in action then\nwas that which tried to learn how the ritual might be made more\npotent in its influence over Yahweh by gathering attractive features\nfrom every known religion. That was one of the distinguishing\ncharacteristics of Manasseh's reign. The Canaanite religions, the\nreligions of Egypt and Assyria, were all laid under contribution;\nand wherever there was a feature which promised additional power\nwith God or the gods, that was eagerly adopted. Israel had lost\nfaith in Yahweh, owing to the successes of Assyria. In unbelieving\nterror men were wildly grasping at any means of safety. They\nworshipped Yahweh, lest He should do them harm, but they joined with\nHim the gods of their foes, to secure if possible their favour also.\nInquiry into other religions, with the intent of adopting something\nfrom them which would make either Yahweh or the strange gods, or\nboth, propitious to them, was rife. Like the heathen population\nwho had been transported by Assyria into the territory of the ten\ntribes, men \"feared Yahweh, and served their graven images.\" All\nthat is here sternly condemned, and Judah is taught to look only\nto the Divine commands for effective means of approach to their\nGod. The prohibition, therefore, does not import mere fanatical\nopposition to knowledge. It is a necessary practical measure of\ndefence against idolatry; and only those can disapprove of it who\nare incapable of estimating the value which the true religion in\nits Old Testament shape had and has for the world. To preserve that\nwas the high and unique calling of Israel. Any narrowness, real or\nsupposed, which this great task imposed upon that people, is amply\ncompensated for by their guardianship of the spiritual life of\nmankind.\n\nBut if inquiry into lower religions was forbidden, there could be\nnothing but the sternest condemnation for those who had inquired,\nand then endeavoured to seduce the chosen people. Deuteronomy,\ntherefore, takes three typical cases--first, seduction by one who\nwas respected because of high religious office, then seduction by\none who had influence because of close bonds of natural affection,\nand lastly that of a community which would be likely to have\ninfluence by force of numbers--and gives inexorably stern directions\nhow such evil is to be met. There can be little doubt that the\ncases are not imaginary. In the evil days which the Deuteronomist\nhad fallen upon they were probably of frequent occurrence, and they\nare, consequently, provided against as real and present evils.\nNaturally the writer takes the most difficult case first. If an\nIsraelite prophet, with all his religious prestige as a confidant of\nYahweh, and still more with the prestige of successful prediction in\nhis favour, shall attempt to lead men to join other gods to Yahweh\nin their worship--for that and not rejection of Yahweh for the\nexclusive service of strange gods is almost certainly meant--then\nthey were not to listen to him. They were to fall back upon the\noriginal principle of the Mosaic teaching as it was restated in\nDeuteronomy, that Yahweh alone was to be their God. Some lynx-eyed\ncritics have discovered here the cloven hoof of legalism. They think\nthey see here the free spirit of prophecy, to which untrammelled\ninitiative was the very breath of life, subjected to the bondage\nof written law, and so doomed to death. But probably such a mood\nis unnecessarily elegiac. It is not to written law that prophecy\nis subjected here. It is the actual life-principle of Yahwism in\nits simplest form which prophecy is required to respect; that is,\nultimately, it is called upon simply to respect itself. Its own\nexistence depended upon faithfulness to Yahweh. If it had a mission\nat all, it was to proclaim Him and to declare His character. If it\nhad a distinction which severed it from mere heathen soothsaying, it\nwas that it had been raised by the inspiration of Yahweh into the\nregion of \"the true, the good, the eternal,\" and its whole power\nlay in its keeping open the communication with that region. It is\ntherefore only the law of its own inner being to which prophecy is\nhere bound; and the people are instructed that, whatever reputation\nor even supernatural power it might have attained to, it was to\nbe obeyed only when true to itself and to the faith. Nothing was\nto make men stagger from that foundation. Not even the working\nof miracles was to mislead the people, for only on the plane of\nYahweh's revelation had even miracle any worth. This is the sound\nand wholesome doctrine of true prophecy, and other utterances on the\nsubject in our book must be taken in conjunction with it. Religious\nfaithfulness, not foretelling, is the essence of it, and by that the\nprophet is to be inexorably judged. If any prophet, therefore, leads\nmen to strange gods, his character and his powers only make him more\ndangerous and his punishment more inexorable. \"That prophet, or that\ndreamer of dreams, shall be put to death.\" He comes under the ban.\n\"So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.\"\n\nSimilarly, when family ties and family affection are perverted to\nbe instruments of seduction, they are to be disregarded, just as\nreligious reputation and miraculous power were to be set aside. If\na brother, or a son, or a daughter, or a wife, or a friend, shall\nsecretly entice a man to \"serve other gods,\" then he shall not\nonly not yield, but he must slay the tempter. It is characteristic\nof the Deuteronomist that, by the qualifications of the various\nrelationships he mentions, he should show his sympathy and his\ninsight into the depths of both family affection and friendship.\n\"Thy brother, the son of thy mother,\" \"the wife of thy bosom,\" \"the\nfriend which is as thine own soul,\" even these, near as they are to\nthee, must be sacrificed if they are false to Israel and to Israel's\nGod. Nay more, \"Thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be upon\nhim to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people,\nand thou shalt stone him with stones that he die.\" Upon him, too,\nthe ban shall be laid.\n\nNor, finally, shall their multitude shield those who suffered\nthemselves to be perverted. If a city should have been led away by\nsons of Belial, i.e. by worthless men, to worship strange gods, then\nthe whole city was to be put to the ban. It was to be immediately\nstormed, every living creature put to death, and all the spoil\nof it burnt \"unto Yahweh their God\"; and the ruins were to be a\n\"mound for ever\"--that is, a place accursed. Only on these terms\ncould Yahweh be turned away from the fierceness of His anger at\nsuch treason and unfaithfulness among His people. The Canaanites\nhad been condemned to death that their idolatries and vices might\nnot corrupt the spiritual faith of Israel. There was no other way,\nif the treasure which had been committed to this nation was to be\npreserved. As Robertson Smith has said, \"Experience shows that\nprimitive religious beliefs are practically indestructible except\nby the destruction of the race in which they are engrained.\" But if\nso, it was perhaps even more necessary that idolaters within Israel\nshould be also extirpated. We may think the punishment harsh; and\nour modern doctrines concerning toleration can by no ingenuity be\nbrought into harmony with it. But the times were fierce, and men\nwere not easily restrained. In more civilised communities excessive\nseverity in punishment defeats itself, for it enlists sympathy on\nthe side of the criminal. But among a people like the Hebrews,\nprobably severity succeeded where mercy would have been flouted.\nIn India our administrators have had to confess that the horrible\nrecklessness and severity of punishment in the Mahratta states of\nthe old type suppressed crime as the infinitely more just and better\norganised but milder British police organisations could not then\ndo. \"Probably the success of barbarous methods of repressing crime\nis best explained by their origin in and close connection with a\nprimitive state of society. Because punishments were inhuman, they\nstruck terror where no other motive would deter from crime.\"[75] In\nother and Scriptural words, the hardness of men's hearts made such\nharshness unavoidable.\n\n  [75] Tupper, _Our Indian Protectorate_, p. 248.\n\nTaking the whole of this thirteenth chapter into consideration,\ntherefore, we see how high and severe were the demands which\nOld Testament religion, as taught in Deuteronomy, made upon its\nvotaries. It presupposes on the part of the people an insight\ninto the fundamentally spiritual nature of their faith entirely\nunobscured by ritual and sacrifice. They were expected to pass\nbeyond the teachings of accredited spiritual guides, beyond even the\nevidence of supernatural power, and to test all by the moral and\nspiritual truth, once delivered to them by prophet and by miracle,\nand now a secure possession. Spiritual truth received and lived by\nis thus set above everything else as the test and the judge of all.\nOther things were merely ladders by which men had been brought to\nthe truth in religion. Once there, nothing should move them; and\nany further guidance which purported to come from even the heavenly\nplaces was to be tried and accepted, only if it corroborated the\nfundamental truths already received and attested by experience in\nactual life. Loyalty to ascertained truth, that is, is greater than\nloyalty to teachers, or to that which seems to be supernatural; and\nthe chief power for which a prophet is to be reverenced is not that\nby which he gives a true forecast of the future, but that which\nimpels him to speak the truth about God.\n\nEven at this day, and for believers in Christ, after all the\nteaching and experience of eighteen Christian centuries, this is a\nhigh, almost an unattainable, standard to set up. Even to-day it\nis thought an advanced position that miracles as a security for\ntruth are subordinate and inferior to the light of the truth itself\nas exhibited in the lives of faithful men. Yet that is precisely\nwhat the Deuteronomist teaches. He has no doubt about miracles.\nHe regards them as being Divinely sent, even when they might be\nmade use of to mislead; but he calls upon his people to disregard\nthem if they seem to point towards unfaithfulness to God. Their\nsupreme trust is to be that Yahweh cannot deny Himself. If he seem\nto do so by giving the sanction of miracle to teaching which denies\nHim, that is only to prove men, to know whether they love Yahweh\ntheir God with all their heart and with all their soul. The inner\ncertainty of those who have had communion with Yahweh is to override\neverything else. \"Whosoever loves God with a pure heart,\" says\nCalvin, \"is armed with the invincible power of the Divine Spirit,\nthat he should not be ensnared by falsehoods.\"[76] This has always\nbeen the confidence of religious reformers who have had real power.\nLuther, for example, took his stand upon the New Testament and his\nown personal experience; and by what he _knew_ of God he judged all\nthat the most venerable tradition, and the authority of the Church,\nand the examples of saintly men claimed to set forth as binding upon\nhim. \"Here stand I: I can do no other: God help me.\" He felt that\nhe had hold of the heart of the revelation of God as it was made in\nChrist, and he rejected, without scruple, whatever in itself or in\nits results contradicted or obscured that. Inspired and upheld by\nthis consciousness, he faced a hostile world and a raging Church\nwith equanimity. It is always so that abuses have been removed and\ninnovations that are hurtful warded off in the Church of God.\n\n  [76] _Commentary on Pentateuch_, vol. i., p. 448.\n\nBut there is a difficulty here. As against the historical examples\nwhich show how much good may be wrought by this unshaken mind\nwhen accompanied by adequate insight, many, perhaps even more,\ninstances can be adduced where unbending assertion of individual\nconviction has led to fanaticism and irreligion; or, as has even\nmore frequently been the case, has blinded men's eyes, and made them\nresist with immovable obstinacy teachings on which the future of\nreligion depended. On the altar of uncompromising fidelity to the\nletter of the faith delivered to them, men in all ages have offered\nup love and gentleness and fairness, and that open mind to which\nalone God can speak. How then can they be sure, when they disregard\ntheir teachers and defy even signs from heaven, that they are really\nonly holding up the banner of faith in an evil day, and are not\nhardening themselves against God? The answer is that, since the\nmatter concerns the spiritual life, there are no clear, mechanical\ndividing lines which can be pointed out and respected. Nothing but\nspiritual insight can teach a man what the absolutely essential and\nthe less essential elements of religion are. Nothing else can give\nhim that power of distinguishing great things from small which here\nis of such cardinal importance. Probably the nearest approach to\neffective guidance may be found in this principle, that when all\npoints in a man's faith are to him equally important, when he frets\nas much in regard to divergence from his own religious practices as\nin regard to denial of the faith altogether, he must certainly be\nwrong. Such a temper must necessarily resist all change; and since\nprogress is as much a law in the religious life as in any other, it\nmust be found at times fighting against God. Otherwise, stagnation\nwould be the test of truth, and the principles of the Christian\nfaith would be branded as so shallow and so easily exhausted, that\ntheir whole significance could be seized and set forth at once by\nthe generation which heard the apostles. That was far from being the\ncase. The post-apostolic Church, for instance, did not understand\nSt. Paul. It turned rather to the simpler ideas of the mass of\nChristians, and elaborated its doctrines almost entirely on that\nbasis. During the centuries since then many lessons of unspeakable\nvalue have been learned by the Christian world. The Church has been\nenriched by the thoughts and teachings of multitudes of men of\ngenius. The providential chances and changes of all these centuries\nhave immensely widened and deepened Christian experience. Stagnation\nconsequently cannot be made the test of Christian truth. We must\nbe open to new light on the meaning of Divine revelation, or we\nfail altogether, as the Israelites would have done had they refused\nto accept the teaching of any prophet after the first. This much\nmay, however, be said on the affirmative side, that when a man has\nthoughtfully and prayerfully decided that the central element of\nhis faith is attacked, he cannot but resist, and if he is faithful\nhe will resist in the spirit of the passage we are discussing. His\nassertion of his individual conviction, even if it be mistaken,\nwill do little harm. Time will be in favour of the truth. But\nmistake will be rare, indeed, when men are taught to assert in\nthis manner only the things by which the soul lives, when only the\nactual channels of communion with God are thus defended to the\nuttermost. These any thoughtful patient man who looks for and yields\nto the guidance of the Holy Spirit of Christ will almost infallibly\nrecognise, and by these he will take his stand, for he can do no\nother.\n\nBut precautions against idolatry are not exhausted by the war\ndeclared upon men who might attempt to lead the Israelite into evil.\nBesides insidious human enemies, there were also insidious customs\noriginating in heathenism, and still redolent of idolatry even\nwhen they were severed from any overt connection with it. Ancient\nrituals, ancient superstitions, hateful remnants of bloodthirsty\npagan rites, were being revived in the Deuteronomist's day on every\nhand, because faith in the higher religion that had superseded\nthem had been shaken. Like streams from hidden reservoirs suddenly\nreopened, idolatrous and magical practices were overflowing the\nland, and were finding in popular customs, harmless in better days,\nchannels for their return into the life of those who had formerly\nrisen above them.\n\nSome of these were more hurtful than others, and two are singled\nout at the beginning of chapter xiv. as those which a people holy\nunto Yahweh must specially avoid: \"Ye shall not cut yourselves,\nnor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.\" The grounds\nfor avoiding these practices are first given, and we may probably\nassume that they are the grounds also for the other enactments which\nfollow. They are these: \"Ye are the children of Yahweh your God,\"\nand \"Thou art a holy people unto Yahweh thy God, and Yahweh hath\nchosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself, out of all peoples\nthat are upon the face of the earth.\" The last of these reasons is\ncommon to the Exodus code with Deuteronomy, and comes even more\nprominently into view in the Levitical law. Just as Yahweh alone was\nto be their God, they alone were to be Yahweh's people, and they\nwere to be holy to Him, _i.e._ were to separate themselves to Him;\nfor in its earliest meaning to be holy is simply to be separate\nto Yahweh. This whole dispensation of law, that is, was meant to\nseparate the people of Israel from the idolatrous world, and in\nthis separation we have the key to much that would otherwise be\nhard to comprehend. Looked at from the point of view of revelation,\npetty details about tonsure, about clean and unclean animals, and\nso on, seem incredibly unworthy; and many have said to themselves,\nHow can the God of the whole earth have really been the author of\nlaws dealing with such trivialities? But when we regard these as\nprovisions intended to secure the separation of the chosen people,\nthey assume quite another aspect. Then we see that they had to be\nframed in contrast to the idolatries of the surrounding nations, and\nare not meant to have further spiritual or moral significance.\n\nBut the first reason given is a higher and more important one, which\noccurs here for the first time in Deuteronomy: \"Ye are the children\nof Yahweh your God.\" In heathen lands such a title of honour was\ncommon, because physically most worshippers of false gods were\nregarded as their children. But in Israel, where such physical\nsonship would have been rejected with horror as impairing the Divine\nholiness, the spiritual sonship was asserted of the individual\nmuch more slowly. In Yahweh's command to Moses to threaten Pharaoh\nwith the death of his firstborn son, and in Hosea xi. 1, Israel\ncollectively is called Yahweh's firstborn and His son. In Hosea\ni. 10 it is prophesied that in the Messianic time, \"in the place\nwhere it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, it shall be said\nunto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.\" But here for the\nfirst time this high title is bestowed upon the actual individual\nIsraelites. It was perhaps implied in the Deuteronomist's view of\nGod's fatherly treatment of the nation in the desert, and still more\nin his demand for the love of the individual heart. Yet only here\nis it brought plainly forth as a ground for the regulation of life\naccording to Yahweh's commands. Each son of Israel is also a son\nof God; and by none of his acts or habits should he bring disgrace\nupon his spiritual Father. Likeness to God is expected and demanded\nof him. It is his function in the world to represent Him, to give\nexpression to the Divine character in all his ways. This is the\nIsraelite's high calling, and the religious application of _noblesse\noblige_ to such matters as follow, gives a dignity and importance\nto all of them such as in their own nature they could hardly claim.\n\n\"Ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your\neyes for the dead.\" Israel was not to express grief for the dead\nin these ways, first because that was the custom of other nations,\nand secondly still more because the origin and meaning of such\nrites was idolatrous, and as such altogether unworthy of Yahweh's\nsons. \"Both,\" says Robertson Smith, \"occur not only in mourning,\nbut in the worship of the gods, and belong to the sphere of\nheathen superstition.\"[77] Elsewhere he explains the cutting of\nthemselves to be the making of a blood covenant with the dead, just\nas the priests of Baal in their worship tried to get their god to\ncome to their help by making a covenant of blood with him at his\naltar.[78] This naturally tended to bring in the superstitions of\nnecromancy, and opened the way also for the worship of the dead.\nMany traces of its previous existence among the Israelite tribes\nare to be found in the Scriptures; and the probability is that as\nancestor-worship ruled the life and shaped the thoughts of Greeks\nand Romans till Christianity appeared, so Yahwism alone had broken\nits power over Israel. But such superstitions die hard, and in the\ngeneral recrudescence of almost forgotten forms of heathenism at\nthis time, this cult may very well have been reasserting itself. As\nfor the shaving of the front part of the head, that had a precisely\nsimilar import. \"It had exactly the same sense as the offering of\nthe mourner's blood.\"[79] \"When the hair of the living is deposited\nwith the dead, and the hair of the dead remains with the living, a\npermanent bond of connection unites the two.\"\n\n  [77] _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, p. 366.\n\n  [78] _Religion of the Semites_, p. 304.\n\n  [79] _Ibid._, p. 306.\n\nThe prohibition as food of the animals and birds called \"unclean\"\nwas another measure obviously of the same nature as the prohibition\nof heathen mourning practices; but in its details it is more\ndifficult to explain. Probably, however, it was a more potent\ninstrument of separation than any other. In India to-day the gulf\nbetween the flesh-eater and the orthodox vegetarian Hindu is utterly\nimpassable; and in the east of Europe and in Palestine, where the\nJewish restrictions as to food are still regarded, the orthodox\nJew is separated from all Gentiles as by a wall. In travelling he\nnever appears at meals with his fellow-travellers. All the food he\nrequires he carries with him in a basket; and at every place where\nhe stops it is the duty of the Jewish community to supply him with\nproper food, that he may not be tempted to defile himself with\nanything unclean. But it is very difficult for us now to bring the\nindividual prohibitions under one head, and it seems impossible to\nexplain them from any one point of view.\n\nSome of the animals and birds prohibited were probably, then,\nanimals eaten in connection with idolatrous feasts by the\nneighbouring heathen. Isa. lxv. 4 shows that swine's flesh was eaten\nat sacrificial meals by idolaters, and from the expression \"broth\nof abominable things is in their vessels\" it is clear that the\nflesh of other animals was so used. All these would necessarily be\nprohibited to Israel; but beyond a few, such as the swine, which was\nsacrificed to Tammuz or Adonis, and the mouse and the wild ass, we\nhave no means of knowing what they were. That this is a _vera causa_\nof such prohibitions is shown by the facts mentioned by Professor\nRobertson Smith, that \"Simeon Stylites forbade his Saracen converts\nto eat the flesh of the camel, which was the chief element in the\nsacrificial meals of the Arabs, and our own prejudice against the\nuse of horse-flesh is a relic of an old ecclesiastical prohibition\nframed at the time when the eating of such food was an act of\nworship to Odin.\" The very ancient and stringent prohibition of\nblood as an article of diet is probably to be accounted for in this\nway also. Blood was eaten at heathen sacrificial feasts; without\nother reason that would be sufficient. These are the general lines\nwhich must have determined the list of clean animals in the view of\nthe lawgiver, since he brings them in under the head of idolatry and\nunder the two general grounds we have discussed (p. 289, _supra_).\n\nJewish writers, however, especially since Maimonides, have regarded\nthese prohibitions as aiming primarily at sanitary ends, and as a\nproof of their efficacy have adduced the unusually high average\nhealth of the Jews, and their almost complete exemption from certain\nclasses of disease. No such point of view is suggested in the\nScriptures themselves, for it would surely be rather farfetched to\nclass possible disease as an infringement of the holiness demanded\nof Israel, or as a thing unworthy of Yahweh's sons. Nevertheless a\ngeneral view of the list of clean animals here given would support\nthe idea that sanitary considerations also had _something_ to do\nwith the classification. The practical effect of the rule laid down\nis to exclude all the _carnivora_ among quadrupeds, and so far as\nwe can interpret the nomenclature, the _raptores_ among birds.[80]\n\"Amongst fish, those which were allowed contain unquestionably\nthe most wholesome varieties.\" Further, the nations of antiquity\nwhich developed such categories of clean and unclean animals\nseem in the main to have taken the same line. The ground of this\nprobably is the natural disgust with which unclean feeders are\nalways regarded. Animals and birds especially which feed, or may\nbe supposed to feed, on carrion, are everywhere disliked, and as\na rule they are unsuitable for food. Grass-eating animals, on the\nother hand, are always regarded as clean. Scaleless fish, too, are\ngenerally more or less slimy to the touch, and with them reptiles\nare altogether forbidden. All this seems to show that a natural\nsentiment of disgust, for whatever reason felt, was active in the\nselection of the animals marked unclean by men of every race.\nThe pre-Mosaic customary law on this subject would, of course,\nhave this characteristic in common with similar laws of primitive\nnations. When the worship of Yahweh was introduced, most of this\nwould be taken over, only such modifications being introduced as\nthe higher religion demanded. In some main elements, therefore,\nthe Mosaic law on this subject would be a repetition of what is\nto be found elsewhere. Hence a general tendency to health may be\nexpected; for besides the guidance which healthy disgust would give,\na long experience must also have been registered in such laws. The\ninfluence of them in promoting health has recently been acknowledged\nby the _Lancet_; and though that reason for observing them is not\nmentioned in Scripture, we may view it as a proof that the Jewish\nlegislators were under an influence which brought them, perhaps even\nwhen they knew it not, into relation with what was wholesome in the\npractices and customs of their place and time.\n\n  [80] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. iii. p. 1589.\n\nBeyond these three reasons for the laws regarding food, all is\nthe wildest speculation. If other reasons underlie these laws, we\ncannot now ascertain what they were. For a time it was the custom to\nascribe the Jewish laws to Persian influence, though from the nature\nof the case such laws must have been part of the heritage of Israel\nfrom pre-Mosaic time. Even to-day Jewish writers ascribe them to the\nevil effect which bad food has upon the soul, either by infecting\nit with the characteristics of the unclean beasts, or by rendering\nit impenetrable to good influences.[81] But, as usual, it is the\nallegorical interpreters who carry off the palm. Animals that chew\nthe cud were to be eaten, because they symbolised those who \"read,\nmark, learn, and inwardly digest\" the Divine law: those which divide\nthe hoof are examples of those who distinguish between good and bad\nactions; and in the ostrich one interpreter finds an analogue to the\nbad commentators who pervert the words of Holy Scripture.\n\n  [81] Dillmann, _Deuteronomy_, p. 483.\n\nHitherto in chapter xiv. we have been dealing with material to which\na parallel can be found only in the small code of laws contained\nin Lev. xvii.-xxvi., commonly called the Law of Holiness, and in\nthe Priestly Code.[82] But the two remaining directions regarding\nfood, which are contained in the twenty-first verse are parallel to\nprohibitions in the Law of the Covenant. The first, \"Ye shall not\neat of anything that dieth of itself ... for thou art an holy people\nunto Yahweh thy God,\" is parallel to Exod. xxii. 31. \"And ye shall\nbe holy men unto Me: therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is\ntorn of beasts in the field,\" and to Lev. xvii. 15, \"Every soul that\neateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts,\nwhether he be homeborn or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes,\nand bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.\" The\nground for prohibiting such food, was, of course, that the blood was\nin it. But there is a divergence between the parallel laws, which is\nseen clearly when we take into account the destination of the flesh\nof the animal so dying. In Exodus it is said, \"To the dogs shall ye\ncast it.\" In Deuteronomy the command is, \"To the stranger within\nthy gates ye shall give it, and he shall eat of it, or ye may sell\nit unto a foreigner.\" In Leviticus it is taken for granted that an\nIsraelite and also a stranger may eat either of the _nebhelah_, that\nwhich dieth of itself, or the _terephah_, that which is torn; and if\neither do so it is prescribed only that he should wash, and should\nbe unclean until the evening.\n\n  [82] This, of course, does not show that P must have been known to\n  D, but it proves that as regards material P and D have drawn from\n  the same source, and that older documents, or customs at least,\n  underlie both.\n\nHere, therefore, we have one of the cases in which the traditional\nhypothesis--that the Law of the Covenant was given at Sinai when\nIsrael arrived there, the laws of the Priestly Code probably not\nmany weeks after, and the code of Deuteronomy only thirty-eight or\nthirty-nine years later, but before the laws had come fully into\neffect by the occupation of Canaan--raises a difficulty. Why should\nthe Sinaitic law say that _terephah_ is not to be eaten by any one,\nbut cast to the dogs, and the Levitical law in so short a time after\nmake the eating of that and _nebhelah_ mere cause of subordinate\nuncleanness to both Israelite and stranger, while Deuteronomy\npermits the Israelite either to give the _nebhelah_ to the stranger\nthat he may eat it, or to make it an article of traffic with the\nforeigner? Keil's explanation is certainly feasible, that in Exodus\nwe have the law, in Leviticus the provision for accidental, or\nperhaps wilful, disobedience of it under the pressure of hunger,\nwhile in Deuteronomy we have a permission to sell, lest on the plea\nof waste the law might be ignored. But the position of the \"_g\u0113r_,\"\nor stranger, is not accounted for. In Leviticus he is bound to the\nworship of Yahweh, and can no more eat _nebhelah_ or _terephah_ than\nthe native Israelite can, while in Deuteronomy he is on a lower\nstage than the Israelite as regards ceremonial cleanness, and much\non the same level as the _nokhri_, the foreigner, who in Deuteronomy\nis dealt with as an inferior, not bound to the same scrupulosity\nas the Israelite (Deut. xv. 3, 23, 29). There does not appear to\nbe any explanation of such a change in less than forty years;\nmore especially as the moment at which the change would on that\nhypothesis be made was precisely the moment when the stranger was\nabout for the first time to become an important element in Israelite\nlife. If, on the other hand, the order of the codes be Exodus,\nDeuteronomy, Leviticus, then the Exodus law, which does not consider\nthe stranger, would suit the earliest stage of Israel's history,\nwhen the stranger would generally be a spy. Later, he crept into\nIsraelite life, and gradually received more and more consideration;\nespecially in the days of Solomon, when the Chronicler estimates\nthe number of the strangers at over a hundred and fifty thousand.\nBut he was not recognised at that stage as fully bound to all\nan Israelite's duties, or as possessed of all an Israelite's\nprivileges, and that is precisely the position he occupies in\nDeuteronomy. In the Priestly Code, however, at a time when the\nstranger had practically become a proselyte, the ideal Kingdom of\nGod includes the \"stranger,\" and gives him a position which differs\nlittle from that of the homeborn. That would make these different\nlaws answer to different periods of Israel's history, and would\ncoincide with what has been otherwise found to be the order of\nIsrael's legal development.\n\nThe second prohibition, which runs parallel to what we find in\nExodus, is the somewhat enigmatical one that a kid should not be\nsodden in its mother's milk. What it was in this act which made it\nseem necessary to issue such a command cannot now be ascertained\nwith any certainty. Most probably it was connected in some way with\nheathen ceremonies, perhaps at a harvest feast; for, as we have\nseen, it is a ruling motive throughout all this section that the\nIsraelites should reject everything which among their neighbours was\nconnected with idolatry.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\n_THE SPEAKERS FOR GOD--I. THE KING_\n\nDEUT. xvii. 14-20\n\n\nIn approaching the main section of the legislation it will be\nnecessary, in accordance with the expository character of the\nseries to which this volume belongs, to abandon the consecutive\ncharacter of the comment. It would lead us too far into arch\u00e6ology\nto discuss the meaning and origin of all the legal provisions which\nfollow. Moreover nothing short of an extensive commentary would\ndo them justice, and for our purpose we must endeavour to group\nthe prescriptions of the code, and discuss them so. As it stands\nthere is no arrangement traceable. So utterly without order is it,\nthat it can hardly be thought that it is in the exact shape in\nwhich it left its author's hands. Transpositions and misplacements\nmust, one thinks, have taken place to some extent. We are thus\nleft free to make our own arrangements, and it would appear most\nfitting to discuss the code under the five heads of National Life,\nEconomic Life, and three fundamental qualities of a healthy national\nlife--Purity, Justice, and the Treatment of the Poor. Every phase\nof the laws which remain for discussion can easily be brought under\nthese heads, and this chapter will discuss the first of them, the\norganisation of the national life.\n\nIt is a striking instance of the accuracy of the national memory\nthat there is a clear and conscious testimony to the fact that for\nlong there was no king in Israel. Had the later historians been at\nthe mercy of a tradition so deeply influenced by later times as it\npleases some critics to suppose, it would seem inexplicable that\nMoses should not have been represented as a king, and especially\nthat the conquest should not have been represented as a king's work.\nEvidently there was a perfectly clear national consciousness of\nthe earlier circumstances of the nation, and it presents us with\nan outline of the original constitution which is very simple and\ncredible. According to this the tribes whom Moses led were ruled\nin the main by their own sheikhs or elders. Under these again were\nthe clans or fathers' houses similarly governed; and lastly, there\nwere the families in the wider sense, made up of the individual\nhouseholds and governed by their heads. So far as can be gathered,\nMoses did not interfere with this fundamental organisation at all.\nHe added to it only his own supremacy, as the mediator and means of\ncommunication between Yahweh and His people. As such, his decision\nwas final in all matters too difficult for the sheikhs and judges.\nBut the fundamental point never lost sight of was that Yahweh alone\nwas their ruler, their legislator, their leader in war, and the doer\nof justice among His people. From the very first moment of Israel's\nnational existence therefore, from the moment that it passed the\nRed Sea, Yahweh was acknowledged as King, and Moses was simply His\nrepresentative. That is the cardinal fact in this nation's life,\nand amid all the difficulties and changes of its later history\nthat was always held to. Even when kings were appointed, they were\nregarded only as the viceroys of Yahweh. In this way the whole of\nthe national affairs received a religious colour; and those who look\nat them from a religious standpoint have a justification which would\nhave been less manifest under other circumstances.\n\nIt is, therefore, no delusion of later times which finds in\nIsraelite institutions a deep religious meaning. Nor is the\npersistence with which the Scriptural historians regard only the\nreligious aspects of national life to be laid as a fault to their\ncharge. It is nothing to the purpose to say that the bulk of the\npeople had no thoughts of that kind, that the whole fabric of the\nnational institutions appeared to them in a different light. We have\nno right to lower the meaning of things to the gross materialism of\nthe populace. One would almost think, to hear some Old Testament\ncritics speak, that in this most ideal realm of religion we can be\nsafe from illusion only when ideal points of view are abandoned,\nthat only in the commonest light of common day have we any security\nthat we are not deceiving ourselves. But most of these same men\nwould resent it bitterly if that standard were applied to the\nhistory of the lands they themselves love. What Englishman would\nthink that Great Britain's career and destiny were rightly estimated\nif imperial sentiment and humanitarian aims were thrust aside in\nfavour of purely material considerations? Why then should it be\nsupposed that the views and opinions of the multitude are the only\nsafe criterion to be applied to the institutions of God's ancient\npeople?\n\nIn truth, there is no reason why we should think so. The Divine\nkingship made it impossible that the higher minds should be content\nwith the low aims of the opportunists of their day, whether these\nwere of the multitude or not. Even the entrance into Canaan,\nwhich to the mass of the people was, in the first place, a mere\nacquisition of territory and wealth, was idealised for the leaders\nof the people by the thought that it was the land promised by\nYahweh to their fathers, the land in which they should live in\ncommunion with Him. Generally, it may be said that the desire for\ncommunion with God was the impelling and formative power in Israel.\nThe thoughts of even the dullest and most earthly were touched by\nthat ideal at times; and no leader, whether royal, or priestly, or\nprophetic, ever really succeeded among this people who did not keep\nthat persistently in view as the true goal of his efforts. Moreover\nthis gave its depth of meaning to the whole movement of history in\nIsrael. Every triumph and defeat, every lapse and every reform had,\nowing to this direction of the people's efforts, a significance far\nbeyond itself. These were not merely incidents in the history of\nan obscure people; they were the pulsations and movements of the\nworld's advance to the full revelation of God. All that would have\nbeen wholly national or tribal in the institutions and arrangements\nof an ordinary people was in Israel lifted up into the religious\nsphere; and the orders of men who spoke for the invisible King--the\nearthly king, the priest, and the prophet--became naturally the\norgans of the national life.\n\nThe king's position was entirely dependent upon Yahweh. He was\nto be chosen by Yahweh, he was to act for Yahweh, and no king\ncould rightly fill his place in Israel who was not loyal to that\nconception. It is in this sense that David was the man after God's\nown heart. He, in contrast to Saul and to many of the later kings,\naccepted with entire loyalty, notwithstanding his great natural\npowers, the position of viceroy for Yahweh. It is, therefore,\nan essential truth which underlies the Scriptural judgment that\nthe kings who made themselves, or attempted to make themselves,\nindependent of Yahweh, were false to Israel and to their true\ncalling. And this is why Samuel, when the people demanded a king,\nregarded the movement with stern disapproval, and why he received\nan oracle denouncing the movement as a falling away from Yahweh.\nFor, in the first place, the motive for the people's request, their\ndesire to be like other nations, was in itself a rejection of their\nGod. It repudiated, in part at least, the position of Israel as His\npeculiar people, and implied that an earthly king would do more for\nthem than Yahweh had done; whereas if they had been faithful and\nunited enough in spirit they would have found victory easy. In the\nsecond, the request in itself was a confession of unfitness for\ntheir high national calling; it was a confession of failure under\nthe conditions which had been Divinely appointed for them. Not only\nin the eyes of the Biblical historian therefore, but as a plain\nmatter of fact, the demand was an expression of dissatisfaction on\nthe people's part with their invisible King. They needed something\nless spiritual than Yahweh's invisible presence and the prophetic\nword to guide them. But since they had declared themselves thus\nunfaithful, Yahweh had to deal with them at that level, and granted\ntheir request as a concession to their unbelief and hardness of\nheart.\n\nThat is the representation of the Books of Samuel; and the absence\nof any similar law from the codes before Deuteronomy confirms the\nview that the earthly kingship was not an essential part of the\npolity of Israel, but a mere episode. Nowhere in legislation save\nhere in Deuteronomy is the king ever mentioned, and nowhere, not\neven here, is any provision made for his maintenance. No civil taxes\nare appointed by any law, while the most ample provision is made for\nthe presentation direct to Yahweh, as Lord paramount, of tithes and\nfirstfruits.\n\nThe history and the law alike agree therefore in regarding the\nkingship as somewhat of an excrescence upon the national polity;\nand this law, where alone the king's existence is recognised,\nconfines itself strictly to securing the theocratic character\nof the constitution. He must be chosen by Yahweh; he must be a\nborn worshipper of Yahweh, not a foreigner; and he must rule in\naccordance with the law given by Yahweh. Further, the ideal\nIsraelite king must be on his guard against the grossly voluptuous\nluxury which Oriental sovereigns have never been able to resist,\neither in ancient or modern times; and also against the lust for war\nand conquest which was the ruling passion of Assyrian and Egyptian\nkings. Evidently too the ideal king of Israel was, like Bedouin\nsheikhs now, expected to be rich, able to maintain his state out\nof his own revenues. The tribute paid by subject peoples, together\nwith the booty taken in war and the profits of trade, were his only\nlegitimate sources of income beyond his own wealth. Every other\nexaction was more or less of an oppression. He had no right to make\nany claims upon the land, for that was held direct of Yahweh. Nor\nwere there any regular taxes, so far as the Old Testament informs\nus. The only approach to that would appear to be that the presents\nwith which his subjects voluntarily approached the king were\nsometimes and by some rulers made permanent demands; at least that\nwould seem to be the meaning of the somewhat obscure statement in\n1 Sam. xvii. 25 that King Saul would reward the slayer of Goliath\nby making \"his father's house free in Israel.\" Some kind of regular\nexaction from which the victorious champion's family should be free\nmust here be referred to; but it would not be safe, in the absence\nof all other evidence, to suppose that regular taxes in the modern\nsense are referred to. More probably something of the nature of the\n\"benevolences\" which Edward IV. introduced into England as a source\nof revenue is meant. If a popular and powerful king of Israel was in\nwant of money, he could always secure it by ordering those able to\nafford handsome presents to appear yearly before him with such gifts\nas a loyal subject should offer. For the convenience of all parties\nan indication of how much would be expected might be made, and then\nhe would have what to all intents and purposes would be a tax.\nAlong with this he might also enforce the _corv\u00e9e_; but such things\nwere always regarded as excesses of despotic power. That Samuel in\nhis _mishpat hammelekh_ (1 Sam. viii. 15) warns the people that the\nking would demand of them a tithe of their cereal crops and of the\nfruit of their vineyards and of their sheep, does not contradict\nthis reading of the passage in 1 Sam. xvii. For though chapter\nviii. belongs to the later portion of 1 Samuel and may therefore\nrepresent what the kings had actually claimed, yet it in no way\nendorses such demands. On the contrary, it indicates that such\nexactions would bring the people into slavery to the king by the\nphrase \"And ye shall be to him for slaves.\" All that is mentioned\nthere, consequently, is part of the evil the kingship would bring\nwith it, and cannot in any way be regarded as a legal provision for\nthe maintenance of royalty.\n\nIt is not probable, therefore, that in these prescriptions the\nauthor of Deuteronomy is repeating a more ancient law. No such\nlaw has come down to us. Dillmann supposes the provision that the\nking should always be an Israelite to be ancient; and indeed at\nfirst sight it is difficult to see why such a provision should be\nintroduced for the first time in the last days of the Southern\nKingdom, where the kingship had so long been confined, not only to\nIsraelites, but to the Davidic line. But Jer. xxxii. 21--\"Their\npotentate shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed\nfrom the midst of them\"--shows that, whatever the cause might be,\nthere was in the first years of the sixth century a longing for a\nnative king similar to that here expressed. In any case, as the\nobvious intention here is to make entire submission to Yahweh the\ncondition of any legitimate kingship, it was only consistent to\nrequire expressly that the king should be one of Yahweh's people.\nThat motive would be quite sufficient to account for raising what\nhad been the invariable practice into a formulated law; and no other\nof the prescriptions need have been ancient. On the other hand,\nthe curious phrase \"Only he shall not multiply horses to himself,\nnor cause the people to return to Egypt to the end that he should\nmultiply horses; forasmuch as Yahweh hath said unto you, Ye shall\nhenceforth return no more that way,\" can hardly belong to the\nMosaic time. There was no doubt then much danger that the people\nshould wish to return to Egypt; but that a king should cause them\nto return for horses, is too much of a subordinate detail to have\nbeen portion of a Mosaic prophecy. If, as is most probable, the\nphrase condemns the sending of Israelites into Egypt to buy horses\nand chariots, it can have been written only after Solomon's days.\nBefore that time Israel, as an almost exclusively mountain people,\nregarded horses and chariots with dislike, and usually destroyed\nthem when they fell into their hands. With the extension of their\npower over the plains and the growth of a lust for conquest, they\nsought after chariots eagerly. To procure them they entered into\nalliances with Egypt which the prophets denounced, and which brought\nto the nation nothing but evil. It was natural, therefore, that\nthe Deuteronomist should specially mention this detail, and should\nsupport it by reference to a Divine promise, which does not appear\nin our Bible, but which probably was found in either the Yahwistic\nor the Elohistic narrative.\n\nBut whether the whole is Deuteronomic or not, there can be no\nquestion that the command that the king shall have \"a copy of this\nlaw\" prepared for him and shall read constantly therein is so;\nand perhaps of all the prescriptions this is the most important.\nIn purely Eastern states there is no legislature at all, and the\ngreater part of the criminal jurisdiction especially is carried\non without any reference to fixed law save in cases affecting\nreligion. This was the case in the Mahratta states in India so long\nas they were independent. The ruler and the officers he appointed\nadministered justice, solely according to custom and their own\nnotions of rectitude, \"without advertence to any law except the\npopular notions of customary law.\"[83] Now in Israel the state of\nthings was entirely similar, save in so far as the fundamental\nprinciples of Yahwistic religion had been formulated. In all other\nrespects customary law ruled everything. But it was the religious\ninfluence that gave its highest and best developments to the life\nof Israel. It was this, too, which brought to such early maturity\nin Israel the principles of justice, mercy, and freedom. Elsewhere\nthese were of exceedingly slow growth. In Israel, the influence\nof the lofty religious ideas implanted in the nation by Moses did\nfor them what the influence of the higher political and social\nideas of the governing Englishmen are said to do, under favourable\ncircumstances, for the Indian peoples. Without disturbing the\ngeneral harmony which must subsist between all parts of the organism\nof the State if the nation's life is to be healthy, and without\nputting it out of relation with its surroundings, that influence\nhas been, and is still, moving the more backward Indian societies\nalong the natural paths of human progress at a greatly accelerated\nspeed.[84] In a similar way the Israelite people was moved by the\nMosaic influence, in its aspirations at least, with an elsewhere\nunexampled speed and certainty, towards an ideal of national life\nwhich no nation since has even endeavoured to realise. But whenever\nthe kings threw off the yoke of Yahweh and plunged into idolatry,\nthen the evils of despotic Oriental rule made their appearance\nunchecked. These evils have been enumerated in the following words\nby one well acquainted with Oriental states: \"Cruelty, superstition,\ncallous indifference to the security of the weaker and poorer\nclasses, avarice, corruption, disorder in all public affairs, and\nopen brigandage.\" With the exception perhaps of the last, these are\nprecisely the sins which the prophets are continually denouncing.\nLong before Hezekiah they were rampant, especially in the Northern\nKingdom, and in the evil days between Hezekiah and Josiah, when we\nsuppose Deuteronomy to have been written, they were indulged in\nwithout shame or compunction.\n\n  [83] Tupper, _Our Indian Protectorate_, pp. 248, 249.\n\n  [84] _Ibid._, p. 321.\n\nThe result was that an inarticulate cry, like that we hear to-day\nfrom Persia in the articulate form of newspaper articles, must have\nfilled the hearts of all righteous men and the multitude of the\noppressed. What it would be we may learn from the following extract\nfrom a letter written from Persia to the _Kamin_, _i.e._ \"Law,\" a\nPersian newspaper published in London, and translated by Arminius\nVamb\u00e9ry in the _Deutsche Rundschau_ for October 1893: \"Oh, brothers,\nbehold how deeply we have sunk into the sea of ignominy and shame.\nTyranny, famine, disease, poverty, calamity, decay of character, and\nall the misery in the world has overflowed our country. The cause\nof all this misfortune lies in this, that we have no laws; only in\nthis, that our conscienceless and foolish great ones have wilfully\nand purposely rejected, trodden under foot, and destroyed the laws\nof the sacred code.... We are men, and would have laws! It is not\nnew laws we ask for, but we desire that our secular and spiritual\nheads should assemble and press for the enforcement of the holy laws\nof the sacred code. Therefore we ask of you this one thing, that you\nshould proclaim: 'We are men, and would have laws.'\" The East is so\nperennially the same, that the two thousand five hundred years which\nseparate that pathetic cry from the prayers of the true Israel in\nManasseh's and Amon's days make no radical difference. The situation\nwas the same, and the need was the same. Hence came this prophetic\nand priestly redaction of the Law of the Covenant. \"They were men,\nand would have laws.\" They sought to be freed from the greed, the\ncruelty, and the lawlessness of their rulers; and having produced\ntheir revised code, they wished to secure that it should not\ndisappear from memory, as the more ancient law had been suffered to\ndo. It must be kept continually before the king's mind. \"It shall be\nwith him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that\nhe may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this\nlaw and these statutes to do them.\" In this way it was thought that\nfuture \"great ones\" would be prevented from \"rejecting, treading\nunder foot, and destroying the laws of the sacred code.\"\n\nBut the king of Israel was not only to be a law-abiding and a\nlaw-enforcing king. He was to learn from this new law even a deeper\nlesson. He was to read daily in the law, \"that his heart might not\nbe lifted up above his brethren.\" Oriental despots either openly\nclaim that they are of higher and purer blood than their subjects,\nor they deal with these latter as if they had nothing in common with\nthem. In the laws of Manu it is said, \"Even an infant king must not\nbe despised, (from an idea) that he is a (mere) mortal; for he is\na great deity in human form.\" It was not to be so in Israel. His\nsubjects were the Israelite king's \"brethren.\" They all stood in\nthe same relation to their God. All equally had shared Yahweh's\nfavour in being delivered from the bondage of Egypt. Each had the\nsame rights, the same privileges, the same claims to justice and\nconsideration as the king himself had. That, this law was to teach\nthe king; and when he had learned the lesson, it is taken for\ngranted that the root from which the other evils spring would be\ndestroyed.\n\nSuch, then, the ruler of Israel was to be. He was to feel, first\nof all his responsibility to God. Then he was to deny himself to\nthe lust of conquest, to the voluptuous pleasures of the flesh, to\nthe most devouring lust of all, the love of money. Last of all, and\nabove all, he was to acknowledge his equality with the poorest of\nthe people in the sight of God. Could there be even yet a nobler\nideal set before the kings of the world than this? The reign of only\none king of Israel, Josiah, promised its realisation. That seemed,\nindeed, to be \"the fair beginning of a time.\" But it was not so;\nit proved to be only an afterglow, a mere prelude to the night.\nNone of his successors made even an attempt to imitate him, and\nthe destruction of the Jewish State put an end to all hope of the\nappearance of the Yahwistic king in Israel. Elsewhere, before the\ncoming of Christ, he did not appear. Since Christ's coming, here\nand there, at rare intervals, such rulers have been found. But in\nthe East perhaps the only rulers who can be said to have made any\nattempt in this direction are the best of the great uncrowned kings\nof India, the British viceroys.\n\nSuch, for example, was Lord Lawrence's aim, and his reward. From the\nbeginning to the end of his Indian career he lived a pure and simple\nlife, laboured with untiring energy for the good of the people,\nand kept in his mind, as his aspirations for his Punjaub peasantry\nshow, the Old Testament ideal of both ruler and ruled. He was, too,\nentirely free from the lust of conquest, as some Indian viceroys\nhave not perhaps been; and he did all his work under a solemn sense\nof responsibility to God. To a large extent, the Biblical ideal made\nhim what he was as a ruler, and the life and power of that ideal\nnow, in such men, sufficiently show the truth of the prophetic and\npriestly insight which is embodied here. Many who have disregarded\nthese rules have done great things for the world; but we are only\nthe more sure, after two thousand five hundred years, that on these\nlines alone can the ruler attain his highest and purest eminence.\nAll the aspirations of men to-day are towards a state of things in\nwhich rulers, whether they be any longer kings or no, shall stand on\na level of brotherhood with their subjects, and shall set the good\nof the ruled before them as their sole aim. All men are dreaming\nnow of a future in which personal ambition shall have little scope,\nin which none will be for himself or for a party, but \"all will\nbe for the State.\" If ever that good dream be realised, rulers of\nthe Deuteronomic type will be universal; and the depth of wisdom\nembodied in the laws of this small and obscure Oriental people, so\nmany ages ago, will be manifested in a general political and social\nhappiness such as has never yet been seen, on any large scale at\nleast, in the history of men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\n_SPEAKERS FOR GOD.--II. THE PRIEST_\n\nDEUT. xviii. 1-8\n\n\nThe priesthood naturally follows the kingship in the regulations\nregarding the position of the governing classes. But it was an\nolder and much more radical constituent in the polity of Israel\nthan we have seen the kingship to be. Originally, the priests were\nthe normal and regular exponents of Yahweh's will. They received\nand gave forth to the people oracles from Him, and they were the\nfountain of moral and spiritual guidance. The Torah of the priests,\nwhich on the older view was the Pentateuch as we have it, or its\nsubstance at least, which Moses had put into their hands, is much\nmore probably now regarded as the guidance given by means of the\nsacred lot and the Urim and Thummim. Because of their special\nnearness to and intimacy with God, the priests were in contact with\nthe Divine will and could receive special Divine guidance; and\nin days when the voice of prophecy was dumb, or in matters which\nit left untouched, the priestly Torah, or direction, was the one\nauthorised Divine voice. But this was not the only function of\nthe priests. Sacrificial worship was a more fundamental function.\nWellhausen and his school indeed seem inclined to deny that as\npriests of Yahweh they had any Divinely ordered connection with\nsacrifice. But the truer view is that their power to give Torah to\nIsrael depended entirely upon their being the custodians of the\nplaces where Yahweh had caused His name to be remembered. The\ntheory was that, as they approached Him with sacrifices in His\nsanctuaries, they consequently could speak for Him; so that the\nguarding of His shrines, and the offering of the people's sacrifices\nthere were their first duties. In fact they were the mediators\nbetween Yahweh and Israel. Yahweh was King, but He was invisible,\nand the priests were His visible earthly representatives. The dues,\nwhich in a merely secular state would have gone to the king, as\nrent for the lands held of him, were employed for their appointed\nuses by the priests, as the servants and representatives of the\nheavenly King who had bestowed the land upon Israel and allotted\nto each family its portion. Occupying a middle position, then,\nbetween the two parties to the Covenant by which Israel had become\nYahweh's chosen people, they spoke for the people when they appeared\nbefore Yahweh, and for Him when they came forth to the people. They\nwere, as we have said, the oldest and most important of the ruling\nclasses, and must have been from early times a special order set\napart for the service of Israel's God.\n\nThe main passages in Deuteronomy which bear upon the position\nand character of the priesthood and of the tribe of Levi are the\nfollowing. In chaps. xviii. 1-8, x. 6-9, and xxvii. 9-14 the\nstrictly priestly functions of the tribe of Levi are dealt with;\nin xvii. 9 ff. xix. 17, the judicial functions; in xxi. 1-5 their\nfunction in connection with sanitary matters is referred to. Besides\nthese there are the various injunctions to invite the Levites to\nthe sacrificial feasts, because they have no inheritance, and a\nnumber of references to the priesthood as a well-known body, the\nconstitution and duties of which did not need special treatment.\nThese last are of themselves sufficient to prove beyond question\nthat in dealing with the priests and Levites the author of this book\nwrites from out of the midst of a long established system. He does\nnot legislate for the introduction of priests, neither does he refer\nto a priestly system recently elaborated by himself, and only now\ncoming into operation. He does not tell us how priests are to be\nappointed, nor from whom, nor with what ceremonies of consecration\nthey are to be inducted into their office. In fact the writer speaks\nof what concerns the priests and Levites in a manner which makes\nit certain that in his day there were, and had long been, Levites\nwho were priests, and Levites of whom it may at least be said that\nthey were probably nothing more than subordinates in regard to\nreligious duty. In a word, while presupposing an established system\nof priestly and Levitical service, he nowhere attempts to give any\nclear or complete view of that system. His whole mind is turned\ntowards the people. It is about their duties and their rights he\nis anxious, about their duties perhaps more than their rights; and\nhe touches upon matters connected with others than the people only\nin a cursory way. In this matter, especially, he clearly needs to\nbe supplemented by information drawn from other sources, and his\nevery word about it shows that he is not introducing or referring to\nanything new. Any modifications he makes are plainly stated and are\nlimited to a few special points.\n\nThe chief passage for our purpose is, however, xviii. 1-8, where we\nhave the agents of the cultus defined, and directions for the dues\nto be given them. In ver. 1 these agents are clearly said to be\nthe whole tribe of Levi; for the phrase \"The priests, the Levites,\nthe whole tribe of Levi,\" cannot mean the priests and the Levites\nwho together make up the whole tribe of Levi. Notwithstanding the\narguments of Keil and Curtiss and other ingenious scholars, the\nunprejudiced mind must, I think, accept Dillmann's rendering, \"The\nLevitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi,\" the latter clause\nstanding in apposition to the former. In that case Deuteronomy must\nbe held to regard every Levite as in some sense priestly. This\nview is confirmed by x. 8 f., where distinctly priestly duties are\nassigned to the \"tribe of Levi.\" Some indeed assert that this verse\nwas written by a later editor, but valid reasons for the assertion\nare somewhat difficult to find.[85] Neither Kuenen nor Oettli nor\nDillmann find any. We may, then, accept it as Deuteronomic since\ncritics of such various leanings do so. To quote Dillmann, \"Beyond\nquestion, therefore, the tribe as a whole appears here as called to\nsacred, especially priestly service; only it does not follow from\nthat that every individual member of the tribe could exercise these\nfunctions at his pleasure, without there being any organisation and\ngradation among these servants of God.\" No, that does not follow;\nand this very passage (Deut. xviii. 1-8) shows that it does not,\nfor it makes a very clear distinction. In vv. 3 ff. the dues of the\npriest are dealt with, while in vv. 6 ff. those of the Levite in one\nspecial case are provided for. As if to emphasise the distinction\nbetween them, the priest in ver. 3 is not called \"Levitical,\" as he\nis in other passages.\n\n  [85] Kuenen, _H. K. O._, Eerste Deel, p. 113.\n\nFurther, the verses concerning the Levite also emphasise the\ndistinction; for few will be able to adopt the view that here in vv.\n6 ff. every Levite who chooses is authorised to become a priest, by\nthe mere process of presenting himself at the central sanctuary.\nThe author of Deuteronomy must have known, better probably than any\none now considering this matter, that the priests in the central\nsanctuary would never consent to divide their privileges and their\nincome with every member of their tribe who might choose to come\nup to Jerusalem. Indeed, if they had received each and every one,\nthe crowd would have been an embarrassment instead of a help.\nAs a matter of fact, when the Deuteronomic reform came to be put\nin practice, this free admission of every Levite to the service\nof the Jerusalem Temple was not adopted, and it is _prima facie_\nimprobable that the author of it can have meant his provision in\nthat sense. The meaning seems to be that, as only those Levites who\nwere employed in the central sanctuary could be _de facto_ priests,\nthose living in the country were not priests in the same sense;\nand the regulation made is that if any Levite came up to Jerusalem\nand was received into the ranks of the Temple Levites, _i.e._ the\nsacrificial priests, he should receive the same dues as the others\nperforming the same work did. But though no conditions of admission\nto the Temple service are mentioned, obviously there must have\nbeen some conditions, some division of labour, some organisation\ninvolving gradations in rank, and perhaps also some limitation as to\ntime in the case of such voluntary service as is here dealt with.\nFor, as Dillmann points out, it is not said that the service of\nevery Temple Levite is the same; numbers of them may have had no\nhigher work than the Levites under the laws of the Priest Codex.\n\nMoreover the other functions assigned to the priests confirm the\nargument, and prove that in the time of Deuteronomy distinctions of\nrank among the Levites must have been firmly established. They had\na place in the public justiciary, even in the supreme court, \"in\nthe place which Yahweh their God\" had chosen (Deut. xvii. 9, xix.\n17). Not only so, the law concerning a man found slain in chap.\nxxi., vv. 1-5, implies that there were in the cities throughout\nthe land priests, the sons of Levi, whom \"Yahweh thy God hath\nchosen to minister unto Him and to bless in the name of Yahweh, and\naccording to their word shall every controversy and every stroke\nbe.\" Now it cannot possibly have been the intention of the author\nof Deuteronomy that every member of the tribe of Levi should have\nequal power to decide such matters. If in his view every Levite was\na priest, then we should have this impossible state of affairs, that\nthe highest courts for judicial process should be in the hands of\na class which was more largely indebted to the generosity of the\nrich for its maintenance than any other in the country. It seems\nplain therefore that every Levite could not exercise _full_ priestly\nfunctions because of his birth. Clearly, if any Levite might become\na priest it was only in the same sense in which every Napoleonic\nsoldier was said to carry a marshal's baton in his knapsack.[86]\n\n  [86] The same conclusion must be come to in connection with the\n  sanitary duties of the priesthood as laid down, or rather as alluded\n  to, in Deut. xxiv. 8, 9. This implies that the Levitical priests had\n  special duties in connection with such matters, duties which, if not\n  precisely the same as those laid down in the Law of Leprosy (Lev.\n  xiii., xiv.), must have nearly resembled them. Semi-medical skill\n  must have been necessary for the satisfactory discharge of these\n  duties, and we must suppose that the priests who discharged them\n  were selected from the tribe of Levi on some principle either of\n  special proved knowledge and fitness, or on the ground of hereditary\n  devotion to such work.\n\nFinally, in this passage (ver. 5), by the words \"him and his sons\nfor ever,\" which refer back to \"the priest,\" a hereditary character\nof the priesthood is asserted. This phrase is remarkably parallel\nto that so frequently used by P, \"Aaron and his sons\"; and though\nwe are not told in what family or families the priesthood was\nhereditary, it must have been so in some. But in x. 6, 7, the family\nof Aaron is mentioned by the Deuteronomist as having hereditary\nright to the priesthood at the central shrine. There can therefore\nbe no doubt that in the time of the author of Deuteronomy priesthood\nwas hereditary, perhaps in several families, but certainly in the\nfamily of Aaron.\n\nThe remaining point in these verses of chap. xviii. is the dues.\nAs the whole tribe had no land, so the whole tribe had a share in\nthe dues paid by the people to their Divine King. In vv. 3 ff. we\nhave a statement of what these were. The whole tribe of Levi are\nto eat \"the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, and His inheritance.\nAnd they shall have no inheritance among their brethren: Yahweh is\ntheir inheritance, as He hath spoken unto them.\" The only place\nin Scripture in which such a promise is given is Numb. xviii. 20,\n24, so that these passages, if not referred to by the author of\nDeuteronomy, must be founded upon a tradition already old in his\ntime. As the servants of Yahweh, the Levites were to be wholly\nYahweh's care; as His representatives, they were to use for the\nsupply of their needs all such portions of the offerings made to Him\nby fire as were not to be consumed on the altar. Their remaining\nprovision was to be \"His,\" _i.e._ Yahweh's, \"inheritance,\" or rather\n\"portion,\" or that which belongs to Him. Now Yahweh's \"portion\"\nconsisted of all the other sacred dues (besides the sacrifices)\nwhich should be paid to Yahweh, such as the tithes, the firstlings,\nand the firstfruits. On these the whole tribe of Levi was to live,\nand so be free to give their time to the special business of the\nsanctuary, and to related duties, in so far as they were called upon.\n\nBut there were to be distinctions. In vv. 3-5 we have a special\nstatement of what was to be paid by the people to the priests,\n_i.e._ the sacrificing priests. Of every animal offered in\nsacrifice, except those offered as whole burnt-offerings, they\nwere to receive \"the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw,\" all\nchoice pieces. Further, they were to receive the \"firstfruits of\ncorn, wine, oil, and the first of the fleece of the sheep.\" For the\npriests of one sanctuary these would be quite provision enough,\nthough the word translated \"firstfruits,\" _r\u0113shith_, is very\nindefinite, and probably meant much or little, according as the\ndonor was liberal or churlish. But how does this agree with that\nwhich is bestowed upon the priests according to the Priest Codex? In\nthe passage corresponding to this (Lev. vii. 31-34) the wave breast\nand the heave thigh are the portions which are to be bestowed upon\n\"Aaron the priest and his sons, as a due for ever from the children\nof Israel\"; and where the firstfruits are dealt with (Numb. xviii.\n12 ff.) \"the first of the fleece of the sheep\" is not mentioned.\nThat is an addition made by the author of Deuteronomy; but what of\n\"the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw\"? Are they a substitute\nfor the \"wave breast and the heave thigh,\" or are they an addition?\nIf we hold that the laws in the Pentateuch were all given by Moses\nin the wilderness, and in the order in which they stand, it will\nbe most natural to think that what we have here is meant to be\nan addition to what Numbers prescribes. But if it is established\nthat Deuteronomy is a distinct work, written at a different period\nfrom the other books of the Pentateuch, then, though there is not\nsufficient evidence to justify a dogmatic decision on either side,\nthe weight of probability is in favour of the supposition that the\nDeuteronomic provision is a substitute, or at least an alternative,\nfor what we have in Numbers. The fact that the prescription in\nNumbers is not repeated makes for that view, as well as the fact\nthat Deuteronomy does not as a rule tend to increase the burdens on\nthe people. Keil's view, that Deuteronomy and Numbers are dealing\nwith quite different sacrifices, will hardly stand examination. He\nthinks that the feasts at which the firstlings, turned into money,\nand the third-year tithes were eaten, are referred to here, while\nin Numbers it is the ordinary peace-offerings which are dealt with.\nBut the postponed firstlings were eaten at the sanctuary, and would\nconsequently come under the head of ordinary sacrifices; and the\nthird-year tithes were eaten in the local centres, so that the\nbringing of the priestly portions would be as difficult in this\ncase as in the case of the slaughterings for ordinary meals, which\nKeil, partly for that reason, thinks cannot be referred to here. On\nthe whole, the best opinion seems to be that Deuteronomy has here\ndifferent prescriptions from those in Numbers, and that probably\nthere is a considerable interval of time between the two.\n\nIn vv. 6-8 the Levite as distinguished from the priest is dealt\nwith, though by no means fully. Only in one respect are special\nregulations given. When such an one came to do duty at the central\nsanctuary, he was to receive his share of the sacrifices with the\nrest.\n\nIn Chapter I. the main outlines of the Deuteronomic system of\npriestly arrangements have been placed alongside those of the Book\nof the Covenant and JE, and those of P, with a view to decide\nwhether they could all have been the work of one lawgiver's life.\nHere they must be compared in order that we may ascertain whether a\nview of the development of the priestly tribe which will do justice\nto these various documents and their provisions can be suggested.\n\nSome schools of critics offer the hypothesis that there was no\nspecial priesthood till late in the time of the kings. From the\nbeginning, they say, the head of each household was the family\npriest, and secular men, such as the kings, and men of other\ntribes than the Levites, could be and were priests, and offered\nsacrifice even at Jerusalem. With Deuteronomy the tribe of Levi was\nestablished as the priestly tribe, and only after the Exile was\npriesthood restricted to the sons of Aaron. But this scheme does\njustice to one set of passages only at the expense of another. It\naccounts for all that is anomalous in the history, and pushes aside\nthe main and consistent affirmation of all our authorities, that\nfrom the earliest days the tribe of Levi had a special connection\nwith sacred things and a special position in Israel. To what\nstraits its advocates are reduced may be seen in the fact that\nWellhausen has to declare that there were two tribes of Levi, one\npurely secular that was all but destroyed in an attack upon Shechem,\nand which afterwards disappeared, and a later ecclesiastical and\nsomewhat factitious tribe, or caste, which \"towards the end of the\nmonarchy arose out of the separate priestly families of Judah.\"[87]\nA more improbable suggestion than that can hardly be conceived.\n\n  [87] _History of Israel_, p. 145.\n\nBut historical analogy, the favourite weapon of these very critics,\nalso condemns it. Let us look at the growth of the priesthood\nin other ancient nations. In small and isolated communities the\nhead of the household was generally the family priest, and in all\nprobability this was the case in the various separate tribes of\nwhich Israel was composed; at least it was so in the households\nof the patriarchs. But, in communities formed by amalgamation\nof different tribes--and according to modern ideas Israel was\nso formed--there was almost always superinduced upon that more\nprimitive state of things another and different arrangement. In\nantiquity no bond could hold together tribes or families conscious\nof different descent, save the bond of religion. Consequently,\nwhenever such an amalgamation took place, the very first thing which\nhad to be done was to establish religious rites common to the whole\nnew community, which of course were not the care of the heads of\nhouseholds as such. Each separate section of the composite body\nkept up, no doubt, the family rites; but there had to be a common\nworship, and of course a special priesthood, for the new community.\nThis is sufficiently attested for the Greeks and Romans by De\nCoulanges, who in his _La Cit\u00e9 Antique_ gathers together such a mass\nof authorities in regard to this matter that few will be inclined\nto dispute his conclusion. On page 146 he says: \"Several tribes\nmight unite, on condition that the worship of each was respected.\nWhen such an alliance was entered into, the city or state came into\nexistence. It is of little importance to inquire into the causes\nwhich induced several tribes to unite; what is certain is that the\nbond of the new association was again a religion. The tribes which\ngrouped themselves to form a state never failed to light a sacred\nfire, and to set up a common religion.\" But the family and tribal\nrites continued to exist as _sacra privata_, just as the central\ngovernment dominated but did not destroy the family and tribal\ngovernments.[88]\n\n  [88] Cf. also Muirhead, article \"Roman Law,\" in _Ency. Brit._, vol.\n  xx. p. 669, 2nd col., and Ramsay, _Church in Roman Empire_, p. 190.\n\nIt may be objected that these customs are proved only for the\nAryan races, and that, though proved for them, they form no valid\nanalogy for Semitic peoples. But besides the fact that part of the\nstatements we have quoted are obviously true of Israel, we have a\nguarantee that the principle enunciated is also valid for it. The\nwhole process traced in the religious progress of the Aryan nations\nis based upon the worship of ancestors. Now one of the critical\ndiscoveries is that ancestor-worship was a part of the religion of\nthe tribes which afterwards united to form the Israelite nation.\nSome, like Stade, tell us that that was the early religion of Israel\nitself. In that form the theory is, I think, to be rejected; but\nthere would seem to be little doubt that, before the birth of the\nnation, ancestor-worship was much practised by the Hebrew tribes. If\nso, we may quite safely take over the analogy we have established,\nand believe that when Moses united the tribes into a nation, the\nreligion of Yahweh was the absolutely necessary connecting link\nwhich bound them together. For though the tribes were related,\nand are represented as the descendants of Abraham, they must have\nvaried considerably from each other in religious beliefs and usages.\nBy Moses these variations were extinguished, as far as that was\npossible, by the establishment of an exclusive Yahweh-worship as the\nnational cult; and to carry on this, not the heads of households,\nbut a priesthood that represented the nation, must have been\nselected. But if so, who would most naturally be selected for this\nduty? A sentence from De Coulanges will show that in this case\nthe tribe of Levi would almost necessarily be chosen. Speaking of\ncases in which a composite state relieved itself of the trouble of\ninventing a new worship by adopting the special god of one of the\ncomponent tribes, he says: \"But when a family consented to share its\ngod in this fashion it reserved for itself at least the priesthood.\"\nNow if that was the case in Israel, the priesthood of the tribe of\nLevi would at once become a necessity. Whether Yahweh had been ever\nknown to the other tribes or not, there can be little doubt that the\nknowledge of Him which made them a nation and started them on their\nunique career of spiritual discovery came from the Mosaic tribe, and\nfamily.\n\nThe God whom the family worshipped became the God of the\nconfederacy, and they would be the natural guardians of His\nsanctuary. This would not in the least involve special sanctity and\nmeekness on the part of the tribe, as some insist. They would remain\na tribe, like the others; but their leading men would discharge the\nfunctions of priests for the confederated nation. It is difficult,\nindeed, to see why any one else should have been thought of: most\nlikely the arrangement was made as a thing of course.\n\nBut if there was such a common worship, there must have been\na sanctuary for it, and at it the Levitic priests must have\ndischarged their functions. Now though the Tabernacle, as P knows\nit, is not spoken of either in JE or in Deuteronomy, a \"tent of\nmeeting\" at which Jehovah revealed Himself to Moses and to which\nthe people went to seek Yahweh (Exod. xxxiii. 7 ff.) is known to\nall our authorities. Further, Wellhausen himself says, \"If Moses\ndid anything at all he certainly founded the sanctuary at Qadesh\nand the Torah there, which the priests of the ark carried on after\nhim,\" so that even he recognises the necessity we have pointed out.\nFrom the days of Moses onwards, therefore, there must have been\nspecial priests of Yahweh, a special Yahwistic sanctuary, ritual\nwith a special sacrifice presented to Yahweh, and lastly a central\noracle, which is precisely what the passages explained away by\nWellhausen assert. But of course at that early time, even if the\nultimate purpose was to have an exclusively Levitical priesthood,\nconcessions to the old state of things would have to be made. The\nPassover was left in the hands of the household priest, and in other\nways probably he would be considered. The old order would insist\non surviving, and the rigour of the later arrangements cannot then\nhave been attained. In other respects we know that it was so; and we\nmay well believe that the priesthood of the individual householder\nand of the rulers was tolerated, and as far as possible regulated,\nso as to offer no public scandal to the religion of Yahweh. So,\namong the Homeric Greeks special hereditary priesthoods coexisted\nwith a political priesthood of the head of the State, and with the\nhousehold priesthood.[89]\n\n  [89] R\u00e4gelsbach, _Homerische Theologie_, p. 198.\n\nThe laxity on these points ascribed to Moses is, however, less\nthan has been supposed. At Mount Sinai he certainly did appoint\nthe \"young men of the children of Israel\"[90] to slaughter the\nbeasts for sacrifice; but he reserved for himself, a Levite, the\nsprinkling of the blood on the altar.[91] He also made Joshua\nhis servant, an Ephraimite, the keeper of the sanctuary; but even\nunder the Levitical law, a priest's slave was reckoned to be of his\nhousehold and could eat of the holy things. These were not very\ngreat laxities, and there is nothing in them to make us suppose that\na regular priesthood did not exist from Sinai. Moreover, that a\nspecial place should be assigned to Aaron and his sons was natural.\nHe was the brother of Moses, and would be the natural representative\nof the tribe, since Moses was removed from it as being leader of\nall. Everything therefore concurs to confirm the Biblical view that\nthe Levitic priesthood had its origin at Sinai, and that at the\nchief sanctuary and oracle the chief place in the priesthood fell\nto Aaron and his sons. Worship at other sanctuaries was permitted,\nand there the heads of households may have performed priestly\nfunctions, or in later times in Canaan some other Levitic families;\nbut that there was a central sanctuary in the hands of Levitic\npriests, among whom the family of Aaron had a chief place, is what\nthe circumstances, the historical data we have, and all historical\nanalogy alike demand.\n\n  [90] Exod. xxiv. 5.\n\n  [91] Exod. xxxiii. 11.\n\nFor the discharge of their sacred functions certain dues were\ndoubtless assigned to the priests, and the Levites sharing in\nthe subordinate duties of the sanctuary would share also in the\nemoluments. In other respects Levi in the wilderness would differ\nin nothing from other tribes. But in preparation for the arrival in\nCanaan, it was decreed that Levi should \"have no part or inheritance\nin Israel.\" Yahweh was to be their inheritance.\n\nThe point to notice here is that this tribe was to retain the\nnomadic life when the other tribes became agricultural. The\nreason for it is plain. That ancient manner of life was looked\nupon as superior in a religious aspect to the agricultural life.\nIn the first place, the ancestral life of Israel had been of\nthat kind. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been heads of nomadic\nfamilies or tribes; and the pure and peaceful religious life, the\nintimate communion with God which they enjoyed, always dominated\nthe imagination of the pious Israelite. Moreover the fundamental\nrevelation had come to Moses when he was a shepherd in the waste.\nFurther, the life of the shepherd is necessarily less continuously\nbusy than that of the agriculturist; it has, therefore, more scope\nin it for contemplation; and in many countries and at various times\nshepherds have been a specially thoughtful, as well as a specially\npious class. But, perhaps the chief reason was that the shepherd\nlife was not only simple and frugal in itself, but it was also\nby its very conditions free from some of the greatest dangers to\nwhich the religious life of the Israelite in Canaan was exposed.\nWhen the bulk of the people adopted the settled life, they were\nnot only thrown among the Canaanites, but they went to school them\nin all that concerned elaborate agriculture. This necessarily\nmade the intercourse and connection between the two peoples\nextremely intimate, and was fruitful in evil results. From this the\nsemi-nomadic portions of the people were to a great extent free, and\nthey would seem to have been regarded as the guardians of a higher\nlife and a purer tradition than others. They represented to the\npopular mind the Israel of ancient days, which had known nothing of\nthe vices of cities, and in which the pure uncorrupted religion of\nYahweh had held exclusive sway.\n\nA remarkable narrative of the Old Testament establishes this. When\nJehu was engaged in his sanguinary suppression of the house of Ahab,\nand the Baal-worship which they had introduced, we read in 2 Kings\nx. 15 ff. that he lighted on Jonadab the son of Rechab coming to\nmeet him. This Jonadab was the chief of the Rechabites, a nomadic\nclan, who were bound by oath to drink no wine, nor to build houses,\nnor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, and to dwell in tents all their\ndays (Jer. xxxv. 6, 7). This was clearly intended as a protest\nagainst the prevailing corruption of manners, and was founded on a\nspecial zeal for the uncorrupted religion of Yahweh. Recognising\nJonadab's position as a champion of true religion, Jehu anxiously\nseeks his approval and co-operation. He says, \"Is thine heart right,\nas my heart is with thy heart?\" And Jonadab answered, \"It is.\" \"If\nit be,\" said Jehu, \"give me thine hand.\" And he gave him his hand,\nand he took him up to him into the chariot. And he said, \"Come with\nme, and see my zeal for Yahweh.\" At a much later time, Jeremiah, at\nthe Divine command, used the faithfulness of these nomads to the\nordinances of their chiefs to put to shame the unfaithfulness of\nIsrael to Yahweh's ordinances; and promises (Jer. xxxv. 19) that\nbecause of it \"Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never want a man to\nstand before Yahweh,\" _i.e._ as His servant. The Nazarites, again,\nwere in some measure an indication of the same thing. Their rigorous\nabstinence from the fruit of the vine (the special sign and gift\nof a settled life in a country like Palestine) was their great\ndistinguishing mark, as persons peculiarly set apart to the service\nof God. Something analogous is seen in that other desert faith,\nMohammedanism. When the great reformer, Abd-el-Wahab, attempted to\nbring back Islam to its primitive power, he fell back largely upon\nthe simplicity of the desert life, though he did not insist upon the\nabandonment of agriculture and fixed habitations.\n\nIt is, therefore, not surprising that the priestly tribe was kept\nto the nomadic life by the ordinance that they should not have\na portion in the distribution of the Canaanite territory. But\naccording to the narrative of the attack upon Shechem by Levi and\nSimeon, and the verses in the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix.)\ndealing with these tribes, the course of history reinforced this\ncommand. Whether the treachery at Shechem occurred, as the Genesis\nnarrative places it, before the Exodus, when Israel was only a\nfamily, or was an incident in the history of the two tribes after\nCanaan had been invaded, as many critics think,[92] the significance\nof it is that because of an historical exhibition of fierce and\nintolerant zeal on the part of Levi and Simeon, which the other\ntribes would not defend, their settlement in that part of the land\nwas rendered difficult, if not impossible. Hence Simeon had to seek\nother settlements, while Levi fell back to the position assigned\nto it by its priestly character. It is not a valid exception to\nthis view--which reconciles the two statements that Levi had no\ninheritance with the other tribes because of its specially near\nrelation to Yahweh, and also because of its cruel treachery at\nShechem--that a priestly tribe is likely to have been not more, but\nrather less, fierce than the others. That would entirely depend\nupon the cause or occasion which called out the fierceness. In all\nthat concerned religion Levi would naturally be more inclined to\nextreme measures than the other tribes, and in this case the higher\nmorality, secured by the separateness of Israel, might easily appear\nto be at stake.[93] It is, therefore, quite credible that the\nexcessive vengeance taken should have been planned mainly by Levi,\nand that the resulting hatred should have broken up Simeon, and\ndriven back Levi with emphasis to its higher call.\n\n [92] Cf. Kittel's _Geschichte der Hebr\u00e4\u00ebr_, II., p. 63.\n\n  [93] Cf. Exod. xxxii. 15-20.\n\nIn any case there never was again any doubt that the Levites were\nto be excluded from the number of land-owning tribes. Even in the\nlegislation regarding the forty-eight priestly cities this principle\nasserts itself. The keeping of sheep and cattle on the pastures,\nwhich were the only lands attached to these cities, was to be the\nLevites' only secular occupation, and they were neither to own\nnor work agricultural land. But to compensate for any hardship\nthis arrangement might bring with it, the Levites, as the special\nservants of Yahweh, were to have Him for their inheritance, _i.e._\nas we have seen, the dues coming to Yahweh were to become the\nproperty of the Levites in great part. I say in great part, because\nthe gift to the Levites exclusively of a tithe of the income of the\npeople is thought by many to be only a late provision.\n\nAfter Canaan had been conquered, the state of things in connection\nwith the priesthood would be something like this. The tent with\nthe ark would be the principal sanctuary, served by a hereditary\nLevitic priesthood, at the head of which would be a descendant of\nAaron. The tribe of Levi, being nomadic, would probably encamp in\nthe neighbourhood of the central sanctuary in part, and recruits for\nthe priestly work would be taken occasionally from them, while other\nsections would gravitate to the neighbourhood of other sanctuaries.\nAs we see from the story of Micah in Judges, it was considered\ndesirable to have a Levite for priest everywhere, and consequently\nthere would arise at all the High Places Levitic priesthoods,\nmost probably in part hereditary. But notwithstanding their dues,\nthe bulk of the tribe, being nomads, would be looked upon by the\nagricultural population as poor, just as the Bedouin, in Palestine\nnow are, comparatively speaking, very poor. This state of things\nwould correspond entirely with what Deuteronomy tells us; and after\nthat legislation the position of the Levites as a priestly body\nwould be more assured than ever. In the post-exilic period all\nthat had been regulated by practice in earlier days found written\nexpression. Differentiation of function was minutely carried out.\nThe priesthood was confined rigorously to the Aaronic house, and\nthe other Levites were given to them as attendants. In this way\nthe whole Levitic system was introduced, and with the exclusive\naltar came the exclusive priesthood. So far as I can see, it is\nonly by some such hypothesis that justice can be done to _all_ the\nstatements of Scripture; and considering the elastic nature of Old\nTestament law, there is nothing improbable in it. In any case there\nis an amount of evidence of various kinds for the Mosaic origin of\nthe Levitic, and even the Aaronic priesthood, which no proof of\nirregularities can overturn.\n\nIn the Divinely sanctioned arrangements of the Old Testament Church,\ntherefore, the existence of a body of ecclesiastical persons,\nhaving little share in the ordinary pursuits of their neighbours,\nand dependent upon their clerical duties for a large part of their\nmaintenance, was deemed necessary to secure the continuity of\nworship and religious belief. As has been already pointed out, the\npriesthood was necessarily more conservative than progressive. As\nan institution, it was suited rather to gather up and perpetuate\nthe results of religious movements otherwise originated, than to\noriginate them itself. But in that sphere it was an absolutely\nnecessary element in the life of Israel. Difficult as it was to\npermeate the people with the truths of revealed religion, it would\nhave been impossible without the services of the priestly tribe.\nWherever they went they were a visible embodiment of the demand\nfor faithfulness to Yahweh, and, with all their aberrations, they\nprobably lived at a higher spiritual level than the average layman.\nAs has been well said, though Malachi had much reason to complain\nof the priests in his own day, his estimate of what Levi had been\nin the past is no exaggeration (ii. 6): \"The law of truth was in\nhis mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips: he walked\nwith Me in peace and uprightness, and did turn many away from\niniquity.\" But such a body as the Levites could not have been kept\nthus spiritually alive, unless the members of it had lived somewhat\naloof from the strifes and envies of the market-place, and this they\ncould not have done had they not lived by their sacred function.\nThe prophets, under the power and impulse of new truth adapted\nto their own time, did not need this protection; consequently\nsome of them were called from ordinary secular work--from the\nplough, like Elisha, or from the midst of the rich and highborn\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, like Isaiah. If one may so say, they were\nmen of religious genius; while the bulk of the priests and Levites\nmust always have been commonplace men in comparison. Yet even of\nthe prophets a number were trained in the nomadic life; others\nwere priests who were shut off also from agriculture. Clearly,\ntherefore, some measure of separation from the full pulsing life\nof the world was, even in the most favourable circumstances,\nhelpful in developing religious character. For the ordinary average\necclesiastic it was indispensable; and that he should exist, and\nshould live at as high a level as possible, was as much a condition\nof Israel's discharge of her great mission, as that the voice of\nthe prophet should be heard at all the great turning-points of her\ncareer.\n\nThe modern tendency in Old Testament study is to depreciate the\npriest and to exalt the prophet, just as in ecclesiastical life we\ntend to make much of those who are or give themselves out to be\nreligious reformers and thinkers, and to make little of the ordinary\nparish or congregational ministry. But the good done by the latter\nis, and must be, for each individual generation more than that\ndone by the former. No one can estimate too highly the conserving\nand elevating effect of a faithful high-minded spiritual minister.\nOften without genius either intellectual or religious, without much\nspeculative power, with so firm a hold of the old truth, which has\nbeen their own guiding star, that they cannot readily see the\ngood in anything new, such men, when faithful to the light they\nhave, are the stable, restful, immediately effective element in all\nChurch life. And such a body can be best spiritualised by being\nseparated somewhat from the stress and strain of competition in the\nrace of life. Being what they are, the necessity of taking their\nfull part in the business of the world would inevitably secularise\nthem, to the great and lasting damage of all spiritual interests.\nFor though to modern students of Old Testament religion, who are\ninterested most in its growth and progress towards its consummation\nin Christianity, the prophet is by far the most interesting figure,\nto the ancient people itself it must have seemed that the priests\nand Levites, if they in any degree deserved Malachi's eulogy, were\nthe entirely indispensable element in their religious life. They\ngave the daily bread of religion to the people. They embodied\nthe principles which came to them from prophetic inspiration in\nceremonies and institutions; they treasured up whatever had been\ngained, and kept the people nurtured in it and admonished by it. In\nshort, they prepared the soil and cultivated the roots from which\nalone the consummate flower of prophecy could spring; and when the\nvoice of prophecy was dying away they brought the piety of the\naverage Israelite to the highest point it ever reached.\n\nIn modern times the necessity for such a body of special churchmen\nis challenged from two opposite sides. There is, on the one hand,\nthe body of over-spiritualised believers who abhor organisation,\nand the machinery of organisation, as if it were an intolerable\nevil. Conscious very often of quick spiritual impulse and vivid\nlife in themselves, they fret against the slow movements of large\nbodies of men; they separate themselves from all the organised\nChurches and reject a regular ministry. All the Lord's people\nare now, under the Christian dispensation, priests and prophets,\nthey say, and a separate paid ministry in sacred things they\nrefuse to hear of. For spiritual nourishment they rely solely\nupon the prophetic gifts of their members, and are satisfied that\nthus they are preparing the way for the universal prevalence of a\nhigher form of Church life. But, so far as can be judged, their\nexperiment has not prospered, nor is it likely to do so. For these\nseparatist Christians have found that spiritual life, like other\nkinds of life, cannot express itself without an organism. That\nimplies organisation; and though they do with less of it than other\nChristians, still they are often driven into arrangements which\nreally bring back the regular ministry with its separate position;\nand in other respects they are saved from the inconveniences they\nhave fled from, only by their want of success. If their system\never became general, it would necessarily drift into organisation,\nfor only at that price can any coherent, continuous, and lasting\neffect be produced. Unfettered by the dull, the critical, and the\njudicious, the impulsive and enthusiastic would always be outrunning\nthe possibilities of the present time. In the interests of the\nbest, they would be continually ignoring or destroying the good. To\nprevent that, a special body of religious men set apart for sacred\nservices, and freed from the rough struggle for existence so far\nas a maintenance from funds devoted to religious purposes can free\nthem, is one of the best provisions known. Where in the mass they\nare really religious men, they secure that the pressure upward,\nwhich the Church exerts upon the lives of its own members and upon\nthe community in general, shall be effective to the highest degree\nthen possible, and shall be exerted in the directions in which such\npressure will most fully answer to the needs and aspirations of the\ntime. Where, on the contrary, the mass of them are secularised,\nthey no doubt are a power for evil; but the contrast between their\nprofession and their practice in that case is so shocking, that\nunless they be supported by the \"dead hand\" of endowments with no\nliving spiritual demand behind them, they soon sink by their own\nweight, to give place to a better type. And even when they are thus\nsupported, though unfaithful, their calling in name at least remains\nspiritual, and sooner than the other elements in the nation they are\napt to be stirred by breathings of a new life.\n\nThe other objectors to the regular ministry are those, in the press\nand elsewhere, who demand of all ministers that they should be\nprophets, or inspired religious geniuses, and, because they are\nnot, deny their right to exist. According to this view every sermon\nthat is not a new revelation is a failure, every minister of the\nsanctuary who is not a discoverer in religion is a pretender, every\none who only exemplifies and lives by the power of the Gospel, as\nit was last formulated so as to lay hold upon the popular mind, is\nan obscurantist. But no reasonable man really believes this. Such\nreproaches are merely the penalty which must be paid for claiming\nso high a calling as that of an ambassador for Christ. No man can\nquite adequately fill such a position; and the bulk of ministers\nof Christ know better than others how much below their ideal their\nreal service is. But this also is true, that, take them all in\nall, no class of men are doing anything like so much as Christian\nministers throughout the world are doing to keep up the standard of\nmorals and to keep alive faith in that which is spiritual. We have\nno right to complain that in their sphere they are conservative of\nthat which has been handed on to them. They have tried and proved\nthat teaching; they know that wherever it secures a foothold it\nlifts men up to God, and they are naturally doubtful whether new and\nuntried teaching will do as much. They have pressing upon them,\ntoo, as others have not, the interest of individual men and women\nwhom they see and know, men and women who for the most part, and so\nfar as they can see, are accessible to spiritual impulse only on\nlines with which they are familiar; and they dread the diversion\nof their thoughts from their real spiritual interests, to matters\nwhich, for them at least, must remain largely intellectual and\nspeculative. No doubt it would be well if all pastors could, as the\nmost highly endowed do, look beyond that narrower field; could take\naccount of the movements which are drifting men into new positions,\nfrom which the old landmarks cannot be seen and consequently exert\nno influence; and could endeavour to rethink their Christianity\nfrom new points of view, which may be about to become the orthodoxy\nof the next generation. But no ministry will ever be a ministry\nof prophets. It may even be doubted whether such a ministry could\nbe borne if it ever should arise. Under it one might fear that\nspiritual repose and spiritual growth would alike be impossible for\nthe average man, in his breathless race after teachers each of whom\nwas always catching sight of new lights. The mass of men need, first\nof all, teachers who have firmly seized the common truth by which\nthe Church of their day lives, who live conspicuously nearer the\nChristian ideal, as generally conceived, than others do, who devote\nthemselves in sincerity and self-sacrifice to the work of making the\nthings that are most surely believed among Christians a common and\nabiding possession. Such men need never be ashamed of themselves\nor of their calling. Theirs is the foundation work, so far as any\nattempt to realise the Kingdom of God on earth is concerned; for\nwithout the general acceptance of the truth attained which they\nbring about, no further attainment would be possible. The very\nenvironment out of which alone the prophet could be developed would\nbe wanting, and stagnation and death would certainly and necessarily\nfollow.\n\nOne other thing remains to be said. Though we have taken these\nsignificant words of ver. 2--\"And they shall have no inheritance\namong their brethren: Yahweh is their inheritance, as He hath\nspoken unto them\"--in their first and most obvious reference, it\nis not to be supposed that that meaning has exhausted all that the\nwords conveyed to ancient Israel. The perpetuation of the nomadic\nform of life among the Levites, and the bestowal of tithes and\nsacrificial meats upon them, was undoubtedly the first purpose of\nthis command. But it had, even for ancient Israel, a more spiritual\nmeaning. Just as in the promise of Canaan as a dwelling-place the\nspiritual Israelite never regarded _merely_ the gift of wealth and\nthe prospect of comfort,--Canaan was always for them Yahweh's land,\nthe land where they would specially live near Him and find the joy\nof His presence,--so in this case the spiritual gift, of which the\nmaterial was only an expression, is the main thing. To have Yahweh\nfor their heritage can never have meant _only_ so much money and\nprovisions, so much leisure and opportunity for contemplation,\nto any true son of Levi. Otherwise it is inexplicable how the\nwords used to indicate this very earthly thing should have become\nso acceptable a formula for the deepest spiritual experience of\nChristian men. It meant also a spiritual bond between Yahweh and\nHis servants--a special nearness on their part, and a special\ncondescension on His. To the other tribes Yahweh had given His land,\nto them He had given Himself as a heritage; and though doubtless any\nunspiritual son of Levi must have thought the tangible advantages of\na fertile farm more attractive than visionary nearness to God, the\nspiritual among the Levites must have felt that they had received\nthe really good part, which no hostile invasion, no oppression of\nthe rich, could ever take away. Their ordinary life-work brought\nthem more into contact with sacred things than others. The goodness,\nthe mercy, the love of God were, or at least ought to have been,\nclearer to them than to their brethren; and the joy of doing good\nto men for God's sake, the rapture of contemplation which possessed\nthem when they were privileged to see the face of God, must have\nmade all the coarser benefits of the earthly heritage seem worse\nthan nothing and vanity. Of course there was the danger that\nfamiliarity with religious things should dull instead of quickening\nthe insight; and many passages in the Old Testament show that this\ndanger was not always escaped. But often, and for long periods, it\nmust have been warded off; and then the superiority of God's gift of\nHimself must have been manifest, not only to the chosen tribe, but\nto all Israel. For the nature of man is too intrinsically noble ever\nto be quite satisfied with the world, and the riches and comforts\nof the world, for its inheritance. At no time has man ever failed\nto do homage to spiritual gifts. Even to-day, in spheres outside of\nreligion, there are multitudes of men and women who would put aside\nwithout a sigh any wealth the world could give, if it were offered\nas a substitute for their delight in poetry, or for their power\nto rethink and re-enjoy the ideas of those whose \"thoughts have\nwandered through eternity.\" And the power to follow and to yield\noneself up to the thoughts of the Eternal God Himself is a reward\nfar above these. To the faithful servant of God at all times and in\nall lands that joy has been open, for God Himself has been their\nheritage; and though in ancient Israel the beauty of \"Yahweh their\nGod\" was not quite unveiled, yet we know from the Psalms that many\npenetrated even then to the inner glory where God meets His chosen,\nand there, though having nothing, yet found that in Him they had\nall.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\n_SPEAKERS FOR GOD--III. THE PROPHET_\n\nDEUT. xviii. 9-22\n\n\nThe third of the Divine voices to this nation was the prophet.\nJust as in the other Semitic nations round about Israel there were\nkings and priests and soothsayers, there were to be in Israel kings\nand priests and prophets; and the first two orders having been\ndiscussed, there remains for consideration the prophet, in so far\nat least as he was to be the substitute for the soothsayer. That\nthis parallel was in the mind of the writer, and that he probably\nintended only to deal with certain aspects of the prophetic office,\nis witnessed by the fact that he introduces what he has to say\nregarding the prophet by a stern and detailed denunciation of any\ndealings with soothsayers and wizards. In the earlier codes the\nsame denunciation is found, but the catalogue of names for those\nwho practised such arts is nowhere so extensive as it is here. In\nthe Book of the Covenant the _mekhashsheph_, or magician, alone\nis mentioned (Exod. xxii. 17); while the peculiar code which is\ncontained in the last chapters of Leviticus,[94] mentions only five\nvarieties of sorcerers. The Deuteronomic list of eight is thus the\nmost complete; and Dillmann may be right in regarding it as also the\nlatest. But the special indignation of the writer of Deuteronomy\nagainst these forms of superstition would be quite sufficient to\naccount for his elaborate detail. If he lived in the days of\nManasseh, he would have before his eyes the passing of children\nthrough the fire to Moloch. That was connected with soothsaying\nand was the crowning horror of Israel's idolatry. The author of\nDeuteronomy might, therefore, well be more passionate and detailed\nin his denunciations than others, whether earlier or later.\n\n  [94] Only two in any one law; Lev. xviii. 21, xix. 26, 31, xx. 6, 27.\n\nNor let any one imagine that in this he was wrong and unenlightened.\nWhether we believe in the occasional appearance of abnormal powers\nof the soothsaying kind or not, it is evident that in every nation's\nlife there has been a time in which faith in the existence of such\npowers was universal, and in which the moral and spiritual life of\nmen has been threatened in the gravest way by the proceedings of\nthose who claimed to possess them. At this hour the witch-doctor,\nwith his cruelties and frauds, is the incubus that rests upon all\nthe semi-civilised or wholly uncivilised peoples of Africa. Even\nBritish justice has to lay hands upon him in New Guinea, as the\nfollowing extract from a Melbourne newspaper will show: \"Divination\nby means of evil spirits is practised to such an extent and with\nsuch evil effects by the natives of New Guinea that the Native\nRegulation Board of British New Guinea has found it necessary\nto make an ordinance forbidding it. The regulation opens with\nthe statement, 'White men know that sorcery is only deceit, but\nthe lies of the sorcerer frighten many people; the deceit of the\nsorcerer should be stopped.' It then proceeds to point out that it\nis forbidden for any person to practise or to pretend to practise\nsorcery, or for any person to threaten any other person with\nsorcery, whether practised by himself or any one else. Any one found\nguilty of sorcery may be sentenced by a European magistrate to three\nmonths' imprisonment, or by a native magistrate to three days'\nimprisonment, and he will be compelled to work in prison without\npayment.\" Through the sorcerer attempts at advance to a higher life\nare in our own day being rendered futile; at his instigation the\ndarkest crimes are committed; and because of him and the beliefs he\ninculcates men are kept all their lives subject to bondage. So also\nof old. The ancient soothsayer might be an impostor in everything,\nbut he was none the less dangerous for that. To what depths of\nwickedness his practices can bring men is seen in the horrors of\nthe secret cult of the negroes of Hayti. Even when soothsaying and\nmagic were connected with higher religions than the fetichism of the\nHaytian negro, they were still detrimental in no ordinary degree. No\nworthy conception of God could grow up where these were dominant,\nand toleration of them was utterly impossible for the religion of\nYahweh.\n\nThe justice of the punishment of death decreed against wizards\nand witches in Scripture was, therefore, quite independent of the\nreality of the powers such persons claimed. They professed and were\nbelieved to have them, and thus they acquired an influence which\nwas fatal to any real belief in a moral and spiritual government\nof the world. They must therefore be an \"abomination\" to Yahweh;\nand as, in any case, by the very fact that they were soothsayers\nand diviners they practised low forms of idolatry, those who sought\nthem must share the condemnation of the idolater in Israel. In the\nearlier days of the sacred history there was no enemy so subtle,\nso insidious, so difficult to meet as magic and soothsaying.\nOnly by actual prohibition, on pain of death, could the case be\nadequately met; and under these circumstances there is no need for\nus to apologise for the Old Testament law, \"Thou shalt not suffer\na witch to live\" (Exod. xxii. 17). What is aimed at here is the\nprofession on the part of any woman that she had and used these\nsupernatural powers. This was a crime against Israel's higher life.\nThe punishment of it had no resemblance to the judicial cruelties\nperpetrated in comparatively modern times, when the charge of being\na witch became a weapon against people, who for the most part were\nguilty only of being helpless and lonely.\n\nBut it is characteristic of the large outlook of Deuteronomy that\nnot only is the evil protested against; the universal human need\nwhich underlay it is acknowledged and supplied. Behind all the\nterrible aberrations of heathen soothsaying and divination the\nauthor saw hunger for a revelation of the will and purpose of\nGod. That was worthy of sympathy, however inadequate and evil the\nsubstitutes elaborated for the really Divine means of enlightenment\nwere. So he promises that the real need will be supplied by God's\nholy prophets. Nothing that savoured of ignorance or misapprehension\nof God's spirituality, or of unfaithfulness to Yahweh, could be\ntolerated; for Israel's God would supply all their need by a prophet\nfrom the midst of them, of their brethren, like unto Moses, in whose\nmouth Yahweh would put His words, and who should speak unto them all\nthat He should command him. This is the broadest and most general\nlegitimation of the prophet, as a special organ of revelation in\nIsrael, that the Scripture contains. By it he is made one of the\nregularly constituted channels of Divine influence for his people.\nFor it is evidently not one single individual, such as the Messiah,\nwho is here foretold. That has been the interpretation received from\nthe earlier Jews, and cherished in the Church up till quite modern\ntimes. But as Keil rightly says, the fact that this promise is set\nagainst any supposed need to have recourse to diviners and wizards,\nis in itself sufficient proof that the prophetic order is meant.\nIt was not only in the far-off Messianic time that Israel was to\nfind in this Divinely sent prophet that knowledge of God's will\nand purposes which it needed. Israel of all times, tempted by the\ncustoms of its heathen neighbours to go to the diviners, was to have\nin Yahweh's prophet a continual deliverance from the temptation.\nThat implies that this _Nabhi_, or prophet like unto Moses, was to\nbe continually recurring, at every turn and crisis of this nation's\ncareer.\n\nFurther, the direction in the end of the passage for testing the\nprophets, whether they were really sent of God or not, confirms\nthis view. It would be singularly out of place in a promise which\nreferred to the Messiah in an exclusive and primary fashion.\nHe would never need testing of this sort, for He was to be the\nrealisation and embodiment of Israel's highest aspirations. But if\nthe passage means to give the prophets a place among the national\norgans of intercourse with Yahweh alongside of the priests, the\nnecessity of distinguishing these true and Divinely given prophets\nfrom pretenders was urgent. The context, both before and after the\npromise, seems, therefore, to be decisively in favour of the general\nreference; and the phrases \"like unto me,\" \"like unto thee,\" _i.e._\nMoses, when carefully examined, instead of weakening that inference,\nstrengthen it. They are not used here as the similar phrase is used\nin Deut. xxxiv. 10: \"And there hath not arisen a prophet since in\nIsrael like unto Moses, whom Yahweh knew face to face.\" There the\ncloseness of Moses' approach to Yahweh is the point in hand, and it\nis clearly stated that in that regard Moses was more favoured than\nany who had succeeded him. But here the comparison is between Moses\nand the prophets, in so far as mediation between Yahweh and His\npeople was concerned. At Israel's own wish Moses had been appointed\nto hear the Divine voice. Israel had said \"Let me not hear again the\nvoice of Yahweh my God, neither let me see this great fire any more,\nthat I die not.\" The prophet here promised was to be like Moses\nin that respect, but there is nothing to assert that he would be\nequal to Moses in power and dignity. On all grounds, therefore, the\nreference to the line of prophets is to be maintained.\n\nStill, the interpretation thus reached does not exclude--it\ndistinctly includes--the Messianic reference. If the passage\npromises that at all moments of difficulty and crisis in Israel's\nhistory, the will of God would be made known by a Divinely sent\nprophet, that would be specially true of the last and greatest\ncrisis, the birth of the new time which the Messiah was to\ninaugurate. Whatever fulfilment the promise might receive previously\nto that, it could not be perfectly fulfilled without the advent\nof Him whose office it was to close up the history of the present\nworld, and bring all things by a safe transition into the new\nMessianic world. That was the greatest crisis; and necessarily\nthe prophet who spoke for Yahweh in it must be the crown of the\nlong line of prophets. There is still a higher sense in which this\npromise has reference to the Messiah. He was to sum up and realise\nin Himself all the possibilities of Israel. Now they were the\nprophetic nation, the people who were to reveal God to mankind; and\nwhen they proved prevailingly false to their higher calling, the\nhopes of all who remained faithful turned to that \"true\" Israel\nwhich alone would inherit the promises. At one period, just before\nand in the Exile, the prophetic order would appear to have been\nlooked upon as the Israel within Israel, to whom it would fall to\naccomplish the great things to which the seed of Abraham had been\ncalled. But the author of Second Isaiah, despairing even of them,\nsaw that the destiny of Israel would be accomplished by one great\nServant of Yahweh, who should outshine all other prophets, as He\nwould surpass all other Israelite priests and Davidic kings. As\nthe crown and embodiment of all that the prophets had aspired\nto be, the Messiah alone completely fulfilled this promise, and\nconsequently the Messianic reference is organically one with the\nprimary reference. They are so intimately interwoven that nothing\nbut violence can separate them; and thus we gain a deeper insight\ninto the wide reach of the Divine purposes, and the organic unity of\nthe Divine action in the world. These form a far better guarantee\nfor the recognition of Messianic prophecy here than the supposed\ndirect and exclusive reference did. By not grasping too desperately\nat the view which more strikingly involves the supernatural, we have\nreceived back with \"full measure pressed down and running over\" the\nassurance that God was really speaking here, and that this, like all\nthe promises of the Old Testament when rightly understood, is yea\nand amen in Christ.\n\nBut for our present purpose the primary reference of this passage\nto the prophetic line is even more important than the secondary but\nmost vital reference to the Messiah. For it sets forth prophecy\nas the most potent instrument for the growth and furtherance of\nthe religion of Israel. The prophet is here declared to be the\nsuccessor of Moses, to be the inspired declarer of the Divine will\nto His people in cases which did not come within the sphere or the\ncompetency of the priest. The latter was, as we have seen, bound to\nwork within the limits and on the basis of the revelation given by\nMoses. He was to carry out into execution what had been commanded,\nto keep alive in the hearts of the people the knowledge of their\nGod as Moses had given it, to give \"Torah\" from the sanctuary in\naccordance with its principles. But here a nobler office is assigned\nto the prophet. He is to enlarge and develop the work of Moses.\nThe Mosaic revelation is here viewed as fundamental and normative,\nbut, in contrast to the views of later Judaism, as by no means\ncomplete. For the completion of it the prophet is here declared to\nbe the Divinely chosen instrument, and he is consequently assigned a\nhigher position in the purpose of God than either king or priest. He\nis raised far above the diviners by having his calling lifted into\nthe moral sphere; and he excels both the other organs of national\nlife in that, while they are largely bound by the past, he is called\nof God to initiate new and higher stages in the life of the chosen\npeople. The ascending steps of the revelation begun by Moses were to\nbe in his hands, and through him God was to reveal Himself in ever\nfuller measure.\n\nViewed thus, the prophetic order in Israel has a quite unique\ncharacter. It is a provision for religious progress such as had no\nparallel elsewhere in the world; and this public acknowledgment\nof its Divine right is almost more remarkable. Wherever elsewhere\nin the world religion has been supposed to be Divinely given\nthrough one man, though modifications have indeed been made in\nlater times, yet they have never been anticipated and provided for\nbeforehand. Save in the case of Mohammedanism, which borrowed its\nidea of the office of the prophet from Judaism, there has never\nbeen a deliberate admission that God had yet higher things to\nreveal concerning Himself, still less has provision been made for\nthe coming of that which was new to fulfil the old. And in modern\ntimes the revealer of new aspects of truth finds nowhere a welcome.\nInstead of being received as a messenger of God, even in the\nChristian Church he has always to face neglect, often persecution,\nand only if he be unusually fortunate does he live to see his\nmessage received. But in Israel, even in such ancient days as those\nwe are dealing with, the progressive nature of God's Revelation of\nHimself was acknowledged, the reception of new truth was legitimised\nand looked for, and the highest place in the earthly kingdom of\nGod was reserved for those whom God had enlightened by it. It is\ntrue of course that the nation as a whole never acted in accordance\nwith this teaching. They did not obey the command given here, \"Unto\nhim shall ye hearken,\" and reiterated still more solemnly in the\nwords, \"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken\nunto My words, which he shall speak in My name, I will require of\nhim.\" The prophets for the most part spoke to their contemporaries\nin vain. Where they were not neglected they were persecuted, and\nmany sealed their testimony with their blood. But the thought that\nYahweh was educating His people step by step, and that at all times\nin their history He would have further revelations of Himself to\nmake, is familiar to this writer. Therefore he welcomes the thought\nof advance in this region of things, and here solemnly enrols those\nwho are to be the instruments of it among the ruling powers of the\nnation.\n\nNow in religious thought this is quite unparalleled. Tenacious\nconservatism, based on the conviction that full truth has already\nbeen attained, has always been the mark of religious thinking.\nThat a religious teacher should be able to see that the light of\nrevelation, like the natural light, must come gradually, broadening\nby degrees into perfect day, and that he himself was standing only\nin the morning twilight, is a thing so remarkable that one is at a\nloss to account for it, save on the ground of the special nature of\nprophetic enlightenment. It was part of the office of the prophets\nto foresee and foretell the future. Smend is certainly in the right,\nas against those who have been teaching that the prophet was merely\na preacher of genius, when he says that \"in Amos and his successors\nprophecy is the starting-point of their whole discourse and action,\"\nand that \"all new knowledge which they preach comes to them from the\naction of Yahweh which they foretell.... Consequently the greatness\nof a prophet is to be gathered from the measure in which he foresees\nthe future.\"[95] This statement gives us the truth that lies between\nthe two other extremes; for according to it the prophet proclaims\nand preaches religious truth, but he does so on the basis of what he\nperceives that God is about to do in the future. In other words, he\nproclaims new truth on the ground of the revelation God is about to\nmake of Himself, which he is inspired to foresee and to interpret.\nHis business is neither all foreseeing nor all teaching; it is\nteaching grounded upon foresight. Consequently it was impossible\nfor the prophet to believe that change in religion was in itself\nevil. He _knew_ to the contrary. Only change which should remove\nmen from the Divinely given basis of the faith was evil; and such\nchange, whatever credentials might accompany it, even though they\nmight be miraculous, every faithful Israelite had been already\nwarned most sternly to reject (Deut. xiii. 5). But when the impulse\nto advance came from Yahweh's manifestation of Himself, change was\nnot only good, it was the indispensable test of faithfulness. They\nwere not the true followers of Isaiah who, on the ground of his\nprophecy that Zion, as Yahweh's dwelling-place, should be delivered\nfrom destruction, rejected the prophecy of Jeremiah that Zion would\nfall before the Chaldeans. The really faithful men were those who\nhad taken to heart the lessons Yahweh had set for His people in the\ncentury that lay between these two prophets; who saw that the time\nwhen the deliverance of Zion was necessary to the safety of the true\nreligion was past, and that now the capture of Zion was necessary\nto its true development. And that is not a solitary case; it is an\nexample of what was normal in the religious history of this people.\n\n  [95] _Lehrbuch der Alt-Testamentlichen Religion's Geschichte_, pp.\n  169 ff.\n\nThis did not escape the quick eye of John Stuart Mill. He says\nthe religion of Israel \"gave existence to an inestimably precious\nunorganised institution--the order (if it may be so termed) of\nprophets.... Religion, consequently, was not there, what it has\nbeen in so many other places, a consecration of all that was once\nestablished, and a barrier against further improvement.\" There\nalways was the movement of pulsing life within it, and under the\nDivine guidance that movement was always upward. At some times\nit was comparatively shallow and slow, at others it was a deep\nand rushing tide. But it was always moving in directions which\nled straight to the great consummation of itself in the coming of\nChrist, who gathered up into His own life all the varied streams of\nrevelation, and crowned and fulfilled them all. At no point in the\nprogress from Moses to the Messiah do we touch rounded and completed\ntruth; nor, according to the teaching of Scripture in this passage,\nwere we meant to do so. The faithful among Israel had as their\nwatchword the _disio_ and _pace_ of Dante. They saw before them a\nworld of Divine \"peace,\" which they knew lay still in the future,\nand the \"desire\" and yearning of their souls were always directed\ntowards it. With inextinguishable hope they marched onward with\nuplifted faces, to which light reflected from that future gave at\ntimes a radiant gladness; and always they kept an open ear for those\nwho saw what God was about to do at each turning of the way.\n\nBut granting that religion was thus progressive before men were\nspoken unto \"by the Son,\" can we say or believe that, now that He\nhas spoken, progress in this way is still possible? At first sight\nit would seem necessary to answer that question in the negative. The\nprogressive revelation of God has come to its perfection in Jesus\nChrist; what then remains to us but to cling to that? Are we not\nbound to make resistance to progress, to any new view in religion,\nour first duty? Many act and speak as if that were the only possible\ncourse consistent with faithfulness. But we must distinguish. The\nrevelation of God has, according to our Christian faith, reached not\nonly its highest actual point, but also its highest possible point\nin Christ. God can do nothing more for His vineyard than He has\ndone. As a manifestation of God, revelation is completed and closed\nin Christ. For it is impossible to manifest God to men more fully\nthan in a man who reveals God in every thought and word and act.\n\nBut it is quite otherwise with the interpretation of the\nmanifestation. In the earlier days this was provided for by\na special inspiration of God, which made the holy men of old\ninfallible in their interpretation of the revelation received up to\ntheir day, and that continued till the establishment of the Church.\nSince then the Holy Spirit is to be the guide of faithful men into\nall truth. Now in the way of interpreting Christ and His message\nprogress is as much open to us as it was to Israel. A complete\nrevelation of God must necessarily, at any given time up till the\nconsummation of all things, contain in it a residuum of significance\nwhich, at that point of their experience, mankind has not felt the\nneed of, nor has had the capacity to understand. As the world grows\nolder, however, new outlooks, new environments, new circumstances\ncontinually appear, and they all insist upon being dealt with by\nthe Church. In order to deal with them adequately and worthily, a\nfaithful Church must turn to Christ to see what God would have it\ndo; and if Christ be what we take Him to be, there will issue from\nHim a light, unseen or unnoticed before, to meet the hitherto unfelt\nneed. Moreover, while our Lord Jesus Christ reveals God completely\nas the God of Redemption, and throws light upon all God's relations\nto man, a light which needs and admits of no supplementary addition,\nthere are other aspects of the Divine character which He does not\nso entirely reveal. For example, God's relations to the world of\nnature, which are now being unveiled in a most striking manner, are\ndealt with comparatively rarely in the Gospels. Are we to shut our\neyes to these as of no importance, and to allow them no influence\nupon our thoughts? Surely that cannot be demanded of us; for, to\nspeak plainly, it is impossible. No one can remain unmoved when God\nand man are revealing themselves in the wondrous panorama of the\nworld's life.\n\nEven those who most profess to do so in no case take their stand\nsimply and solely upon the truths believed and held by the first\nChristians. All of them have adopted later developments as part of\ntheir indefeasible treasure. Some go back to the theology of the\ngreat Evangelical Revival only; some to the Reformation; some to the\npre-Reformation Scholastics; others to the first five centuries. But\nwhatever the point may be at which they take up Christian theology,\nthey take up, along with the original creed of the first believers,\nsome truths or doctrines which emerged and were accepted at a later\ndate. Themselves being judges, therefore, additions to the primitive\ndeposit of faith have to be admitted; and it is a purely arbitrary\nproceeding on their part to say that now we have attained to all\ntruth, and stolid conservatism is henceforth the only faithful\nattitude. No, we have still a living God and a living Church, and a\nmultifarious and wonderful world to deal with. Interaction of these\ncannot be avoided, nor can it occur without new truth being evolved.\nTo have ears and not to hear, to have eyes and not to see, must be\nas offensive to God now as it was in Old Testament times. Though we\nhave now no inspired prophets to foresee and interpret, we have in\nall our Churches men whose ears are better attuned to the celestial\nharmony than others, whose eyes have a keener and surer insight\ninto what God the Lord would speak; and we ought to hear them, to\nsee at least whether they can make their position good. To reject\ntheir teaching, only because some element or aspect of it is new,\nis to deny the guiding providence of God, to turn our back upon the\nrich stores of instruction which the facts of history, both secular\nand religious, are fitted to impart. That can never be a Christian\nduty. Even if it were possible it would be futile. The light will be\nreceived by the younger, the fresher and less stereotyped natures in\nall the Churches; and those who refuse it, in holding obstinately\nand with exclusive devotion to what they have, will find it shrink\nand shrivel in their hand. Only in the rush and conflict, only amid\nthe impulses and the powers which are moving in the world, can a\nhealthy religion breathe. Doubtless new teaching will come to _us_\nin ways congruous to the completed Revelation of our Redeeming\nGod; but it will come; and it should be welcomed as gladly as the\nteaching of the prophets was welcomed by faithful men in Israel. If\nit be not, then the Divine threat will apply in this case as fully\nas in the other: \"Whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he\nshall speak in My name, I will require it of him.\"\n\nMany say now, and at all times many have said, to those who had\ncaught glimpses of some new lesson God was desiring to teach: \"You\nadmit that souls have been renewed and character built up and\nspiritual life preserved without this new teaching. Why then can\nyou not let us alone? In your pursuit of the best you may destroy\nthe good; and no harm can happen if you keep the improved faith to\nyourself.\" But they have forgotten Yahweh's solemn \"Whosoever will\nnot hearken, I will require it of him.\" If we refuse to hear when\nthe Lord hath spoken, evil must come of it. Indeed, though the evils\nof heresy may be more dramatically and strikingly manifest, those\nof stagnation and a refusal to learn may be much more destructive\nof the common faith. For refusal to acknowledge truth has far wider\nissues than the loss of any particular truth. It indicates and\nreinforces an attitude of soul which, if persisted in, will allow\nthe Church that adopts it to drift slowly away from living contact\nwith the minds of men. So drifting, it shrinks into a _coterie_, and\nits every activity becomes infected with the curse of futility.\n\nOn both sides, therefore, there is danger for us, as there was for\nthe Old Testament Church; and we turn with quickened interest to the\ntest, the criterion, by which Deuteronomy would have the prophets\ntried. It puts the very question which the line of thought we have\nbeen pursuing could not fail to suggest: \"How shall we know the\nword which Yahweh hath not spoken?\" If a prophet spoke in the name\nof other gods he was to die; that had already been determined in\nthe thirteenth chapter, and it is repeated here. But the prophet\nwho should speak a word presumptuously in the name of Yahweh, which\nHe had not commanded, was to be in the same condemnation. It was,\ntherefore, of the last importance that there should be means of\ndetecting when this last evil occurred. The test is this: \"When a\nprophet speaketh in the name of Yahweh, if the thing follow not,\nnor come to pass, that is the thing which Yahweh hath not spoken.\"\nThe strange notions of Duhm and others in regard to this have been\nalready dealt with (_vide_ pp. 248 f.). There, too, it has been\nshown that the prophecy here spoken of must have been prophecy in\nits narrower sense, prophecy dealing with promises of _immediate_\njudgment and deliverance. Furthermore, this is set forth here as a\ntest applicable to prophets in all ages of the history of Israel. It\nlies, too, in the nature of the case that it must always have been\nthe popular test. The announcement of things to come before they\ncame was made, at least partially, with the view of impressing the\npopulace, and of gaining their confidence and attention. They must\nconsequently have been continually on the alert to apply this test,\nand all that is here done is to acknowledge it in the fullest manner\nas a right and Divinely approved criterion.\n\nBut the way in which it ought to be applied is best exemplified by\nJeremiah's own method of applying it, which, as Dr. Edersheim[96]\nhas pointed out, is to be found in the twenty-eighth chapter of\nthat prophet's book. There we read of Jeremiah's conflict with\n\"Hananiah the son of Azzur the prophet,\" in the beginning of the\nreign of Zedekiah. Just previously Nebuchadnezzar had carried away\nJeconiah the king of Judah, with all the treasures of the house of\nYahweh and the strength of the people. Jeremiah had prophesied that\nthey would not return; nay, he had foretold a further calamity,\nviz. that Nebuchadnezzar would come again and would take away\nthe people and the vessels of the house which still remained. In\nopposition to that, Hananiah declared, as a word of Yahweh, \"Within\ntwo full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels\nof Yahweh's house that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away\nfrom this place, and carried them to Babylon; and I will bring\nagain to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah,\nwith all the captives of Judah that went to Babylon, saith Yahweh.\"\nJeremiah's conduct under these circumstances is noteworthy. He\ndid not immediately denounce his rival as prophesying falsely. He\nseems to have thought that possibly he might have a true word from\nYahweh, since, as we see in the Book of Jonah, the most positive\nprophecies were conditional, and Jeremiah would seem to have thought\nit possible that personal repentance was about to bring upon the\ncaptive king and people a blessing, instead of the evil he had\nforeseen. He consequently expressed a fervent wish that Hananiah's\nprophecy might come true, but reminded his rival that the causes of\nthe evil prophecies of himself and previous prophets were far wider\nthan the ground which the personal repentance of the captives could\ncover. Because of that he evidently felt the gravest doubt about\nHananiah; but he disposes of the matter by saying, \"The prophet\nwhich prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come\nto pass, then shall the prophet be known, that Yahweh hath truly\nsent him.\" Only afterwards, when he had himself received a special\nrevelation concerning Hananiah, did he denounce him as an impostor\nand a false prophet.\n\n  [96] _Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah_, p. 150.\n\nThe whole narrative is of extreme importance, for it shows us how\nthe prophets themselves regarded their own supernatural powers, and\nhow they used the tests supplied in Deuteronomy. In the first place,\nthey asked how the new word of Yahweh stood in regard to the older\nwords which He had certainly spoken. If there was any possible way\nin which the new and the old could be reconciled, they gave the\nnew the benefit of the doubt, and left the decision to the event.\nObviously had there been no way of reconciling Hananiah's prophecy\nwith the mass of contrary prophecy which had gone before, Jeremiah\nwould have denounced him under the law of Deut. xiii. 5 as leading\naway from Yahweh. As it was, he fell back upon the test in this\ntwenty-eighth chapter, and would have maintained an attitude of\nwatchful neutrality until the event had justified or condemned his\nrival, had not Yahweh Himself settled the question.\n\nFor our own day and in our different circumstances the tests are\nradically the same, though, as prophecy is extinct in the Church,\nthey must to some extent act differently. The New Testament parallel\nto the criterion in Deut. xiii. 5 is to be found in 1 John iv.\n1, 2, and 3: \"Prove the spirits, whether they are of God: because\nmany false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye\nthe Spirit of God: every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ\nis come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit which confesseth\nnot Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist,\nwhereof ye have heard that it cometh.\" Under the Christian\ndispensation to deny \"that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh\" is\nthe same as it was to say under the earlier dispensation \"Let us\ngo after other gods,\" so completely do God and Christ coincide in\nour most holy faith. In each case the ultimate test of prophecy is\nto be the fundamental principle of the faith. Whatever credentials\nteachers who deny that may bring, they are to be unhesitatingly\nrejected. They belong to the world, that scheme and fabric of\nthings which rejects allegiance to the Spirit of God. Least of all\nis popularity with the world as distinguished from the Church, or\nwith the worldly portion of the Church, to stand in the way of its\nrejection. That is only the natural consequence of its being \"of\nthe world.\" Within the Church no quarter is to be shown to such\nteaching, for it really carries with it the absolute negation of the\nfaith.\n\nBut what of erroneous teaching which acknowledges that \"Jesus\nChrist is come in the flesh\"? To it the Old Testament parallel is\nthe utterance of the prophet who \"speaketh in the name of Yahweh,\nand the thing followeth not nor comes to pass.\" According to Old\nTestament precept and example, that was to be left to the judgment\nof time. In our day a corresponding course must be found. The case\nsupposed is that of teaching believed to be erroneous, but neither\nfundamentally subversive of Christianity nor destructive of the\nspecial principles of a Church. If so, earnest opposition by those\nwho hold the opposite view, and adequate discussion, are the true\nway of meeting the case. For the rest, the final decision should be\nleft to experience. In time, even subsidiary error of this kind,\nif important, will manifest itself by weakening spiritual life in\nthose who hold it; they will gradually dwindle in numbers and their\ninfluence in the Church will die away. They begin by promising\nrenewed strength and insight in spiritual things, renewed energy in\nthe spiritual life. If that \"follow not nor come to pass,\" when due\ntime has been given for any such development, then that is the thing\nwhich the Lord hath not spoken, and it should be dealt with as the\nfundamental heresy is to be dealt with. But probably by that time it\nwill have judged itself, and will need no judgment of men at all.\n\nThese then were the connecting links between Yahweh and His people,\nand the organs by which the life of the Israelite nation was guided:\nthe Kingship, the Priesthood, and the Prophetic Order. The first\ngave visibility to the Divine rule, and stability to national\nand social life; the second secured the stability of religion,\nand built up the moral life of the nation on the basis of Mosaic\nlaw; the third secured progress and averted stagnation, both in\nreligion and in social and individual morals. In fact, order and\nprogress, the two things Positivist thinkers have set forth as\nthose which can alone secure health to a community, are provided\nfor here with a directness and success which it would be difficult\nto parallel elsewhere. When we remember how small, how obscure,\nand how uncivilised the people was to whom this scheme of things\nwas given, and how little their surroundings or circumstances were\ncalculated to suggest such far-reaching provisions, we see that\nthe source of it all was the Revelation of the Divine character\ngiven by Moses. Yahweh as revealed through him did not permit His\nworshippers to believe that they could, at one moment, receive all\nthat was to be known about Him. They were taught to found their\nconduct and their polity upon what they did know, and to be eagerly\non the watch for that which might be revealed at new crises of their\nhistory. Now that teaching finds its most complete expression in\nthe laws concerning the three institutions we have been reviewing.\nBehind all healthy national life and all stable institutions there\nwas, so had this people learned, the power and the righteousness of\nAlmighty God. In His eagerness to draw near to men, He had changed\nthe priest, the king, the prophet from being, as they were among\nthe heathen, merely political and religious officials appointed\nfor purely earthly ends, into channels of communication with\nHim. Through them there were poured into the life of this nation\nwholesome and varied streams of Divine grace and enlightenment,\nand a just balance between conservatism and reform in religion was\nadmirably secured. Consequently, amid all drawbacks, the Israelites\nbecame an instrument of the finest power for good in the hands of\ntheir Almighty King; and even when their outward glory faded, they\nwere inwardly renewed and pressed onward age after age. \"Without\nhasting and without resting,\" the purpose of God was realised in\ntheir history, guided by these three organs of their national life.\nEach contributed its share in preparing for the fulness of the\ntime when He came who was the Salvation of God, and each supplied\nelements of the most essential kind to the mingled expectation which\nwas so marvellously satisfied by the life and work of Christ. They\nwrought together in the fullest harmony, moreover, though they were\nnot always conscious of doing so. For they all moved at the bidding\nof the still small voice wherewith God speaks most effectively to\nthe souls of men. Because of this their purposes took a wider sweep\nthan they knew, their hopes received wings which carried them far\naway beyond the horizon of Old Testament time; and, starting from\nthe remotest points, all the streams of the national life converged,\ntill, at the close of the Old Testament time, they were running in\nsuch directions that they could not fail in little space to meet.\nIt was therefore no surprise to the faithful in Israel when, at the\nbeginning of the New Testament, they were found to have met in Jesus\nthe Christ. Once that point was reached, the whole former history,\nwhich was now lying completed before the eyes of all, could be\nfully appreciated. Everything in the past seemed to speak of Him.\nIf, in that first burst of joyous surprise, Messianic references of\nthe most definite kind were found where we now can see only faint\nhints and adumbrations, we need not wonder. So much more had been\nspoken of Him than they had thought, it would have been strange had\nthey not swung a little to the opposite extreme. But that need not\nhinder us from acknowledging that the history of Israel, viewed\nfrom their standpoint, was and is the most conspicuous, the most\nconvincing, the most inspiring proof of the Divine action in the\nworld. The finger of God was so manifestly _here_, harmonising,\ndirecting, impelling, that the evidence for Divine guidance in much\nmore obscure regions becomes irresistible. With this history before\nus we can believe that it was not only in those far-off days, and in\nthat little corner of Asia that God was active for the production of\ngood. Now and here, as well as then and there, there are Divine and\nguiding forces at work in the world; and the only safe politics, the\nonly truly prosperous peoples, are those in which rulers and priests\nand prophets are secured, to whom the secret of God is open.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\n_THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ISRAELITE LIFE_\n\n\nIt has often and justly been said that the life of Israel is so\nentirely founded on the grace and favour of God that no distinction\nis made between the secular and the religious laws. Whatever their\norigin may have been, whether they had been part of the tribal\nconstitution before Moses' day or not, they were all regarded as\nDivinely given. They had been accepted as fit building stones for\nthe great edifice of that national life in which God was to reveal\nHimself to all mankind, and behind them all was the same Divine\nauthority. That being so, it is not wonderful, in times like these,\nwhen the air is full of plans and theories for the reconstruction\nof society in the interest of the toiling masses of men, that\nbelievers in the Scriptures should turn with hope to the legislation\nof the Old Testament. In the present state of things the material\nconditions of life are far more deadening and demoralising for the\nmultitude in civilised countries than they are in many uncivilised\nlands. That this should be so is intolerable to all who think and\nfeel; and men turn with hope to a scene where God is teaching and\ntraining men, not merely in regard to their individual life, as\nin the New Testament, but also in regard to national life. It is\nseen, too, that the tone and feeling of these laws are sympathetic\nfor the poor as no other code has ever been; and many maintain\nthat, if we would only return to the provisions of these laws, the\nsocial crisis which is as yet only in its beginning, and which\nthreatens to darken and overshadow all lands, would be at once and\nwholly averted. Men consequently are diligently inquiring what the\nland tenure of ancient Israel was, what its trade laws were, how\nthe poor were dealt with, and how and to what extent pauperism was\naverted or provided for. Many say, If God has spoken in and by this\npeople, so that their first steps in religion and morals have been\nthe starting-point for the highest life of humanity, may we not\nexpect that their first steps in political and social life will\nhave the same abiding value, if rightly understood? Now the main\nthing in regard to which the economical arrangements of a nation are\nimportant is land. In modern times there may be some exceptionally\nsituated communities, such as the British people, among whom\ncommerce and manufactures are more important than agriculture; but\nin ancient times no such case could arise. In every community the\nland and the land tenure were the fundamentally important things.\n\nNow the fundamental thing concerning it was that Yahweh, being\nthe King of Israel, who had formed and was guiding this people as\nHis instrument for saving the world, and who had bestowed their\ncountry upon them, was regarded as the sole owner of the soil. It\nis not necessary to quote texts to prove this, since it is the\nfundamental assumption throughout the Old Testament Scriptures that\nthe Israelite title to their land was the gift of Yahweh. He had\npromised it to the fathers. He had driven out the Canaanite nations\nbefore Israel. He had by His mighty hand and His stretched-out arm\nestablished His chosen people in the place which He had chosen, and\nHe had granted them the use and enjoyment of it so long as they\nproved faithful to Him. Consequently, in a quite real and palpable\nsense, there was no owner of land in Israel save Yahweh. And this\nthought was not without practical consequences of great moment. It\nwas not a mere religious sentiment, it was a hard and palpable fact,\nthat Yahweh ruled. Absolute proprietorship could never be built up\non that basis, and never as a matter of fact, was acknowledged in\nIsrael. All were tenants, who held their places only so long as\nthey obeyed the statutes of Yahweh. The sale in perpetuity of that\nwhich had been portioned out to tribes and families was consequently\nentirely prohibited. As against other nations, indeed, Israel was\nto possess this land, so that no heathen could be permitted to\nbuy and possess even a scrap of it; but as against Yahweh and the\npurposes for which He had chosen Israel, all were equally strangers\nand sojourners, practically tenants at will, who could neither give\nnor take their holdings as if they were absolutely theirs. Yet,\nrelatively, the land was given to the community as a whole, and\naccording to Joshua xiii. 7 sqq. (a passage generally assigned to\nthe Deuteronomic editor) it was parcelled out by lot to the various\ntribes just before Joshua's death, according to their respective\nnumbers.[97] Then within the tribal domain the families in the wider\nsense had their portion, and within these family domains again the\nindividual households. In this way the Israelite tenure of land\noccupies a middle point between the theories of Socialism, and the\nhigh doctrine of private property in land which declares that the\nindividual owner can do what he will with his own. The nation as\na whole claimed rights over all the land, but it did not attempt\nto manage the public estate for the common good. It delegated its\npowers to the tribes. But not even they undertook the burdens\nof proprietorship. Under them the families undertook a general\nsuperintendence; but the true proprietary rights, the cultivation\nof the soil, and the drawing of profit from it, subject only to\ndeductions made by the larger bodies, the families, the tribes,\nand the nation, were exercised only by individuals. The nation\ntook care that none of its territory should be sold to foreigners,\nlest the national inheritance should be diminished, and the tribes\ndid the same for the tribal heritage, as we see from the narrative\nconcerning the daughters of Zelophehad. It was only within limits\ntherefore, that the individual proprietor was free; and though the\nrights of property were respected, the corresponding duties of\nproperty were set forth with irresistible clearness. The community,\nin fact, never abandoned its claims upon the common heritage, any\nmore than Israel's Divine King did, and consequently the field\nwithin which proprietary rights were exercised was more restricted\nhere than in any modern state.\n\n  [97] Cf. Numb. xxvi. 53-55 from P and Josh. xvii. 14 ff. from JE.\n\nFurther, besides the prohibition of absolute sale which flowed from\nthe recognition of Yahweh's ownership, and the limitations which\ntribal and family claims involved, there were distinct provisions\nin which the national ownership under Yahweh was plainly asserted.\nFor example, it is enacted in Deut. xxiii. 24--\"When thou comest\ninto thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill\nat thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.\nWhen thou comest into thy neighbour's standing corn, then thou\nmayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a\nsickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.\" Allied to these were the\nprovisions (Lev. xix. 9 ff., xxiii. 10) concerning gleaning, and not\nreaping the corners of the field. It will be observed that, though\nthese latter may be discounted as intended for the relief of the\npoor alone, the former provision was for all, and that consequently\nit may be regarded as an undoubted assertion of the common\nownership, or common _usufruct_, which, though latent, was always\nheld to be a fact. In other ways also the same hint is given. The\nprovisions for letting the land lie fallow in the seventh year and\nin the jubilee year, and for securing the use of what grew in the\nfield for all who chose to take it, were interferences with the\nfree-will of the individual owners or occupiers, which find their\njustification only in the fact that the general ownership was never\nsuffered entirely to fall into the background.\n\nTo sum up then this system aimed at securing the advantages both of\nthe socialist view and of the individualistic view, while avoiding\nthe evils of both. Private enterprise was encouraged, by the\nindividual being guaranteed possession of his land against any other\nindividual; while public spirit and a regard for general interests\nwere promoted by the restrictions which limited the private\nownership. Further, and more important still, the whole relation\nof the nation and of the individual to the land was raised out of\nthe merely sordid region of material gain into the spiritual and\nmoral region, by the principle that Yahweh their God alone had full\nproprietary rights over the soil. All were \"sojourners\" with Him.\nHe had promised this land to their fathers as the place wherein He\nshould specially reveal Himself to them. Here, communion with Him\nwas to be established, and to each household there had been assigned\nby Yahweh a special portion of it, which it would be equally a\nsin and an unspeakable loss to part with. Compulsion alone could\njustify such a surrender; and the completed legislation, whatever\nits date, and even if it remained always an unrealised ideal, shows\nhow determined the effort was to secure the perpetuity of the tenure\nin the original hands. The ideal of Israelite life was consequently\nthat the land should remain in the hands of the hereditary owners,\nand that the main support of all the people should be agricultural\nlabour.[98]\n\n  [98] The questions connected with the jubilee year are numerous and\n  intricate, and it may be for ever impossible, from lack of data,\n  to decide at what period in Israelite history it originated, or\n  whether it was ever actually observed; but it undoubtedly expressed\n  the spirit of the Israelite legislation and customary law at all\n  times. It is the natural culmination of tendencies and ideas which\n  were always present. That it is not mentioned in Deuteronomy at\n  all is surprising, if it had been previously to Manasseh's day\n  embodied either in custom or in law; yet, on the other hand, there\n  are references in Ezekiel and other exilic books which are almost\n  unintelligible except on the supposition that the jubilee year was\n  a perfectly well-known institution (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff.; Ezek.\n  vii. 12 f.; Ezek. xlvi. 16 ff.; Isa. lxi. 1 ff.). It is referred to\n  in a merely allusive way, which implies that every hearer or reader\n  of the prophetic warnings would know at once the full scope and\n  meaning of the reference. Now, had the jubilee year been unknown\n  before the Exile, had it been introduced by the author of Lev. xxv.\n  just before Ezekiel, no such assumption could have been made. It\n  would, therefore, seem necessary to suppose that the ordinance for\n  a jubilee year must have existed in pre-exilic time; for, strange\n  as Deuteronomy's silence in regard to it is, the _argumentum e\n  silentio_ cannot weigh against indications of a positive kind, were\n  they even fainter than those we have in regard to this matter.\n\nThe hypothesis that this was the case is strengthened to a certainty\nby the manner in which commerce, one of the other main sources of\nwealth, is dealt with in the Israelite law. There is but little\nsympathy expressed with it, and some of the regulations issued are\nsuch as to render trade on any very large scale within Palestine\nitself impossible. From the use of the word \"Canaanite\" in the Old\nTestament (cf. Job xli. 6; Prov. xxxi. 24; Zeph. i. 11; Ezek. xvii.\n4, and Isa. xxiii. 8) it is clear that, even in the later periods\nof Israelite history, the merchants were so prevailingly Canaanites\nthat the two words are synonymous. Nay, more; there can be no doubt\nthat the commercial career was looked down upon. Even as early as\nthe prophet Hosea the Canaanite name is connected with false weights\nand vulgar commercial cheating (Hos. xii. 7), and it is looked upon\nas a last degradation that Ephraim should take delight in similar\npursuits. In all that we read of merchants in the Old Testament we\nseem to hear the expression of a feeling that commerce, with its\nnecessary wanderings, its temptations to dishonesty, its constant\ncontact with heathen peoples, was an occupation that was unworthy\nof a son of Israel. Even Solomon's success as a royal merchant\nwould not seem to have overcome this feeling, nor did the later\ncommercial successes of kings like Jehoshaphat. In fact the ordinary\nIsraelite had the home-staying farmer's contempt and suspicion of\nthese far-wandering commercial people, so much more nimble-witted\nthan himself, who were therefore to be regarded with half-admiring\nwariness.\n\nBut the very sinews of extensive commerce were cut by the law\nagainst the taking of interest from a brother Israelite.[99]\nWithout credit, or the lending of money, or what is called sleeping\npartnership (and all these are bound up with receiving interest), it\nis impossible to have extensive trade. Without them every merchant\nwould have to limit his operations to cash transactions and to his\nown immediate capital, and the great combinations which especially\nbring wealth would be impossible. Now we do not need at present to\ndiscuss the wisdom of prohibiting the taking of interest, nor the\nstill more debated question whether that ancient prohibition would\nbe wise or advantageous now. It is enough for our purpose that usury\nin its literal sense was actually forbidden among Israelites, and\nthat they were thus shut out from the developed commercial life of\nthe surrounding nations. As a result trade remained in a merely\nembryonic condition.\n\n  [99] Cf. K\u00fcbel, _Die sociale und wirthschaftliche Gesetzgebung des\n  Alten Testaments_ p. 47.\n\nBut in still other ways the Sinaitic legislation interfered with\nits development. The inculcation of ceremonial purity, especially\nin food, and the effort to make Israel a peculiar people unto\nYahweh, which distinguishes even the earlier forms of the law, made\nintercourse with foreigners and living abroad, always difficult,\nand under some circumstances impossible. Consequently all the\nlegislation that can possibly be considered commercial was of a very\nrudimentary character. From every point of view it is clear that\nancient Israel was not a commercial people, and that the Divine law\nwas intended to restrain them from commercial pursuits. They could\nnot have been the holy and peculiar people they were meant to be,\nhad they become a nation of traffickers.\n\nWith regard to manufacturing industries the case was not essentially\ndifferent. Such pursuits were, it is true, more honoured than\ncommerce was, for skill in all arts, whether agricultural or\nindustrial, was regarded as a special gift of the Almighty. But so\nfar as the records go, there is no evidence that a manufacturing\nindustry existed, beyond what the very limited needs of the nation\nitself demanded. From the fact that, according to Prov. xxxi. 24,\nwhich was probably written late in the history of Israel, the\nmanufacturing of linen garments for sale and of girdles for the\nCanaanites was the business of the thrifty and virtuous housewife,\nwe may gather that systematic wholesale manufacture of such things\nwas unknown. Probably the case was not otherwise in regard to all\nbranches of industry. There are no traces of trade castes, nor\nof manufacturing towns; so that the manufacturing industries, so\nfar as they existed, had no other place than that of handmaids to\nagriculture, by which the nation really lived.\n\nAccording to the Old Testament, then, the ideal state of things for\na people like Israel was that every household should be settled upon\nthe land, that permanent eviction from or even alienation of the\nholdings should be impossible, and that the whole population should\nhave a common interest in agriculture, that most honourable and\nfundamental of all human pursuits. There were, of course, some men\nin Israel more prominent than others, and some richer, but there\nwas to be no impassable barrier between classes such as we find in\nEastern countries where caste prevails, or in Western countries\nwhere the aristocratic principle has drawn a deep dividing line\nbetween those of \"good\" blood and all others. So far as is known,\nthere were no class barriers to intermarriage. From the highest\nto the lowest, all were servants of Yahweh, and were consequently\nequal. The conditions of the land tenure were such that it was\nimpossible, if they were respected, that large estates should\naccumulate in the hands of individuals, and a landless proletariate\ncould not arise. The very rich and the very poor were alike\nlegislated out of existence, and a sufficient provision for all\nwas that which was aimed at. By the cycle of Sabbatic periods (the\nweekly Sabbath, the Sabbatic year, and the year of jubilee) ample\nrest for the land and its inhabitants was secured; and in the limits\nset upon the period for which a Hebrew slave might be retained, in\nthe release, whatever that was, which the seventh year brought to\nthe debtor, and in the restoration of land to the impoverished owner\nin the year of jubilee, such a series of breakwaters were erected\nagainst the inrushing flood of pauperism, that, had they been\nmaintained, the world would have seen for the first time a fairly\ncivilised community in which even moderate ill-desert in a man could\nnot bring irretrievable ruin upon his posterity. The prodigal was\nhindered from selling his heritage; he could only sell the use of\nit for a number of years. He could not ruin himself by borrowing\nat extravagant rates of interest, for no one was tempted to lend\nhim, and usury was forbidden. He might indeed run into debt and be\nsold into slavery along with his family, but that could only be for\na few years, and then they all resumed their former position. In\nthis very land where the fact, Divinely impressed upon human life,\nthat the sins of the fathers were visited on the children was most\nunflinchingly taught, the most elaborate precautions were taken\nto mitigate the severity of this necessary law. From the first\nthe ideal was that there should be no son or daughter of Israel\noppressed or impoverished permanently; and whatever the stages of\nadvance in Israelite law may have been, and whatever the date of\nparticular ordinances may be, there is an admirable consistency\nof aim throughout. Even should it be proved that the Sabbatic\nordinances remained mere generous aspirations, which never entered\ninto the practical life of the people at all, that fact would only\nemphasise the earnestness and persistency with which the inspired\nlegislators pursued their generous aim. No change in circumstances\nturned them aside. The glitter of the wealth acquired by Solomon and\nother kings by commerce never seduced them. No ideal but that early\none of every man sitting under his own vine and his own fig-tree,\nwith none to make him afraid, which is witnessed to before the Exile\n(Micah iv. 4), in the Exile (1 Kings iv. 25), and after the Exile\n(Zech. iii. 10), was ever cherished by them; and the whole economic\nlegislation is entirely consistent with what we know of the earliest\ntime. And the deepest roots of it all were religious. The Biblical\nwriters have no doubt at all that the ideal economic state can be\nreached only by a people attuned by religion to self-sacrifice,\nto pity, and to justice. In this they differ radically from the\nsocialists or semi-socialists of to-day. These imagine that man\nneeds only a favourable environment to become good; whereas the\nScriptural writers know that to use well the best environment\nis a task which, more than anything, puts strain upon the moral\nand spiritual nature. For to deal in a supremely wise fashion\nwith great opportunities is the part only of a nature perfectly\nmoralised. Consequently all the social laws of Israel are made to\nhave their root in the relation of the people to their God.\n\nThere was only one power that could secure that this admirable\nmachinery would move, and keep it moving. That was the love and fear\nof God. The conduct prescribed was the conduct befitting the _true_\nIsraelite, the man who was faithful in all his ways. The laws marked\nout the paths wherein he should walk if he willed to do God's will.\nThey were, therefore, ideal in all their highest prescriptions, and\ncould never become real except where the true religion had had its\nperfect work. In that respect the Sermon on the Mount resembles the\nIsraelite law. It presupposes a completely Christian society, just\nas the old law presupposes a completely Yahwistic society, _i.e._\na society made up of men who made devotion to their God the chief\nmotive of their lives. In such a community there would have been\nno difficulty in entirely realising the state of things aimed at\nhere, just as in a community penetrated by the love of Christ the\nSermon on the Mount would be not only practicable but natural. But\nwithout that supreme motive much that the enactments of both the Old\nTestament and the New demand must remain mere aspiration. Just in\nproportion as Israel was true to Yahweh was the law realised, and\nthe demands of the law always acted as a spur to the better part of\nthe people to enter into fuller sympathy and communion with Him in\norder that they might respond to them. The law and the religion of\nthe people acted and reacted upon one another, but the greater of\nthese two elements was religion.\n\nIt was not wonderful, therefore, that to a large extent this\nlegislation failed, as men measure failure. The religious state\nof the nation never was what it should have been; and the law,\nthough it was held to be Divine, was never wholly observed. In\nthe Northern Kingdom, by the time of the Syrian wars, the old\nconstitution of Israel had broken up. The hardy yeomanry had been\nruined and dispersed. Their lands had been seized or bought by\nthe rich, and every law that had been made to ensure restoration\nwas habitually disregarded. As Robertson Smith states it,[100]:\n\"The unhappy Syrian wars sapped the strength of the country, and\ngradually destroyed the old peasant proprietors who were the best\nhope of the nation. The gap between the many poor and the few rich\nbecame wider and wider. The landless classes were ground down by\nusury and oppression, for in that state of society the landless man\nhad no career in trade, and was at the mercy of the landholding\ncapitalist.\" And in Judah the state of things, though not so bad,\nwas similar. In the days of Zedekiah we know that Hebrew slaves were\nheld for life, instead of being released in the seventh year.[101]\nThe properties of those compelled to sell were never returned to the\nowners, and all the laws that were meant to secure the welfare and\nprosperity of the masses of Israel were contemptuously disregarded.\nIn short, the worst features of a purely competitive civilisation,\nwith materialism eating into its soul, became glaringly manifest.\nAll the canonical prophets without exception denounce the vices and\ntyrannies of the rich.[102] As far as can be learned, moreover,\nthe year of release and the Sabbatic year were not regularly or\ngenerally observed, while the jubilee year would seem never to have\nbeen kept after the Exile. The laws regarding taking interest were\nalso evaded.[103]\n\n  [100] _Prophets of Israel_, p. 88.\n\n  [101] Cf. Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff.\n\n  [102] Cf. Amos ii. 6 ff.\n\n  [103] Neh. v. 1 seq.\n\nNevertheless it would be a great error to suppose that these\nDivinely given social laws should be branded as a failure. They\nwere not lived up to, and it is not improbable that the corruption\nof the people's life was in a degree intensified by the reaction\nfrom so high an ideal. But the axiom which is current now in all\nthe newspapers, that laws too far above the general level of the\nnational conscience cannot be enforced, and becoming a dead letter\ntend to produce lawlessness, does not apply to such codes as those\nof Israel. These, as has more than once been pointed out, were not\nof the same character as our legal codes are. Among us, laws are\nmeant to be observed with minute and careful diligence, and any\nbreach of them is punished by the courts, which, on the whole, can\nbe easily set in motion. Ancient religious codes are never of that\nkind. They do contain laws of that character, but the bulk of the\nprovisions are not laws which the executive is to enforce, but\nideals of conduct which the true worshipper of God ought to strive\nto attain to. It is, therefore, of their very essence that they\nshould be far above the average national conscience. Nations whose\nideals soar no higher than the possible attainment of the average\nman as he is, have virtually no ideals at all, and are cut off from\nall enduring upward impulses. Those, on the contrary, who have a\nvision of the perfect life, are certain to be both humbler, and at\nthe same time more sure to persist in the painful path of moral\ndiscipline. As \"a man's reach should exceed his grasp,\" so also\nshould a nation's; and though it is almost always forgotten, it is\nprecisely Israel's glory that she set up for herself and exhibited\nto the world an ideal of brotherhood, of love to God and man, to\nwhich she could not attain. Great as the practical failure in Israel\nwas, therefore, no fault can be found in the legislation. It moulded\nthe characters of men who were sensitive to the influences coming\nfrom God, so that they became fit instruments of inspiration; and it\nmade their lives examples of the highest virtue that the ancient\nworld knew. Further, it gave shape to the hopes and aspirations\nof the people, especially where it was not realised. The year of\njubilee, for example, is the groundwork of that great and affecting\npromise contained in Isa. lxi: \"The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is\nupon me, because Yahweh hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto\nthe meek; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim\nliberty (_deror_) to the captives, and the opening of the prison\nto them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of Yahweh\nand the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.\"\nThat which was unattainable here, amid the greeds and lusts of an\nunspiritual generation, gave colour to the Messianic future; and men\nwere taught to look and wait for a kingdom of God in which a peace\nand truth that could not as yet be reached would be the certain\npossession of all.\n\nWhen we turn to modern times and modern circumstances, it is not\neasy to see how this ancient law can be applicable to them. In the\nfirst place, much of it was made binding upon Israel only because\nof its peculiar character as the people to whom the true religion\nwas revealed. As custodians of that, they were justified in keeping\nup walls of partition between themselves and the world, which if\nuniversally accepted would only be hurtful to the highest interests\nof mankind. On the contrary, the development of the true religion\nhaving been completed by the coming of Christ, it is the duty of\nthose nations which enjoy the light to spread abroad the \"good news\"\nof God which they have received, and to exhibit its power among all\nthe nations of the earth. The highest and most Divine call which\ncan now come to any people must, therefore, be radically different\nin some chief aspects from that of Israel. In the second place, the\ncivilisation and culture of the great nations of to-day are far\nmore complicated than any ancient civilisation ever was, and the\ngeneral level is fixed by an action and reaction extending over the\nwhole civilised world. No successes can be achieved, no blunders can\nbe committed, in any part of the world which do not affect almost\nimmediately the farthest ends of the earth. Moreover the intimate\nand universal correlation of interest makes interference with any\npart of the complicated whole an exceedingly perilous matter. Any\nproposal that this law, as being Divinely given, ought in its\neconomic aspect to be made universally binding, should therefore\nbe met by a demand for a careful inquiry into possible differences\nbetween ancient life and modern, which might make guidance Divinely\ngiven to the one inapplicable to the other. It is not necessarily\ntrue that because Israel by Divine command established every\nhousehold upon the soil, forbade interest, and did nothing to\nencourage trade and manufactures, we should do these things. Take,\nfor instance, the case of interest. In our day, and in civilisations\nof a high type, lending money to a person not in distress at all,\nbut who sees an opportunity of making-enough by the use of borrowed\nmoney to pay the interest and make a profit, is often a most\npraiseworthy and charitable act.\n\nBut if the Israelite legislation in regard to interest cannot justly\nbe taken as a law for all time, still less can any great modern\nstate neglect or discourage commerce and manufactures. The merely\nembryonic character of commercial legislation, and the contempt for\nthe merchant which did in ancient days exist, would be exceedingly\nout of place now. There is no career more honourable than that\nof the merchant of our day when he carries on his business in a\nhigh-minded fashion, nor is there any member of the community whose\ncalling is more beneficent than his. So long as he looks for gain\nto himself in ways which, taken on the great scale, bring benefit\nboth to producer and consumer, his activity is purely beneficial.\nThere is absolutely no reason why commercial life should not be\nas honest, as sound, as much in accord with the mind of God, in\nitself, as any other manner of life. For in many ways it has been\na civilising agent of the highest power. Of course, if the charges\nbrought against merchants by Ruskin, for example, who seizes upon\nand believes every story which involves charges of fraud against\nmodern commerce, were true; if it were impossible, as he says it\nis, for an honest man to prosper in trade, then we might have some\nground for condemning this branch of human activity. But happily\nonly a confirmed and incorrigible pessimist can believe that. In\nour time some of the noblest men of whom we have any knowledge have\nbeen merchants, and among no class has so much princely generosity\nbeen exhibited. If mercantile help had been withdrawn from the poor,\nif the time, the money, the organising skill which merchants have\nfreely expended upon charities were suddenly to fail them, the case\nagainst our modern civilisation would be indefinitely stronger than\nit is. Moreover the immense expansion of credit which is at once\nthe glory and the danger of modern commerce, is itself a proof that\nsuch wholesale condemnation as we have spoken of is unwarrantable.\nThe bulk of commerce must, after all, be fairly sound, otherwise it\ncould not continue and spread as it does. And, as against the evils\nwhich affect it in common with all human activities, we must put\nthe fact that it brings the produce of all lands to the door even\nof the poor, and by the constant contact between nations which it\ncauses it is influencing the thought as well as the lives of men.\nHuman brotherhood is being furthered by it, slowly, it is true, but\nsurely, and the barriers which separate the nations are being sapped\nby its influence. These are indispensable services for the future\nprogress of mankind, and make commerce now as much the necessary\nhandmaid of the highest life as it would have been a hindrance to\nit in the case of the chosen people, before they had assimilated\nthe truths of which they were to be the bearers to the world. That\ncommerce, and trade in general, need to be purified goes without\nsaying. That it may, of late years, have deteriorated, as the\ngeneral decay of faith and the pursuit of luxury have weakened the\nsanctions of morality, is not improbable. But in itself it is not\nonly a legitimate human activity; it is also an admirable instrument\nfor bringing home to the consciences of men the truth that they are\nall their brothers' keepers. It presses home as nothing else could\ndo the great truth proclaimed by St. Paul in regard to the Church,\nas true also of the world, that if one member suffers all the body\nsuffers with it. Every day through this channel men are receiving\nlessons, which they cannot choose but hear, to the effect that no\npermanent benefit can come from the loss and suffering of men in any\npart of the world; that peace and righteousness and good faith are\nthings which have supreme value even in the mercantile sense; and\nthat, conversely, the merchant's pursuit of wealth, if carried on in\naccord with the fundamental truths of morality, inevitably becomes a\npotent factor in that advance to a worldwide knowledge of the Lord,\nwhich gleamed before the eyes of prophets and seers as the\n\n        \"Far-off Divine event,\n    To which the whole creation moves.\"\n\nBut if we cannot make the Old Testament our law in regard to\ncommerce, we must ask whether the legislation in regard to land\nhas for us any binding force? Viewing it with this question in our\nminds, I think we must be struck by one fact, this namely, that\nthe universal possession of land which was provided for in Israel\nand so anxiously maintained is the only provision known against\nthe growth of a wage-earning class largely, if not entirely, at\nthe mercy of the employer. In Greece and Rome the population at\nfirst were all settled on their own lands, and it was only when\nby money-lending the small properties were bought up and turned\ninto huge farms, worked by farm-bailiffs and slaves, that misery\nbegan to invade all parts of the social fabric. In medi\u00e6val and\nfeudal England, on the other hand, and indeed wherever the feudal\nsystem existed, the cultivators, even when they were serfs, had\nan inalienable right to the land. They could not be evicted if\nthey rendered certain not very burdensome services to the lord.\n\"As long as these dues were satisfied, it is plain the tenant was\nsecure from dispossession,\" says Professor Thorold Rogers (_Six\nCenturies_, etc., p. 44). But in time that system was broken down;\nand ever since, until within the last half-century, the course of\nthings with the labouring classes in England has been one long\ndescent. So long as the people were attached to the soil, and so\nlong as all alike practised agriculture, as in Palestine under the\nMosaic law, Englishmen lived in rough plenty, and were for the\nmost part content. The fifteenth century was the golden age of\nmedi\u00e6val agriculture; but a change for the worse came in with the\nseventeenth, and it continued.[104]\n\n  [104] _Contemp. Rev._, 1880, April, p. 681.\n\nTwo measures--the introduction of competitive rents with its\ncorollary, eviction, and the enclosure of the common lands--worked\ngradually on until they have entirely divorced the workman from\nthe soil, and Professor Cairnes[105] has told us clearly what\nthat means. \"In a contest between vast bodies of people so\ncircumstanced and the owners of the soil the negotiation could\nhave but one issue, that of transferring to the owners of the\nsoil the whole produce, _minus_ what was sufficient to maintain\nin the lowest state of existence the race of cultivators. This is\nwhat has happened wherever the owners of the soil, discarding all\nconsiderations but those dictated by self-interest, have really\navailed themselves of the full strength of their position. It is\nwhat has happened under rapacious governments in Asia; it is what\nhas happened under rapacious landlords in Ireland; it is what now\nhappens under the bourgeois proprietors of Flanders; it is, in\nshort, the inevitable result which cannot but happen in the great\nmajority of all societies now existing on earth where land is\ngiven up to be dealt with on commercial principles unqualified by\npublic opinion, custom, or law.\" The result is that the labourers\nhave only their daily wages to depend upon. \"They have no means\nof productive home industry; they have not even a home from which\nthey cannot be ejected at any moment on failure to pay the weekly\nrent; they have no land, garden, or domestic animals, the produce of\nwhich might support them till fresh work could be obtained.\"[106]\nWe need not wonder that this question of the occupancy of land as\nthe only visible remedy for the hideous social state of the most\nhighly civilised nations of the world is gradually becoming _the_\nquestion of our time. A great reaction against the purely commercial\ntheory of land tenure has taken place. The land legislation in\nIreland has been based on the doctrines that the nation cannot\npermit absolute property in land, and that there is no hope for any\npermanent improvement in the condition of the poor until labourers\nhave land of their own. Now these are precisely the principles of\nthe Scriptural land legislation. Under it landlords with absolute\nrights over land were impossible, and the rise of a proletariate\nat the mercy of the capitalist was also impossible. It is not so\nstrange, therefore, as it might at first sight appear that the\ndemands of advanced land reformers, as they are voiced in Mr.\nWallace's book (p. 192), are, _mutatis mutandis_, identical with the\nprovisions of the Israelite law. He demands (1) that landlordism\nshall be superseded by occupying ownership; (2) that the tenure of\nthe holders of land must be made secure and permanent; (3) that\narrangements must be made by which every British subject may secure\na portion of land for personal occupation at its fair agricultural\nvalue; and (4) that in order that these conditions be rendered\npermanent sub-letting must be absolutely prohibited, and mortgages\nstrictly limited. This essential oneness of view in the modern land\nreformer and in the ancient law is all the more remarkable that, so\nfar as can be gathered from his book, Mr. Wallace has never regarded\nthe Old Testament from this point of view. He never quotes it, and\nis apparently quite unconscious that the plan which experience of\npresent evils, and acute and disinterested reflection on them, has\nsuggested to him, was set forth thousands of years ago as the only\nrighteous one.\n\n  [105] _Essays on Political Economy_, p. 201.\n\n  [106] Wallace, _Land Nationalisation_, p. 16.\n\nBut this is not by any means the end of the matter. Even if\nthe social reformers of our day could restore society to the\nconditions set forth so emphatically and so long ago in Israel,\nhistory proves that nothing more than a temporary improvement\nmight be accomplished. In Israel, as we have seen, with the decay\nof religion came the decay of this righteous social state. Human\nselfishness then shook off the curb of religion, and gave itself\nwithout restraint to the oppression of the poor. Have we any reason\nto believe that now human selfishness would do less? There appears\nlittle ground to think so; and though we may believe that without\nthe acceptance of Deuteronomic principles in modern life we cannot\nrestrain the growth of poverty, even with Deuteronomic principles\nembodied in our laws nothing will be done if the people turn their\nbacks upon religion, make selfish enjoyment their highest good, and\nthe comforts and pleasures of a merely material life their only\nheart-warming aspiration. In that fact we have an indication of the\ntrue functions of the Church and of religious teachers in the social\nand political life of our time and of times to come. As individuals,\nreligious men should certainly be found always among the advocates\nof all laws and plans which tend to justice and mercy, and to the\nraising of the toilers everywhere to a higher standard of living.\nFurther, at no time should the Church be found committed to a purely\nconservative policy, of retaining things as they are. The undeniable\nfacts as to the condition of the poor are so utterly unjustifiable,\nthat to leave things as they are is to fall into the treason of\ndespair in regard to the future of our race, and into scarcely\nveiled disbelief of the essential truth of Christianity. No Church\nwhose heart has not been corrupted by worldliness can think for a\nmoment that the present state of things in all highly civilised\ncommunities is even tolerable. It cannot last, and it ought not to\nlast; the Church that timidly supports it, lest worst things should\ncome, is named and known thereby for recreant to Christ and to the\nhighest hopes of His Gospel. But, on the other hand, it is only in\nvery exceptional circumstances, and for short intervals, that the\nChurches and their ministers can ever be called upon to make the\nexternal, material condition of the people their first and chief\ncare. They have a place of their own to fill, a function of their\nown to discharge; and upon their efficiency and diligence in these\nthe stability and permanence of all that politicians and publicists\ncan accomplish ultimately depends. They must keep alive and nourish\nthe religious life, as that life has been shaped and constituted\nby our Lord Jesus Christ. Their province is to witness, in season\nand out of season, for a life of purity and love, for the Divine\nand ideal sides of things, for the necessity, for man's highest\nwell-being, of a life hid with Christ in God. If they do not keep up\nthis testimony, no others will; and if it be dropped out of sight,\nthen the social agony and struggle, the patriotic and humanitarian\nstrivings of all the reformers, will lack their final sanction.\nMen will inevitably come to think that man's life does consist in\nthe abundance of the things that he possesses, the leisure, the\namusement, the culture which by combining material resources he may\nattain to. But it is to deny and denounce that view that the Church\nexists in the world. It was to lift men out of it, to set them above\nit for ever, that Christ died. It is finally only by abandoning it\nthat the highest social condition can be reached and made permanent\nfor the multitudes of men. In no way therefore can the Church so\ndangerously betray the cause of the poor and the oppressed as by\nplunging into the heat of the social and political struggle. She\nhas to witness to higher things than that involves, and her silence\nin the ideal region which would certainly follow her devotion to\nmaterial interests, however unselfish, would be but ill compensated\nfor by any imaginable success she might attain.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI\n\n_JUSTICE IN ISRAEL_\n\n\nAmong the nations of the modern world one of the most vital\ndistinctions is the degree in which just judgment is estimated and\nprovided for. Indeed, according to modern ideas, life is tolerable\nonly where all men are equal before the law; where all are judged\nby statutes which are known, or at least may be known, by all;\nwhere corruption or animus in a judge is as rare as it is held to\nbe dishonourable. But we cannot forget that in the majority of even\nthe more advanced countries of the world these three conditions\nare not yet found, and that where they do exist they are only\nrecent acquirements. In the latest born, and in many respects the\nmost advanced of the great commonwealths, in the United States\nof America, the corruption of a number of the inferior courts is\nundeniable, and is tolerated with a most disappointing patience by\nthe people. In England Judge Jeffries is no very remote memory, and\nLord Bacon's acceptance of presents from litigants in his court has\nonly been made more certain by recent investigations. An absolutely\nhonest intention to give even-handed justice to all is, therefore,\neven in England, only a recent attainment, and in no country is\nthe honest intention always successful in realising itself. But\nif this be so among the civilised nations of the West, we may say\nthat in Oriental countries there has been little of systematic and\ncontinuous effort to give even-handed justice at all. Yet nowhere\nhas the sinfulness and the destructiveness of corruption in judgment\nbeen more impassionedly and more frequently set forth by the highest\nauthorities in religion and morals, than in the East. Tupper, our\nmost recent authority, in writing of _Our Indian Protectorate_,\np. 289, describes the Indian attitude to law thus: \"There was not\nthat reverence for law which in Europe is in all probability very\nlargely due to the influence of the Roman law, and to the teaching\nof the Roman Catholic and other Christian Churches. So far as there\nwas a germ out of which the respect for law ought to have grown, it\nwas to be found in dislike to actions plainly opposed to custom and\ntradition. There was a deeply rooted and widespread conviction that\nthere could be no rule to which exceptions could not be made, if\nagreeable to the discretion of the chief or any of his delegates.\nThe chief was set above the law; it did not limit his authority\nby any constitution. There was no legislation for the improvement\nof law. The administration of justice was extremely imperfect.\"\nThe same writer describes the result of such a state of mind in\nhis picture of Mahratta rule (p. 247). \"There was,\" he says, \"no\nprescribed form of trial. Men were seized on slight suspicions.\nPresumptions of guilt were freely made. Torture was employed to\ncompel confession. Prisoners for theft were often whipped at\nintervals to make them discover where the stolen property was\nhidden. _Ordinarily no law was referred to except in cases affecting\nreligion._\" That there were both Hindu codes and Mohammedan codes in\nexistence which claimed and were believed to have Divine authority\nmade no difference in India. Nor does it make any in Persia\nto-day.[107]\n\n  [107] See _ante_, p. 304.\n\nNow, in coming to the consideration of the views of justice embodied\nin Old Testament law, and the quality of the judiciary in ancient\nIsrael, we must take not Western but Eastern ideas as our standard.\nJudging from that point of view, it should create no prejudice in\nour minds if we find on the first glance that all men were not equal\nbefore the ancient law of Israel; that for a considerable period,\nif not during the whole political existence of Israel, there was no\nvery extensive written law; and that arbitrary and corrupt judgment\nwas only too common at all times. For none of these defects would\nindicate in ancient Israel the same evils as similar defects in\nnations of our time would indicate. They are rather defects in the\nprocess of being overcome, than defects arising from feeble or\nvitiated life. If there was a constant movement towards the highest\nstate of things, that is all we can demand or expect to find.\n\nNow there does seem to have been that. As has been well pointed out\nby Dr. Oort,[108] in the tribes which became Israel justice must\nhave been administered by the heads of the various bodies which went\nto make these up. The household was ruled even in matters of life\nand death solely by the father; the family, in the wider sense, was\njudged by its own heads; the tribes by the elders of the tribes,\nand there probably was no appeal from one tribunal to another. Each\ntribunal was final in its own domain. It may be, also, that the\njudicial function was in all these bodies exercised in the lax and\ntimid fashion common among Bedouin tribes to-day.[109] In all cases,\ntoo, it is probable that in the pre-Mosaic time the standard of\njudgment was customary law. Only with this very great modification\ncan Oort's epigrammatic description of the situation--\"There was\nno law, but there were givers of legal decisions\"--be accepted.\nSo far as can be ascertained, the customs according to which men\nwere expected to live were perfectly well known, and within certain\nnarrow limits of variation were extraordinarily stable. How stable\ncustomary law may be made, even in the midst of a society governed\nin the main according to written law in its strictest sense, may\nbe seen in the execration which any breach of the Ulster custom\nof tenant right met with, before that custom was embodied in any\nstatutes. And in antiquity the stringency of custom can hardly be\nexaggerated. Under it, when thoroughly established, there was, in\nall the cases covered by it, only this one way of acting for all,\nboth men and women, who were fit for society at all. Any alternative\ncourse was probably inconceivable in the tribal stage of the\nIsraelites' existence.\n\n  [108] Cf. _Oud-Isra\u00ebl Rechtswezen_, pp. 10 ff.\n\n  [109] Cf. Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, vol. i., p. 249.\n\nBut a change would doubtless be wrought whenever the appointment\nof a king took place. Then national law would appear, in embryo at\nleast; and at first, until custom had grown up in this region also,\nit would largely be an expression of the will of the king, and of\nthe royal officers instructed and trained by the king. But it would\nhave free and unchallenged course only when it claimed authority\nin matters lying outside of the family and tribal jurisdictions.\nWherever it attempted to interfere with tribal or family rights,\ndanger to the kingship of the most acute kind would be sure to\narise. In all probability, it was disregard of this axiomatic truth\nwhich made Solomon's reign so burdensome to the people and tore\nthe kingdom asunder under Rehoboam. Ahab too fell a victim to his\ndisregard of it. Lastly, the introduction of elaborate written codes\nof law would, if it came as the crown of such a development, depose\ncustom from its supremacy, though it would not abolish it; and would\nsubstitute for it as the main element in all judicial matters the\nwritten prescription, which is the necessary presupposition of a\nfully organised judiciary of the modern type, with a regulated and\ndefinite power of appeal.\n\nBut in the case of ancient Israel there is a distinguishing element\nwhich has to be fitted into this ordinary scheme of progression,\nand that is the Divine revelation to Moses. Taken up at the\ntribal stage by the Mosaic revelation, the Israelite tribes were\ntouched and welded into coherence, if not quite as a nation, at\nleast as the people of Yahweh, so that during all the distracting\ndays of the Judges they kept up in essentials their social and\nreligious unity.[110] And with the religious union there must have\ncome administrative uniformity to some considerable extent. The\njurisdiction of the heads of households, of heads of families, and\nof the tribal elders would be as little interfered with as possible;\nbut, as we have seen, all customs and rights had to be reviewed from\nthe point of view of the new religion, and appeal to Moses as the\nprophet of it must have often been unavoidable. Just as his first\nfollowers were continually coming to Mohammed, to ask whether this\nor that ancient custom could be followed by professors of Islam, so\nthere must have been constant appeals to Moses. So long as he lived,\ntherefore, he, and after him Joshua and Moses' fellow-tribesmen\nthe sons of Levi, as being specially zealous for the religion of\nYahweh, must have been constantly called in to assist the customary\njudges; and so the habit of appeal must have grown in Israel long\nbefore there was any king. Thus also a common standard of judgment\nwould be established. That standard must necessarily have been the\nlaw of Yahweh, _i.e._ the new Yahwistic principles and all that\nmight _prima facie_ be deduced from them, together with so much\nof custom and tradition as had been accepted as compatible with\nthese principles. We have stated the reasons for holding that the\nDecalogue was Mosaic, and the Book of the Covenant may be taken also\nto represent what the current law in Mosaic or sub-Mosaic time was\nheld to be. As Oort well says (_loc. cit._), when we know that the\nHittites about the middle of the fourteenth century B.C. concluded\na treaty with Rameses II. of Egypt the terms of which were written\nupon a silver plate, \"why may there not also have been written\nstatements regarding the mutual rights and duties of the people\nof a town, engraved upon stone or metal, and set forth openly for\ninspection?\" What he confines to mere town business and refers to\nthe time of the Judges, we may without risk extend to a general\nfundamental law like the Decalogue, or even to the Book of the\nCovenant, and date it in the time of Moses. Writing was so common an\naccomplishment in Canaan before the Exodus, that such a supposition\nis not in the least improbable. These written laws formed the crown\nof the law of Yahweh, and by them all the rest was raised to a\nhigher level and transformed.\n\n  [110] Cf. Nowack, _Die sozialen Probleme in Israel_, p. 5.\n\nAs new men, new times, and new difficulties arose, the priest\nbecame the special organ of Divine direction. It may be that the\npriestly Torah was largely the result of the sacred lot; but the\nquestions that were put, and the manner in which they were put,\nwould be decided ultimately by the conception the priest had of\nthe truth about God. The teaching of the Decalogue would therefore\nbe the dominant and formative power in all that was spoken by the\npriest and for Yahweh. In the disorganised state into which Israel\nfell during the time of the Judges, when, as Deuteronomy takes\nfor granted, and as 1 Kings iii. 2 and 3 asserts, the legitimate\nworship of Yahweh was carried on at many centres, the substantial\nsameness of the tradition as to the history of Israel, in all the\nvaried forms in which we encounter it, is proof sufficient that at\neach of the great sanctuaries (which were certainly in the hands\nof Levitical priests) the treasure of ancient knowledge, both in\nlaw and history, was carefully and accurately preserved.[111] New\ndecisions would be given, but they came through men penetrated\nwith the high thoughts of God, and of His people's destiny, which\nMoses had so fruitfully set forth. This was the element in the life\nof the people which all the higher minds strove to perpetuate,\nand, being spiritual, it spiritualised and raised all accessory\nthings. Consequently there was, long before the kingship, what\nwas equivalent to a national feeling of the highest kind, and the\nconception of justice and its administration corresponded to that.\n\n  [111] Oort, _Oud-Isra\u00ebl Rechtswezen_, p. 14.\n\nIn the Book of the Covenant, which in this matter represents so\nearly a period that there is no mention of \"judges,\" only of\nPelilim,[112] _i.e._ arbitrators (Exod. xxi. 22), so that the tribal\nand family heads can alone have exercised judicial functions, we\nfind the most solemn warnings against any legal perversion of right\nto gain popularity, against yielding to the vulgar temptation to\noppress the poor, or to the subtler and, for generous minds, more\ninsidious temptation, to give an unjust judgment out of pity for\nthe poor. Israel was, moreover, to keep far from bribery, \"which\nblindeth them that have sight, and perverteth righteous causes.\" In\nno way was the law to be used for criminal or oppressive purposes.\nFrom the very first, therefore, in Israel the higher principles of\nfaith and life set themselves to combat _\u00e0 outrance_ the tendency to\nunjust judgment, which seems now, at least, quite ineradicable in\nthe East, save among the Bedouin.[113]\n\n  [112] A probable parallel to these may be found in the non-official\n  arbiters mentioned by Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, vol. i. pp. 145 and\n  502-3.\n\n  [113] Doughty, vol. i., p. 249.\n\nA still higher note is struck in the repetition of the law in the\nBook of Deuteronomy. In chap. i., originally part of a historic\nintroduction to the book proper, we read: \"Hear the causes between\nyour brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother,\nand the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in\njudgment; ye shall hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not\nbe afraid of the face of man; for the judgment (_i.e._ the whole\njudicial process and function) is God's; and the cause that is too\nhard for you ye shall bring unto me (Moses), and I will hear it.\"\nYes, the judgment is God's. Just as the whole of moral duty towards\nman was raised by the Decalogue to a new and more intimate relation\nwith God, so here justice, the fundamental necessity of a sound and\nstable political state, is lifted out of the conflict of mean and\nselfish motives, in which it must eventually go down, and is set on\nhigh as a matter in which the righteous God is supremely concerned.\nIn this, as in all things, Israel was called to a lonely eminence of\nideal perfection by the character of the God whom they were bound\nto serve. Therefore it strikes us with no surprise that justice\nis insisted upon almost with passion in Deut. xvii. 20: \"Justice,\njustice shalt thou pursue after, that thou mayest live and possess\nthe land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee\"; or that it is made one\nof the conditions of Israel's permanence as a nation. In chap. xxiv.\n17 we read, \"Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of the stranger, nor\nof the fatherless; nor take the widow's raiment to pledge\"; in xxv.\n1 and 2, \"If there be a plea between men, ... then they (_i.e._ the\njudges) shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.\" For\nany other course of conduct would bring guilt upon the nation in\nthe sight of Yahweh; and how jealously that was guarded against is\nseen in the sacrifice and ritual imposed for the purification of\nthe people from the guilt of a murder the perpetrator of which was\nunknown (Deut. xxi. 1-9). Unatoned for and disregarded, such a crime\nbrought disturbance into those relations between Israel and their\nGod upon which their very existence as a nation depended; and the\ndisregard of justice, where wrongs were committed by known persons\nand were left unpunished, was of course more deadly. So the author\nof Deuteronomy looked upon it; and the prophets, from the first of\nthem to the last, brand unjust judgment, the perverting the course\nof legal justice, as the most alarming sign of national decay. The\nrighteous God, with whom there was no respect of persons, could not\npermanently favour a people whose judges and rulers disregarded\nrighteousness; and when destruction actually came upon this people,\nit was proclaimed to be God's doing, \"because there was no truth nor\njustice nor knowledge of God in the land.\"\n\nNowhere in the world, therefore, has the demand for justice been\nmade more central than here, and nowhere has injustice been more\npassionately fought against. Nor have the sanctions binding to a\npursuit of justice been at any period more nobly or more vividly\nconceived. In this main point, therefore, Israel's law stands\nirreproachable--marvellously so, considering its great antiquity.\nBut we have still to inquire whether any really adequate provision\nwas made for the general and inexpensive administration of justice.\nTo take the latter first, law was in old Israel probably _as\ncheap_ as it would be in the primitive East to-day, if bribery\nwere to be stopped. To advise as to the sacred law, to plead for\njustice according to it, did not then, and does not now in similar\ncircumstances, belong to any special professional class who live by\nit. The priest could be appealed to freely by all; and the heads\nof fathers' houses, as well as the tribal heads, were, by the very\nfact that they were such, bound to give judgment among their people,\nand to appear for and take responsibility for them when they had\na cause with persons beyond the limits of the particular families\nand tribes. Justice, consequently, was in ordinary circumstances\nperfectly free to all.\n\nAnd from a very early time earnest efforts were made to make it\nequally _accessible_. At first, when the people were in one army or\ntrain, before they came to Sinai, an overwhelming burden was laid\nupon Moses. As the prophet of the new dispensation all difficulties\nwere brought to him. But at Jethro's suggestion, as JE tells us in\nExod. xviii. 13 ff., and as Deuteronomy repeats in chap. i. 16, he\nchose men of each tribe, or took the heads of each tribe, and set\nthem as captains of thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens.\nNot improbably this was primarily a military organisation, but to\nthese captains was committed also jurisdiction over those under\nthem. In all ordinary cases they judged them and their families in\nthe spirit of Yahwism, as well as commanded them; and in this way,\nas has already been pointed out, the customary law was revised in\naccordance with Yahwistic principles. Justice too was brought to\nevery man's door. The only question that suggests itself is, whether\nthese captain-judges were the ordinary family and tribal heads,\norganised for this purpose by Moses. On the whole this would seem\nto have been so, and it may well be that Jethro's suggestion had in\nview the danger of ignoring them, as well as the burden which Moses'\nsole judgeship laid upon him. But with the advance to the conquest\nof Canaan a new situation emerged, and the probability is that more\nand more, as the tribes fell into entire or semi-isolation, the\ntribal organisation in its natural shape would come to the front\nagain. Deuteronomy, however, tells us little if anything of this. In\nthe main passage regarding this matter (xvii. 8-13), where provision\nis made for an appeal to a central court, the legislation is\nentirely for a period much later than Moses. Like the law regarding\nsacrifice at one altar, the judicial provisions of Deuteronomy seem\nall to be bound up with the place which Yahweh shall choose, viz.\nthe Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem. We may consequently conclude\nthat the judicial arrangements to which Deuteronomy alludes existed\nonly after the Israelite kingship had been for some time established\nat Jerusalem. We have no distinct evidence for the existence\nof a central high court in David's days; and from the story of\nAbsalom's rebellion we should gather that the old, simple Oriental\nmethod still prevailed, according to which the king, like the\nheads of tribes, families, etc., judged every one who came to him,\npersonally, at the gate of the royal city. But Samuel is said in 1\nSam. vii. 16 to have annually gone on circuit to Bethel, Gilgal,\nand Mizpah. According to the school of Wellhausen, nearly the whole\nof this chapter is the work of a Deuteronomic writer about the year\n600. In that case, of course, it would be difficult to prove that\nthe arrangement attributed to Samuel was not a mere echo of what\nwas done in Josiah's day; though, if the Deuteronomic prescriptions\nwere carried out then, there would be no need for such a system. On\nthe other hand, if Budde and Cornill be right in tracing the chapter\nback to JE, this habit of going on circuit must have been an ancient\none, possibly dating from Samuel's time. That this latter view is\nthe correct one is in a degree confirmed by the statement in viii.\n2 that Samuel's sons were installed by him as judges in Israel, at\nBeersheba. This belongs to E, and it would seem to indicate the\nbeginnings of such a system as Deuteronomy presupposes.\n\nBut it is only in the days of Jehoshaphat (873-849 B.C.) that an\narrangement like that in Deuteronomy is mentioned. From 2 Chron.\nxix. 5 ff. we learn that \"he set judges in the land throughout all\nthe fenced cities of Judah, city by city. Moreover in Jerusalem\ndid Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the priests, and of the\nheads of the fathers' houses, for the judgment of Yahweh and for\ncontroversies.\" Further, it is stated that Amariah the chief priest\nwas set over the judges in Jerusalem in all Yahweh's matters,\n_i.e._ in all religious questions, and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael\nthe prince of the house of Judah in all the king's matters, _i.e._\nin all secular affairs. Of course few advanced critics will admit\nthat the Books of Chronicles are reliable in such matters. But that\njudgment is altogether too sweeping, and here we would seem to have\na well-authenticated record of what Jehoshaphat actually did.\n\nFor it will be observed, that when we take up the various notices\nin regard to the administration of justice, we have a well-defined\nprogress from Moses to Jehoshaphat. Moses was chief judge and\ncommitted ordinary cases to the tribal and family heads who were\nchosen as military leaders, each judging his own detachment. After\npassing the Jordan, the whole matter would seem to have fallen back\ninto the hands of the tribal heads, with the occasional help of the\nheroes who delivered and judged Israel. At the end of this period\nSamuel, as head of the State, went on circuit, and appointed his\nsons judges in Beersheba, thus initiating a new system, which, had\nit been successful, might have superseded the tribal and family\nheads altogether. But it was a failure, and was not repeated. With\nthe rise of the kingship the courts received further organisation.\nIf the Chronicler can be trusted, Levites to the number of six\nthousand were appointed to be judges and Shoterim. The number seems\nexcessive; but the appointment of Levites to act as assessors with\nthe tribal and other heads would be a natural expedient for a king\nlike David to have recourse to, if he desired to secure uniformity\nof judgment, and to bring the courts under his personal influence.\nThe next step would naturally be that which is attributed to\nJehoshaphat, and it is precisely that which Deuteronomy points to as\nbeing already at work in his time. We have, consequently, more than\nthe late authority of the Chronicler for Jehoshaphat's high court.\nThe probabilities of the case point so strongly to the rise of\nsome such judicial system about that period, that it would require\nsome positive proof, not mere negative suspicion, to lead us to\nreject the narrative. In any case this must have been the system in\nJosiah's day, and afterwards. For when Jeremiah was arraigned for\nprophesying destruction to the Temple and to Jerusalem, the process\nagainst him was conducted on similar lines to those laid down in\nDeuteronomy. The princes judged, the priests (curiously enough along\nwith the false prophets) made the charge, _i.e._ stated that the\nprophet's conduct was worthy of death, and the princes acquitted.\nDuring the Exile it is probable that the \"elders\" of the people\nwere permitted to judge them in all ordinary cases, but we have\nno certain proof that this was so. After the return from Babylon,\nhowever, the local courts were re-established, probably in the very\nform in which they appear in the New Testament (Matt. v. 22, x. 17;\nMark xiii. 9; Luke xii. 14-58).\n\nThroughout the whole history of Israel, therefore, courts of justice\nwere easily accessible to every man, whether he were rich or poor.\nNo doubt the free, open-air, Eastern manner of administering justice\nwas favourable to that; but from the days of Moses onward we have\nfairly conclusive proof that the leaders of the people made it their\ncontinual care that wherever a wrong was suffered there should be\nsome court to which an appeal for redress could be made.\n\nThe justice aimed at in Israel was, therefore, _impartial_ and\n_accessible_. We have still to inquire whether it was _merciful_ or\ncruel in its infliction of punishment. Dr. Oort says it was a hard\nlaw in this respect, but one is at a loss to see how that view can\nbe sustained. There is no mention of torture in connection with\nlegal proceedings, either in the history or in the legislation.\nNor is there any instance mentioned in which an accused person\nwas imprisoned until he confessed. Indeed imprisonment would not\nappear to have been a legal punishment in Israel, nor in any antique\nstate. The idea of providing maintenance for those who had offended\nagainst the law was one which could never have occurred to any\none in antiquity. Prisons are, of course, frequently mentioned in\nScripture; but they were used, up to the time of Ezra, only for\nthe safe-keeping of persons charged with crime till they could\nbe brought before the judges. Sometimes, as in the case of the\nprophets, men were imprisoned to prevent them from stirring up the\npeople; but this procedure was nowhere sanctioned by law. Further,\nthe crimes for which the punishment prescribed in the ancient law\nwas death were few. Idolatry, adultery, unnatural lust, sorcery,\nand murder or manslaughter, together with striking or cursing\nparents and kidnapping--these were all. Considering that idolatry\nand sorcery were high treason in its worst forms, so far as this\npeople was concerned, and that impurity threatened the family in a\nmuch more direct and immediate fashion then than it does now, while\nthe people were naturally inclined to it, one must wonder that the\nlist of capital crimes is so short. Contrast this with Blackstone's\nstatement in regard to England (quoted _Ency. Brit._, iv., p. 589):\n\"Among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit,\nno less than one hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of\nParliament to be felonies without benefit of clergy, or, in other\nwords, to be worthy of instant death.\" It is only in comparatively\nrecent years that the punishment of death has been practically\nrestricted to murder in England. Yet that is almost the case in the\nancient Jewish law; for the exceptions are such as would reappear in\nEngland if it were more sparsely populated and manners were rougher.\nIn Australia, for example, highway robbery under arms and violence\nto women are capital crimes, just because the country is sparsely\ninhabited and the households unprotected. Nor were the modes of\ndeath inflicted cruel. Only three--viz. impalement, and burning,\nand stoning--appear to be so. But it may be believed that in the\ncases contemplated by the law death in some less painful manner had\npreceded the two former, as is certainly the case in Josh. vii.\n15 and 25, and in Deut. xxi. 22. As for the latter, it must have\nbeen horrible to look upon, but in all probability the criminal's\nagony was rarely a prolonged one. The other method of execution,\nby the sword namely, was humane enough. Dr. Oort tells us that\nmutilations were common; but his proof is only this, that in the\ntreaty between the Hittite king and Rameses II. we read, concerning\ninhabitants of Egypt who have fled to the land of the Hittites and\nhave been returned, \"His mother shall not be put to death; he shall\nnot be punished in his eyes, nor on his mouth, nor on the soles of\nhis feet.\" The same provision is made for Hittite fugitives. From\nthis evidence of the custom of surrounding peoples, and from the\nfact that the _jus talionis_ is announced in the Scriptures by the\nfamiliar formula, \"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,\nfoot for foot,\" Dr. Oort draws this conclusion. But he appears to\nforget that the _jus talionis_ was common to almost all the peoples\nof the ancient world, and is referred to in the Pentateuch, not as\na new principle, but as a custom coming down from immemorial time.\nConsequently, though there must once have been a time in which it\nwas carried out in its literal form, that time probably was past\nwhen the laws referring to it were written. In Rome, and probably\nin other lands where this custom existed, it early gave place to\nthe custom of giving and receiving money payments. Most probably\nthis was the case in Israel, at least from the time of the Exodus.\nFor the new religion introduced by Moses was merciful. But these\nreferences to the principle of retaliation tell us nothing as\nto the frequency or otherwise of mutilation as a punishment. No\ninstance of mutilation being inflicted either as a retaliation or\nas a punishment occurs in the Old Testament, and the probability\nis that cases were never numerous. Apart from retaliation they are\nnever mentioned; and we may, I think, set it down as one of the\ndistinctive merits of the Israelite law that it never was betrayed\ninto sanctioning the cutting off of hands or feet or ears or noses\nas general punishment for crime. But so far as the principle of\nthe _lex talionis_ was retained, its effect was wholesome. It was\na continual reminder that all free Israelites were equals in the\nsight of Yahweh. And not only so, it enforced as well as asserted\nequality. Any poor man mutilated by a rich man could demand the\ninfliction of the same wound upon his oppressor. He could reject his\nexcuses, and refuse his money, and bring home to him the truth that\nthey had equal rights and duties.\n\nIn this way this seemingly harsh law helped to lay the foundation\nfor our modern conception of humanity, which regards all men as\nbrethren. For the teaching of our Lord, which fulfilled all that\nthe polity and religion of ancient Israel had foreshadowed of good,\nbroke down the walls of partition between Jew and Gentile, and made\nall men brethren by revealing to them a common Father. It surely is\nstrange and sad that those who specially make liberty, equality, and\nfraternity their watchwords, have received so false an impression\nof the religion of both the Old and New Testaments, that they pride\nthemselves on rejecting both. When all is said, the levelling of\nbarriers which the crushing weight of Roman power brought about, and\nthe common methods and elements of thought which the Greek conquests\nhad spread all over the civilised world, would never have made the\nbrotherhood of man the universally accepted doctrine it is. The\ntruths which made it credible came from the revelation given by God\nto His chosen people, and its final and conclusive impulse was given\nto it by the lips of Christ.\n\nIn face of that cardinal fact it is vain to point out as one of the\ndefects of this law that all men were not equal before it. Women\nwere not equal with men, nor were foreigners nor slaves equal with\nfreeborn Israelites; but the seed of all that later times were to\nbring was already there. The principles which at the long end of the\nday have abolished slavery, raised women to the equal position they\nnow occupy, and made peace with foreigners increasingly the desire\nof all nations, had their first hold upon men given them here. In\nall these directions the Mosaic law was epoch-making. In the fifth\ncommandment, as well as in the legislation regarding the punishment\nof a rebellious son, the mother is put upon the same level as the\nfather. However subordinate woman's position in the larger public\nlife might be, within the home she was to be respected. There, in\nher true domain, she was man's equal, and was acknowledged to have\nan equal claim to reverence from her children.\n\nIn precisely the same way the \"stranger\" was freed from disability\nand protected. In the earliest days, when the Israelite community\nwas still being formed, whole groups of strangers were received\ninto it and obtained full rights, as for example the Kenites and\nKenizzites. But though this was a promise of what Israel was\nultimately to be to the world, the necessities of the situation,\nthe need to keep intact the treasure of higher religion which\nwas committed to this people, compelled the adoption of a more\nseparatist policy. Yet \"in no other nation of antiquity were\nstrangers received and treated with such liberality and humanity as\nin Israel.\" They were freely afforded the protection of the law;\nthey were, in short, received as \"a kind of half-citizens, with\ndefinite rights and duties.\"[114] Further, though the ger was not\nbound to all the religious practices and rites of the Israelite,\nyet he was permitted, and in some cases commanded, to take part in\ntheir religious worship. If he consented to circumcise all his house\nhe might even share in the Passover feast. All oppression of such\nan one was also rigorously forbidden, and to a large extent the\nstranger shared in the benefits conferred by the provision for the\npoor of the land which the law made compulsory.\n\n  [114] Riehm, _Handw\u00f6rterbuch_, Baethgen, vol. i., p. 463.\n\nNor was the case otherwise with slaves. Equality there was not,\nand could not be; but in the provisions for the emancipation of\nthe Israelite slave and the introduction of penalties for undue\nharshness, it began to be recognised that the slave stood, in some\ndegree at least, on the same level as his master--he too was a man.\n\nTaking it as a whole, therefore, the ancient world will be searched\nin vain for any legislation equal to this in the \"promise and the\npotency\" of its fundamental ideas as to justice. Here, as nowhere\nelse, we can see the radical principles which should dominate in\nthe administration of justice laying hold upon mankind, and that\nthere was a living will and power behind these principles is shown\nin the steady movement toward something higher which characterised\nIsraelite law. In the pursuit of impartiality, accessibility, and\nhumanity, the teachers of Israel were untiring, and the sanctions\nby which they surrounded and guarded all that tended to make the\nadministration of justice effective in the high sense were unusually\nsolemn and powerful. The result has been most remarkable. All the\nages of civilised men since have been the heirs of Israel in this\nmatter. Roman influence and the influence of the Christian Church\nhave no doubt been powerful, and the manifold exigencies of life\nhave drawn out and made explicit much which was only implicit in the\nancient days. But the higher qualities of our modern administration\nof justice can be traced back step by step to Biblical principles,\nand the course of development laid bare. When that is done, it is\nseen that the almost ideal purity and impartiality of the best\nmodern tribunals is the completion of what the Israelite law and\nmethods began. In this one instance at least the great Mosaic\nprinciples have come to fruition; and from the security and peace,\nthe contentment and the confidence, with which impartial justice\nhas filled the minds of men, we can estimate how potent to cure the\nills of our social and moral state the realisation of the other\ngreat Mosaic ideals would be. It should be a source of encouragement\nto all who look for a time when \"the kingdoms of this world shall\nbecome the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ,\" that something\nlike the ideal of justice has so far been realised. It has no doubt\nbeen a weary time in coming, and it has as yet but a narrow and\nperhaps precarious footing in the world. But it is here, with its\nhealing and beneficent activity; and in that fact we may well see\na pledge that all the rest of the Divinely given ideals for the\nKingdom of God will one day be realised also. Such a consummation,\nhowever remote it may seem to our human impatience, however devious\nand winding the paths by which alone it can draw near, will come\nmost surely, and in our approach to the ideal in our judicial system\nwe may well see the firstfruits of a richer and more plentiful\nharvest.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII\n\n_LAWS OF PURITY (CHASTITY AND MARRIAGE)_\n\n\nIn dealing with the ten commandments it has been already shown\nthat, though these great statements of religious and moral truth\nwere to some extent inadequate as expressions of the highest life,\nthey yet contained the living germs of all that has followed. But\nwe cannot suppose that the reality of Israelite life from the first\ncorresponded with them. They contained much that only the experience\nand teaching of ages could fully bring to light; therefore we cannot\nexpect that the actual laws in regard to the relations of the sexes\nand the virtue of chastity should stand upon the same high level as\nthe Decalogue. The former represent the reality, this the ultimate\nideal of Israelite law on these subjects. But neither is unimportant\nin forming an estimate of the value of the revelation given to\nIsrael, and of the moral condition of early Israel itself, nor can\neither be justly viewed altogether alone. The actual law at any\nmoment in the history of Israel must be regarded as inspired and\nupborne by the ideal set forth in the ten commandments. But it must,\nat the same time, be a very incomplete realisation of these, and\nits various stages will be best regarded as instalments of advance\ntowards that comparative perfection.\n\nIn regard to the relations of the sexes and the virtue of purity\nthis must be peculiarly the case. For though chastity has been\nsafeguarded by almost all nations up to a certain low point, it\nhas never been really cherished by any naturalistic system. Nor has\nit ever been favoured by mere humanism.[115] Consequently there is\nno point of morals in regard to which man has more conspicuously\nfailed to work out the merely animal impulse from his nature than in\nthis. And yet, for all the higher ends of life, as well as for the\nprosperity and vigour of mankind, purity in the sexual relations is\nentirely vital. One great cause of the decay of nations, nay, even\nof civilisations, has been the abandonment of this virtue. This was\nthe main cause of the destruction of the Canaanites. It may even be\nsaid to have been the cause of the wreck of the whole ancient world.\nWe should consequently measure what the Mosaic influence did for\npurity of life, not by comparing early Israelite laws with what has\nbeen accomplished by Christianity, but with the condition of the\nSemitic peoples surrounding Israel, in and after the Mosaic times.\n\n  [115] Cf. Renan, _Philosophic Dialogues_, iii. p. 26: \"La nature\n  a int\u00e9r\u00eat \u00e0 ce que la femme soit chaste et \u00e0 ce que l'homme ne le\n  soit pas trop. De l\u00e0 un ensemble d'opinions qui couvre d'infamie la\n  femme non chaste, et frappe presque de ridicule l'homme chaste. Et\n  l'opinion quand elle est profonde, obstin\u00e9e, c'est la nature m\u00eame.\"\n\nWhat that was we know. Their religions, far from discouraging sexual\nimmorality, made it a part of their holiest rites. Both men and\nwomen gave themselves up to natural and unnatural lusts, in honour\nof their gods. To the north, and south, and east, and west of\nIsrael these practices prevailed, and as a natural result the moral\nfabric of these nations' life fell into utter ruin. In private life\nadultery, and the still more degrading sin of Sodom were common.\nThe man had a right to indiscriminate divorce and remarriage, and\nmarriage connections now reckoned incestuous, such as those between\nbrother and sister, were entirely approved. In all these points\nIsrael as a nation was without reproach. The higher teaching\nthis people had received in respect to the character of God, and\nit may be some reminiscence of Egyptian custom, which was in some\nrespects purer than that of the Semitic peoples, raised them to a\nhigher level. Yet in the main the early Israelite view of women was\nfundamentally the uncivilised one.\n\nBut at all periods of Israelite history, even the earliest, women\nhad asserted their personality. In the eye of the law they might\nbe the chattels of their male relatives, but as a fact they were\ndealt with as persons, with many personal rights. They had no\nindependent position in the community, it is true. They could take\nno part in a festival so important as the Passover, nor were they\nfree to make vows without the consent of their husbands. In other\nways also social restraints were laid upon them. Nevertheless their\nposition in early Israel was much higher than it is in the East\nto-day, and their liberty was in no wise unreasonably abridged.\nIn David's day women could appear in public to converse with men\nwithout scandal.[116] They also took part in religious festivals\nand processions, giving life to them by beating their timbrels, by\nsinging, and by dancing.[117] They could be present also at all\nordinary sacrifices and at sacrificial feasts; and, as we see in\nthe case of Deborah and others, they could occupy a high, almost a\nsupreme, position as prophetesses. In the main, too, the relations\nbetween husband and wife were loving and respectful, and in Israel's\nbest days, when the people still remained landed yeomanry, the wife,\nby her industry within the house, supplemented and completed her\nhusband's labour in the fields. The Israelite woman was consequently\na very important person in the community, whatever her status in law\nmight be; and if she had not the full rights which are now granted\nto her sex in Western and Christian lands, her position was for the\ntimes a noble and independent one. That all this was so was largely\ndue to the improvements which Mosaism wrought on the basis of that\nancient Semitic custom which we sketched at the beginning of this\nchapter, and with which it seems natural to suppose the Israelite\ntribes had also begun.\n\n  [116] Cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 18 ff; 2 Sam. xiv. 1 ff.\n\n  [117] Cf. Exod. xv. and 1 Sam. xviii. 6 f.\n\nBearing these preliminary considerations in mind, we now go on to\nconsider the actual legislation in regard to the relations of the\nsexes. But here we must once more recall the fact that, in regard\nto all matters vitally affecting the community, there had always\nbeen a custom, and even before written law appears that custom had\nbeen adopted and modified in Yahwism by Moses himself. That this was\nactually the case here is rendered highly probable by the history\nof legislation in this matter. In the Book of the Covenant there\nis no mention of sexual sin, save in one passage (Exod. xxii. 16),\nwhere the penalty for seduction of a virgin who is not betrothed\nis that the seducer shall offer a \"_mohar_\" for her, and marry her\nwithout possibility of divorce, if her father consent. If he will\nnot, then the \"_mohar_\" is forfeited to the father nevertheless, as\ncompensation for the degradation of his daughter. But it is obvious\nthat there must have been laws or customs regulating marriage other\nthan this, for without them there could have been no such crime as\nis here punished. Obviously, also, there must have been laws or\ncustoms of divorce. But of what these laws of marriage and divorce\nwere Exodus gives us no hint. Deuteronomy, the next code, which on\nthe critical hypothesis arose at a much later time as a revision\nof the Book of the Covenant, contains much more, _i.e._ it draws\nout of the obscurity of unwritten custom a more extensive series\nof provisions in regard to purity. The Law of Holiness then adds\nlargely to Deuteronomy, and with it the main points of the law of\npurity have attained to written expression. But the influence of the\nhigher standard set in the Decalogue also makes itself felt,--not\nin the law so much as in the historic books and the prophets--and\nour task now is to trace out first the legal development, then the\nprophetical, and to show how the whole movement culminated and was\ncrowned in the teaching of Christ.\n\nBeginning then with Deuteronomy, we find that the chastity of women\nwas surrounded by ample safeguards. Religious prostitution was\nabsolutely prohibited (Deut. xxiii. 18). Further, if any violence\nwas done to a woman who had been betrothed, the punishment of the\nwrong was death; if done to a woman who was not betrothed, the wrong\nwas atoned for by payment of fifty shekels of silver to her father,\nand by offering marriage without possibility of divorce. If marriage\nwas refused, then the fifty shekels was retained by the father in\nconsideration of the wrong done him. When the woman was a sharer in\nthe guilt the punishment in all cases was death; while pre-nuptial\nunchastity, when discovered after marriage, was punished, as\nadultery also was, with the same severity.[118] In women who were\nfree, therefore, purity was demanded in Israel as strenuously as\nit ever has been anywhere, though in man the only limit to sexual\nindulgence was the demand, that in seeking it he should not infringe\nupon the father's property in his daughter, or the husband's in his\nwife or his betrothed bride.\n\n  [118] Chap. xxii. 13-18.\n\nAdmittedly the original underlying motive for this moral severity\nwas a low one, the mere proprietary rights of the father or\nhusband. But it would be a mistake to suppose that purely ethical\nand religious motives had no place in establishing the customs\nor enactments which we find in Deuteronomy. With the lapse of\ntime higher motives entwined themselves with the coarse strand of\npersonal proprietary interest, which had originally, though perhaps\nnever alone, been the line of limitation. Gradually there grew up a\nstandard of higher purity; and when Deuteronomy was written, though\nthe original line was still clearly visible, it was justified by\nappeals to a moral sense which reached far beyond the original\nmotives of the customary law. The continually recurring burden of\nDeuteronomy in dealing with these matters is that to work \"folly\nin Israel\" is a crime for which only the severest punishment can\natone. To \"extinguish the evil from Israel,\" and to put away such\nthings as were \"abominations to Yahweh their God,\" are the great\nreasons on which the writer of Deuteronomy founds the claim for\nobedience in these cases. Obviously, therefore, by his time, under\nthe teaching of the religion of Yahweh, Israel had risen to a moral\nheight which took account of graver interests than the rights of\nproperty in legislating for female purity. The cases included in\nthe law had been determined by considerations of that kind; but the\nsanctions by which the commands were buttressed had entirely changed\ntheir character. The holiness of God and the dignity of man, the\nconsideration of what alone was worthy of a \"son of Israel,\" have\ntaken the place of the coarser sanctions. In this way a possibility\nof unlimited moral progress was secured, since the cause of purity\nwas indissolubly bound to the general and irresistible advance of\nreligious and moral enlightenment in the chosen people.\n\nMoreover the personality of the woman was acknowledged in the\nentire acquittal of the betrothed woman who had been exposed to\noutrage in the country, where her cries could bring no help. In the\nearliest times most probably the punishment of death would have\nbeen inflicted equally in that case, since the husband's property\nhad been deteriorated to such a degree as to make it unworthy of\nhim. But in the Deuteronomic provision quite other things are drawn\ninto the estimate. The moral guilt of the person concerned is now\nthe decisive consideration. The woman has ceased to be a mere\nchattel, and the full claims of her personality are in the way to\nbe recognised. These were great advances, and for these it is vain\nto seek for other causes than the persistent upward pressure of the\nMosaic religion. The moral superiority of Israel at the time of the\nconquest over the much more cultured Canaanites, as also over the\nnomadic tribes to which they were more nearly related, is due, as\nStade says, ultimately to their religion; and no reader of the Old\nTestament, in our time at least, can fail to see that their moral\nprogress in the land they conquered depended entirely upon the same\ncause. At the Deuteronomic epoch purity had already been placed upon\na worthy basis, as a moral achievement of the first importance, and\nimpurity had taken its proper place as a degrading sin. But much\nstill remained to be done before these principles could be extended\ninto all domains of life equally.\n\nHow far they had penetrated in early times may perhaps best be seen\nin the Deuteronomic references to divorce. Before Deuteronomy there\nis no law of divorce, nor indeed is there any after it. We may\nperhaps even say that there is in it not so much the statement of a\nlaw of divorce, as a reference to custom which the writer wishes to\ncorrect or reinforce in one particular respect only. Notwithstanding\nthe Jewish view, therefore, which finds in Deut. xxiv. 1-4 a divorce\nlaw, we must adduce the passage as a new and striking proof of what\nwe have all along asserted, that neither Deuteronomy nor any other\nof the legal codes can be taken as complete statements of what was\nlegally permitted or forbidden in Israel. Behind all of them there\nis a vast mass of unwritten customary law, and divorce was doubtless\nalways determined by it. That this was the case will be seen at once\nif the passage we are now concerned with be rightly translated. It\nruns thus: \"When a man taketh a wife and marrieth her, and it shall\nbe (if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found in her\nsome unseemly thing) that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and\ngiveth it into her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she\ngo forth out of his house and goeth and becometh the wife of another\nman, and if the latter husband also hate her, and write her a bill\nof divorcement, and give it in her hand and send her out of his\nhouse, or if the latter husband die who took her to him to wife,\nthen her former husband who sent her away may not take her again to\nbe his wife after that she has permitted herself to be defiled.\"\nAll the passage provides for, therefore, is that a divorced woman\nshall not be remarried to the divorcing man after she has been\nmarried again, even though she be separated from her second husband\nby divorce or death. There is consequently no law of divorce here\nstated. There is merely a reference to a general law or custom by\nwhich divorce was permitted for \"any unseemly thing,\" and according\nto which a chief wife at any rate could be divorced only by a \"bill\nof divorcement,\" and not by mere word of mouth, as is common in\nmany Eastern lands to-day. Mosaic influence may have procured this\nlast slight increase in rigour, and Deuteronomy certainly adds\nthree other restrictions, viz. that after remarriage a woman cannot\nbe again married to her first husband, and that pre-nuptial wrong\ndone to a woman by her husband, or a false accusation by him after\nmarriage, takes away his right of divorce altogether. But the woman\nhas no right of divorce at all, so firmly fixed throughout all Old\nTestament time was the belief in the inferiority of women. On the\nwhole, therefore, divorce in Israel remained, after the law had\ndealt with it, much on the level to which the tribal customs had\nbrought it. So far as the legislation dealt with it, it tended to\nrestriction; but when all is said it remains true that the Israelite\n_law_ of divorce was in the main much what it would have been had\nthere been no revelation. But the _spirit_ of the religion of Yahweh\nwas against laxity in this matter, and this more rigorous feeling\nfinds expression in the evident distaste for the remarriage of a\ndivorced woman which is expressed in Deut. xxiv. 4. Remarriage is\nnot forbidden; but the woman who remarries is spoken of as one who\nhas \"let herself be defiled.\" No such expression could have been\nused, had not remarriage after divorce been looked upon as something\nwhich detracted from perfect feminine purity. The legislator\nevidently regarded it as the higher way for a divorced woman to\nremain unmarried so long at least as the divorcing husband lived. If\nshe remained so, the possibility of reunion was always kept open,\nand the law evidently looked upon the ultimate annulment of the\ndivorce as the course which was most consonant with the ideal of\nmarriage.\n\nIt is thus clearly seen how our Lord's statement (Matt. xix.\n8)--\"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to\nput away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so\"--is\ntrue.\n\nAnd when we leave the law and come to history and prophecy, we\nfind this view to have been a prevalent one from early times.\nIn one of the earliest connected historical narratives, that of\nJ (Gen. ii. 24), the union of husband and wife is said to be so\npeculiarly intimate that it makes them one body, so that separation\nis equivalent to mutilation. And the prophets remain true to this\nconception of marriage, as the one which fitted best into their\ndeeper and loftier views of morality. From Hosea onwards[119] they\nrepresent the indissoluble bond between Yahweh and His people as a\nmarriage relation, founded on free choice and unchangeable love.\nThe possibility of divorce is no doubt often admitted, and the\nconduct of Israel is represented as justifying that course. But the\nprophetic message always is that the love of God will never permit\nHim to put away His people; and the people are often addressed as\nfaithless and faint-hearted, because they yield to the temptation\nof believing that He has cast them off (Isa. l. 1). Evidently,\ntherefore, the prophetic ideal of marriage was that it should be\nindissoluble, that it should be founded upon free mutual love,\nand that such a love should make it impossible for either husband\nor wife to give the other up, however desperate the errors of the\nguilty one might have been.\n\n  [119] Hosea ii. 19.\n\nPerhaps the finest expression of this view occurs in Isa. liv., in\nthe exhortation addressed to exiled Israel and beginning \"Sing, O\nbarren, thou that didst not bear.\" There the ideal Israel is urged\nto lay aside all her fears with this assurance: \"For thy Maker is\nthine husband; Yahweh of Hosts is His name: and thy Redeemer, the\nHoly One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall He be called.\nFor Yahweh hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in\nspirit; how can a wife of youth be rejected? saith thy God.\" The\nfull meaning of this last touching question has been well brought\nout by Prof. Cheyne (_Isaiah_, ii., p. 55): \"Even many an earthly\nhusband (how much more then Yahweh!) cannot bear to see the misery\nof his divorced wife, and therefore at length recalls her; and when\nhis wife is one who has been wooed and won in youth, how impossible\nis it for her to be absolutely dismissed.\" The rising tide of\nprophetic feeling on this subject culminates in the pathetic scene\ndepicted by Malachi, who in chap. ii. 12 ff. reproves his people\nfor their cruel and frivolous use of divorce. Drawn away by love of\nidolatrous women, they had divorced their Hebrew wives; and these in\ntheir misery crowded the Temple, covering the altar of Yahweh with\n\"tears and weeping and sobbing,\" till He could endure it no more. He\nhad been witness of the covenant made between each of these men and\nthe wife of his youth; yet they had broken this Divinely sanctioned\nbond. He therefore warns them to take heed, \"for Yahweh the God of\nIsrael saith, I hate putting away, and him who covers his garment\nwith violence.\" The Rabbinic interpreters, not being minded to give\nup the privilege of divorce, have wrested these words into \"for\nYahweh the God of Israel saith, If he hate her put her away.\" But,\nso wrested, the words bring down the whole context in one ruin. They\nare intelligible only if they denounce divorce, and in this sense\nthey must undoubtedly be taken.\n\nThere remains for consideration, however, a marriage which the\nDeuteronomist permits, which seems to run counter to all the finer\nfeelings and instincts of his later time. It is dealt with in chap.\nxxv. 5-10, and is notable because it is a clear breach of the\ndefinite rule that a man should not marry his deceased brother's\nwife. But it will be obvious at once that the permission of this\nmarriage stands upon quite a different footing from the prohibition.\nIt is permitted only in a special case for definite ends; and while\nthe sanction of the prohibition is the infliction of childlessness\n(Lev. xx. 21), the man who refuses to enter upon marriage with his\ndeceased brother's wife is punished only by being put to shame by\nher before the elders of his city. We have not here, therefore,\na law in the strict sense. It is only a recognition of a very\nancient custom which is not yet abolished, though evidently public\nfeeling was beginning to make light of the obligation. Its place\nin the twenty-fifth chapter, away from the marriage laws (which\nare given in xxi. 10 ff., xxii. 13 ff., and xxiv. 1-4), and among\nduties of kindness, seems to hint this, and we may consequently\ntake the law as a concession. That the custom was ancient in the\ntime of Deuteronomy may be gathered from the fact that in Hebrew\nthere is a special technical term, _yibb\u0113m_, for entering on such\na marriage. The probability is, indeed, that levirate marriage was\na pre-Mosaic custom connected with ancestor-worship. It certainly\nis practised by many other races, _e.g._ the Hindus and Persians,\nwhose religions can be traced to that source. Under that system,\nit was necessary that the male line of descent should be kept up\nin order that the ancestral sacrifices might be continued, and to\nbear the expense of this the property of the brother dying childless\nwas jealously preserved. In India, at present, both purposes are\nserved by adoption, either by the childless man or by the widow.\nIn earlier times, when fatherhood was to a large extent a merely\njuridical relationship,[120] when, that is to say, it was a common\nthing for a man to accept as his son any child born of women under\nhis control, whether he were the father or not, the same end was\nalso attained by this marriage.[121] Originating in this way, the\npractice was carried over into the Israelite social life when it\nchanged its form, and the motives for it were then brought into\nline with the new and higher religion. The motive of keeping alive\nthe name and memory of the childless man was substituted for that\nof securing the continuance of his worship; and the purpose of\nsecuring the permanence of property, landed property especially,\nin each household, was substituted for that of supplying means for\nthe sacrifice. Later, the motive connected with the transmission\nof property possibly became the main one. For, since the levirate\nmarriage came in, according to the strict wording of our passage,\nwhenever a man died without a son, whether he had daughters or\nnot, this marriage would seem to have been an alternative means of\nkeeping the property in the family to that of letting the daughters\ninherit.[122] But the spirit of the higher religion, as well as\na more advanced civilisation, was unfavourable to it. The custom\nevidently was withering when Deuteronomy was written, though in\nJudaism it was not disallowed till post-Talmudic times.\n\n  [120] _The Primitive Family_, Starcke, p. 141.\n\n  [121] Indeed in India it was not only the widow of the childless man\n  who might bear him a son whose real father was a near relation, but\n  his childless wife also.--Maine, _Early Law_, p. 102.\n\n  [122] That the latter course may in some cases have been unpopular\n  with the sonless man's nearest kin is clear, since under it\n  the inheritance must be divided, and it might pass to remoter\n  connections, though not beyond the tribe. The nearer relations\n  would, therefore, probably prefer that their brother's property\n  should be kept intact and be transmitted with his name, and this\n  ancient custom, sanctioned and modified by Mosaism, would give them\n  that choice.\n\nThe impression, therefore, which the laws and customs regulating the\nrelations of men and women in Israel give to the candid student must\nbe pronounced to be a strangely mixed one. It would probably not be\ntoo much to say that it is at first a deeply disappointing one. We\nhave been accustomed to fill all the Old Testament utterances on\nthis subject with the suffused light of Gospel precept and example,\ntill we have lost sight of the lower elements undeniably present in\nthe Old Testament laws and ideas concerning purity. But that is no\nlonger possible. Whether of enmity or of zeal for the truth, these\nless worthy elements have been dragged forth into the broad light of\nday, and in that light we are called upon to readjust our thoughts\nso as to accept and account for them. Evidently at the beginning the\nIsraelite tribes accepted the uncivilised idea of woman. On that\nas a basis, however, customs and laws regarding chastity, marriage\nand divorce were adopted, which transcended and passed beyond that\nfundamental idea. The moral complicity of woman, or her innocence,\nin cases where her chastity had been attacked, came to be taken into\naccount. Polygamy, though never forbidden, received grievous wounds\nfrom prophets and others of the sacred writers; and as marriage\nwith one became more and more the ideal, the higher teachers of the\npeople kept the indissolubleness of marriage before the public mind,\ntill Malachi denounced divorce in Yahweh's name. In regard to the\nbars to marriage there was little change, probably, from the days\nof Moses; but the old family rules were reinforced by a deep and\ndelicate regard for even the less palpable affections and relations\nwhich grew up in the home.\n\nThe final attainment, therefore, was great and worthy enough; but\nthe cruder and less refined ideas, which had been inherited from\npre-Mosaic custom, always make themselves felt, and have even\ndominated some of the laws. They dominated, even more, the practice\nof the people and the theory of the scribes; so that on the very eve\nof His coming who was to proclaim decisively the indissolubility\nof marriage, the great Jewish schools were wrangling whether mere\ncaprice, or some immodesty only, could justify divorce. Nevertheless\nthe Decalogue, with its deep and broad command, culminating in\nprohibition even of inward evil desire, had always had its own\ninfluence. The teachings of the prophets, which breathe passionate\nhatred of impurity, had taught all men of good-will in Israel\nthat the wrath of God surely burned against it. But the stamp of\nimperfection was upon Old Testament teaching here as elsewhere. Like\nthe Messianic hope, like the future of Israel, like all Israel's\ngreatest destinies, the promise of a higher life in this respect was\ndarkened by the inconsistencies of general practice; and uncertainty\nprevailed as to the direction in which men were to look for the\nharmonious development of the higher potencies which were making\ntheir presence felt. It was in them rather than in the law, in the\nideals rather than in the practice of the people, that the hidden\npower was silently doing its regenerating work. The religion of\nYahweh in its central content, surrounded all laws and institutions\nwith an atmosphere which challenged and furthered growth of every\nwholesome kind. The axe and hammer of the legislative builder was\nrarely heard at work; but in the silence which seems to some so\nbarren, there slowly grew a fabric of moral and spiritual ideas and\naspirations, which needed only the coming of Christ to make it the\npermanent home of all morally earnest souls.\n\nWith Him all that the past generations \"had willed, or hoped, or\ndreamed of good\" came actually to exist. He made what had been\naspiration only the basis of an actual Kingdom of God. As one of its\nprimary moral foundations He laid down the radical indissolubility\nof marriage, and made visible to all men the breadth of the law\ngiven in the Decalogue by forbidding even wandering desires. In\ndoing this He completely surpassed all Old Testament teaching, and\nset up a standard which Christian communities as such have held to\nhitherto, but which from lack of elevation and earnestness they\nseem inclined in these days to let slip. That such a standard was\never set up was the work of a Divine revelation of a perfectly\nunique kind, working through long ages of upward movement. Humanity\nhas been dragged upwards to it most unwillingly. Men have found\ndifficulty in living at that height, and nothing is easier than to\nthrow away all the gain of these many centuries. All that is needed\nis a plunge or two downwards. But if ever these plunges are taken,\nthe long, slow effort upwards will only have to be begun again, if\nfamily life is to be firmly established, and purity is to become a\npermanent possession of men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII\n\n_LAWS OF KINDNESS_\n\n\nWith the commands we now have to consider, we leave altogether the\nregion of strict law, and enter entirely upon that of aspiration\nand of feeling. Kindness, by its very nature, eludes the rude\ncompulsion of law, properly so called. It ceases to be kindness when\nit loses spontaneity and freedom. Precept, therefore, not law, is\nthe utmost that any lawgiver can give in respect to it; and this is\nprecisely what we have in Deuteronomy, so far as it endeavours to\nincite men to gentleness, goodness, and courtesy to one another.\nThe author gives his people an ideal of what they ought to be in\nthese respects, and presses it home upon them with the heartfelt\nearnestness which distinguishes him. That is all; but yet, if we are\nto do justice to him as a lawgiver, we must consider and estimate\nthe moral value of these precepts; for, properly speaking, they are\nthe flower of his legal principles, and they reveal in detail, and\ntherefore, for the average man, most impressively, the spirit in\nwhich his whole legislation was conceived. In the abstract no doubt\nhe had told us that love--love to Yahweh--was to be the fundamental\nthing, and we have seen how deep and wide-reaching that announcement\nwas. But a review of the precepts which indicate how he conceived\nthat love to God should affect men's relations with men, will give\nthat general principle a definiteness and a concreteness more\nimpressive than a thousand homilies. For the conception that a\nrelation of love is the only fit relation between man and God, could\nnot, if it were sincerely taken up, fail to throw light upon men's\ntrue relations to each other. Consequently the great declaration\nof the sixth chapter was bound to re-echo in the precepts to guide\nconduct, giving new sanctity and breadth to all man's duty to his\nfellows.\n\nOf course the risk of great failure was nigh at hand: for men may\nbe intellectually convinced that love is the element in which life\nought to be lived, and may proclaim it, who are far from being\nactually penetrated and filled with love, tested and increased by\ncommunion with God. As a result, much talk about love and kindly\nhuman duty has fallen with but little impulsive power upon the\nhearts of men. When, however, it is felt to be the expression of a\npresent experience, such exhortation has power to move men as no\nother words can do. And the author of Deuteronomy was one of those\nwho had this divinely given secret. In all parts of his book you\nfind his words becoming winged with power, wherever love to God and\nman is even remotely touched upon. If our hypothesis as to the age\nin which he lived and wrote be correct, his must have been one of\nthose high and rare natures which are not embittered by persecution\nor contemptuous neglect. Long before our Lord had spoken His\ndecisive words on our duty to our neighbour, or St. Paul had written\nhis great hymn to love, this man of God had been chosen to feel the\ntruth, and had suffused his book with it, so that the only principle\nwhich can be recognised as binding together all his precepts is the\ncentral principle of the New Testament. Of course that made his\nideal too high for present realisation; but he gained more than he\nlost; for, from Jeremiah and Josiah downwards through the years, all\nthe noblest of his people responded to him. The splendour of his\nthought cast reflections upon their minds, and these glowed and\nshone amid the meaner lights which Pharisaism kindled and cherished,\ntill He came whose right it was to reign. Then Deuteronomy's true\nrank was seen; for from it Christ took the answers by which He\nrepelled Satan in the temptation, and from it, too, He took that\ncommandment which He called the first and greatest. Of course the\nhumanity of the book had not, in expression at least, the imperial\nsweep of Christian brotherhood which makes all men equal, so that\nfor it there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither wise nor unwise,\nneither male nor female, neither bond nor free. But _all_ the chosen\npeople are included in its sympathy; and in this field, without\nundue interference with private life, the author sets forth by\nspecimen cases how the fraternal feeling should manifest itself in\nloving, neighbourly kindness.\n\nAs these laws or precepts of kindness are not systematically\narranged, it will be necessary to group them, and we shall take\nfirst those in which it is prescribed that injury to others should\nbe avoided. Of course criminal wrongs are not dealt with here. They\nhave already been forbidden in the strictly legal portions of the\nbook, and penalties have been attached to them. But in the region\nbeyond law, there are many acts in which the difference between a\ngood, and kindly, and sympathetic man, and a morose, and sullen,\nand unkindly one, can be even more clearly seen. In that region\nDeuteronomy is unmistakably on the side of sympathy. The poor, the\nslave, the helpless should, it teaches, be objects of special care\nto the true son of Israel. They should be treated, it shows, with a\ngenerous perception of the peculiar difficulties of their lot; and\npressure upon them at these special points where their lot is hard\nshould be abhorrent to every Israelite.\n\nThe first in order of the precepts which we are considering (chap.\nxxii. v. 8)--\"When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make\na railing for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house,\nif any man fall from thence\"--reveals the fatherly and loving\ntemper which it is the author's delight to attribute to Yahweh. As\nearthly parents guard their children from accidents and dangers,\nso Yahweh thinks of possible danger to the lives of His people,\nand calls for even minute precautions. The habit of sitting and\nsleeping upon the flat roofs of the houses has always been, and is\nnow, prevalent in the East. Many accidents take place through this\nhabit. In recent years Emin Pasha, who ruled so long at Wadelai,\nnearly lost his life by one; and here the house-owner is required in\nYahweh's name to minimise that danger, \"that he bring not blood upon\nhis house.\" The life of each one of Yahweh's people is precious to\nHim; therefore it is that He will have them to guard one another.\nThis is the principle which runs through all these precepts. In the\nsphere of ritual and religion the Deuteronomist does not transcend\nOld Testament conditions. For him as for others it is the nation\nwhich is the unit. But in the region now before us he virtually goes\nbeyond that limitation, and emphasises the care of Yahweh for the\nindividual, just as in the demand for love to God he had already\nmade Israel's relation to their God depend upon each man's personal\nattitude. The thought that the Divine care was exerted over even\n\"such a set of paltry ill-given animalcules as himself and his\nnation were,\" according to Carlyle's phrase, does not stagger him as\nit staggered Frederick the Great.\n\nIn matters like these, the unsophisticated religion of the Old\nTestament is most helpful to us to-day. We have analysed, and\nrefined, and dimmed all things into abstractions, God and man among\nthe rest. The fearless simplicity of the Old Testament restores us\nto ourselves, and pours fresh blood into the veins of our religion.\nNo faith in God as the living orderer of all the circumstances of\nour lives can be too strong or too detailed. The stronger and more\ndefinite it becomes, the nearer will it approach the truth. Only one\ndanger can threaten us on that line, the danger of taking all our\nown plans and desires for the Divinely appointed path for us. But\nmost men will by natural humility be saved from that presumption;\nand the glad assurance that they are wrapped about with the love\nof God is perhaps the greatest need of God's people in their many\nsceptical and unspiritual hours.\n\nWe cannot, therefore, be surprised that, in connection with\ndebts and pledges for payment, the same kindness in the Divine\ncommands should be observable. As usury was forbidden in Israel,\nand precautions against excessive indebtedness were exceedingly\nelaborate, the possibilities of oppression in connection with debt\nin Israel were much more limited than in most ancient communities.\nNevertheless there was here a region of life in which great wrongs\ncould still be done by a harsh and unscrupulous creditor. In order\nthat the creditor might have some security for what he had lent, it\nwas permitted to receive and give pledges. The precepts regarding\nthese are contained in chap, xxiv., vv. 6, 10 ff. and 17, and\nexpress a considerate brotherly spirit, for which it would be hard\nto find a parallel either in ancient or modern times. The creditor\nwho has taken a poor man's upper garment as a pledge is commanded,\nboth in the Book of the Covenant and in Deuteronomy, to restore\nthe garment to its owner in the evening, that he may sleep in it.\nIn Palestine for much of the year the nights are cold enough, and\nthe poor man has no covering save his ordinary clothes. To deprive\nhim of these, therefore, is to inflict punishment upon him, whereas\nall that should be aimed at is the creditor's security. This was\npeculiarly offensive to Israelite feeling, as we see from the\nmention in Amos ii. 8 of the breach of this prescription as one of\nthe sins for which Yahweh would not turn away Israel's punishment.\nFurther, in no case was a widow's garment to be taken in pledge, nor\nthe handmill used for preparing the daily flour, for that is taking\n\"life\" in pledge, as the Deuteronomist says with the feeling for the\nconditions of the poor man's life which he always shows.\n\nBut the crown of all this kindness is found in the beautiful tenth\nverse: \"When thou dost lend thy neighbour any manner of loan, thou\nshalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge thou shalt stand\nwithout, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring forth the\npledge without unto thee.\" Not only does Yahweh care for external\nand physical pain, He sympathises with those deeper wrongs and\npains which may hurt a man's feelings. If a pledge to satisfy the\nlender had to be given, scruples of delicacy on the part of the\nborrower would appear to the \"practical\" man, as he would call\nhimself, contemptibly misplaced. If the man's feelings were so very\nsuperfine, why did he borrow? But the author of Deuteronomy knew the\nheart of God better. With the fine tact of a man of God, he knew how\neven the well-meaning rich man's amused contempt for the poor man's\nfew household treasures, would cut like a whip, and he knew that\nYahweh, who was \"very pitiful and of tender mercy,\" would desire no\nson of Israel to be exposed to it. He knew, too, how human greed\nmight dispose the lender to seize upon the thing of greatest value\nin the poor house, whether its price was in excess of the loan or\nnot. Finally, he knew how it deteriorates the poor to be dealt with\nin an unceremonious, tactless way even by the benevolent. And in the\nname and with the authority of God he forbids it. The poor man's\nhome, the home of the man whom we desire to help especially, is to\nbe sacred. In our dealing with him of all men the finest courtesy\nis to be brought into play. Just because he needs our help, we are\nto stand on points of ceremony with him, which we might dispense\nwith in dealing with friends and equals. \"Thou shalt stand without,\"\nunless he asks thee to enter; and thou shalt show thereby, in a\ndeeper way than any gifts or loans can show, that the fraternal tie\nis acknowledged and reverenced.\n\nIn two other precepts the same delicate regard for the finer\nfeelings finds expression. In the fifth verse it is commanded that\n\"When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go out in the host,\nneither shall he be charged with any business: he shall be free\nat home one year, and shall cheer his wife that he hath taken.\"\nThe strangeness and loneliness which everywhere make themselves\nfelt as a formidable drawback to a young wife's joy, and which in\na polygamous family, where jealousies are bitter, must often have\nreached the point of being intolerable, are provided for. In chap.\nxxv. 1-3 again, which deals with the punishment of criminals by\nbeating, it is provided that in no case shall the number of blows\nexceed forty, and that they shall be given in the presence of the\njudge. This in itself was a measure of humanity, but the reason\ngiven for the direction is greatly more humane. \"Forty stripes he\nmay give him,\" says ver. 3; \"he shall not exceed; lest, if he should\nexceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother\nshould seem vile unto thee.\" Even in the case of the criminal\ncare is to be taken that he be not made an object of contempt.\nPunishment has gone beyond its true aim when it makes a man seem\nvile unto his neighbours by attacking his dignity as a man; for that\nshould be inalienable even in a criminal. A man may have all his\nmaterial wants satisfied, and yet be sorely vexed and injured. God\nsympathises with these hurts of the soul, and defends His people\nagainst them.\n\nAfter the lovingkindness of these commands, it seems almost\nneedless to say that the smaller social wrongs which men may inflict\nupon each other are sternly forbidden. Often, the rich from want\nof thought about the life of the poor carelessly do them wrong.\nSuch a case is that dealt within chap. xxiv. 14 f.: \"Thou shalt not\noppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of\nthy brethren, or of thy strangers (_gerim_) that are in thy land\nwithin thy gates: in his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither\nshall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart\nupon it: lest he cry against thee unto Yahweh, and it be sin unto\nthee.\" The same command is given in Lev. xix. 13, and Dillmann is\nprobably right in regarding this as a Deuteronomic repetition of\nthat, since there the precept forms part of a pentade of commands\ndealing with similar things, while here it stands alone. From early\ntimes, therefore, Yahweh had revealed Himself as considering the\npoor and the necessities of their position. Further, the poor man\nor the wayfarer was permitted to satisfy his hunger by taking fruit\nor grain in his hands as he passed through the fields. No one was\nto die of starvation if the fields were \"yielding meat.\" Last of\nall, estrangement between brethren, _i.e._ all Israelites, was not\nto free them from duties of neighbourly love. If a man find a stray\nox or sheep or ass, or a garment or any other lost thing, he is not\nto leave it where he finds it. He is to restore it to the owner;\nand if the owner is unknown or too far off, the finder is to keep\nthat which he has found till it is inquired after. Then if he see\nhis brother's, _i.e._ his neighbour's, ass or ox fallen by the way,\nhe must not pass by, but must help the owner to set it on its feet\nagain. That an estranged \"brother\" was especially in view is shown\nby the fact that in the parallel passage (Exod. xxiii. 4) \"thine\nenemy's ox\" and \"the ass of him that hateth thee\" are mentioned.\n\nNow, we have called these precepts and provisions the flower and\nblossom of the Deuteronomic legislation, because they reveal in\ntheir greatest perfection that sympathy with the commonest and\nthe innermost cares of men which is the moving impulse of it all.\nBut they reveal more than that. They show that already in those\nfar-off days the secret of God's love to man had been made known.\nIts universality so far as Israel was concerned, its penetrative\nsympathy, its quality of regarding no human interest as outside\nits scope, its superhuman impartiality--all are here. They are not\nof course present in their full sweep and power, as Christ made\nthem known. Outside of Israel there were the Gentiles, who had a\nshare only in the \"uncovenanted mercies\" of God; and even among\nthe chosen people there were the slaves and the strangers, who had\na comparatively insecure relation to Him. Further, the thought of\nthe self-sacrifice of God, though soon to have its dawning in the\nlater chapters of Isaiah, was not as yet an appreciable element\nin the Israelite theology. Nevertheless the passages we have been\nconsidering throw a light upon social duty, as seen by this inspired\nservant of God, which puts to shame the state of the Christian mind\non these subjects even now.\n\nThe great principles underlying right relations between men of\ndifferent social status are, according to these precepts, courtesy\nand consideration. Now it is precisely the want of these which\nlies at the root of the bitterness which is so alarming a symptom\nof our social state at present. There is not, we are willing to\nbelieve, much of intentional, deliberate oppression exercised by\nthe strong upon the weak. The injustice that is done is probably\ninherent in the present social system, for the character of which\nno one living is responsible. But one reason why reform comes so\nslowly, and why patience till it can come dies out among the masses\nof men, is that the employing classes, and those who have inherited\nprivileges, often convey to those they employ the impression that\nthey are beyond the pale of the courtesies which are recognised as\nbinding between men of the same class. Often without intending it,\ntheir manner when they are approached by those they employ, their\nshort and half-aggrieved replies, reveal to the latter that they\nare regarded much more as parts of the machinery, than as men who\nmight naturally be expected to claim, and who have a right to, the\nrecognition of their rights as men.\n\nOf course there are excuses. There is the long tradition of\nsubordination to arbitrary power, from which none in earlier ages\nof the world have been free. There is the impatience with which\na governing and organising mind listens to grievances which it\nsees either to be inevitable under the circumstances, or to be\ncompensated by some corresponding privilege, which stands or falls\nwith the thing complained of. And then there is the absence of\noutlook, which is the foible of the directing mind. It is set to\nrule and make successful a large and intricate business under given\ncircumstances. The more effective such a mind is for practical\npurposes, the more thoroughly will it limit itself to working out\nthe problem committed to it. When grievances have to be dealt with\nwhich have their root in the present circumstances, and which imply\nchanges more or less radical in his fixed point if they are to be\nredressed, it is hard for the employer to persuade himself that his\nemployees are not merely crying for the moon. If he think so, he\nwill probably say so; and working men go away from such interviews\nwith the feeling that it is vain to expect from employers any\nsympathy for their aspirations towards a better social state, which\nyet they cannot give up without a slur upon their manhood.\n\nBut though these are excuses for the attitude we have been\ndescribing, there can be no question that the fine and delicate\ncourtesy which Deuteronomy prescribes is indispensable in order\nto avert class hostility. Courtesy cannot, of course, change our\nsocial state, and where it works badly evils that produce friction\nwill remain. But the first condition of a successful solution of\nour difficulties is, that evil tempers should as far as possible\nbe banished, and for that purpose courtesy even under provocation\nis the one sovereign remedy. For it means that you convey to your\nneighbour that you consider him in all essentials your equal.\nIt means, too, that you are willing to recognise his rights and\nto respect them. Though power may be on your side, and weakness\non his, that will only make it more incumbent upon you to show\nthat mere external circumstances cannot impair your reverence for\nhim as man. If that be sincerely felt, it opens a way, otherwise\nabsolutely closed, to mutual confidence and mutual understanding.\nThese once established, light on all parts of the social problem\n(which, be it remembered, employers and employed must solve together\nif it is to be solved at all) will break in upon the minds of both\nclasses. In spite of the diversity of their immediate interests,\nthe ultimate interest of all is the same. If contempt and suspicion\nwere excluded, eyes which are now holden would be opened, and a\ncommon effort to reach a social state in which all men shall have\nthe opportunity of living lives worthy of men would become possible.\nIf all would learn to treat those of other classes with the courtesy\nwhich they constantly show to those of their own, a great step in\nthe right direction would be taken. Men overlook much and forgive\nmuch to their fellows when these recognise their equality, and show\nthat they attach importance to having good relations with them.\n\nBut much more is to be aimed at than that. The esteem for man as\nman has great conquests yet to make before even the Deuteronomic\ncourtesy becomes common. But if these nobler manners are to come\nin, then the motives suggested by Deuteronomy will have to be made\neffective for our day. What these were it is not difficult to see.\nThey all had their source in the author's own relations and the\nrelations of his people to God. Each of his brethren of the chosen\npeople was a friend of Yahweh. There was no difference between\nIsraelite men before Him. He had brought them all, the poor and\nthe weak, as well as the rich and the strong, out of the house of\nbondage; He had guided them all through the wilderness, and had\nappointed each household a place in His land where full communion\nwith Him was to be had. He had thought many thoughts about them,\nhad given them laws and statutes dictated by loving insight, so as\nto fill their life with the consciousness that Yahweh loved them,\ncondescended to them, and even allowed Himself to be made to serve\nby their sins. Whatever else they might be, they were friends of\nGod, and had a right to respect on that ground. And for us who are\nChristians all these motives have been intensified and raised to\na higher power. It is not lawful for us to call any man common or\nunclean. It is not lawful to overwhelm and bear down the minds of\nothers by sheer energy and power. Those \"for whom Christ died\" are\nnot to be dealt with save on the worthy plane of moral and spiritual\nconviction. That is the law of Christ; and so long as it is broken\nin our labour troubles by contemptuous refusal of conference when\nit can be granted without compromising principle, or by slighting\nreferences to labour leaders and a refusal to meet them, when\nleaders of another class would be courteously met, so long will the\nbitterness which inevitably springs up trouble us.\n\nIt is not, however, to be supposed that only the rich can sin in\nthis respect. The labour organisations are becoming in many places,\nthe stronger,[123] and so far they have learned the law of courtesy\nno better than their opponents. Opprobrious epithets and injurious\nsuspicions and accusations are the stock-in-trade of some who lead\nthe labour cause. That is as unworthy in them as it would be in\nothers; it is not only a crime, but a blunder.\n\n  [123] Especially in some of the Southern Colonies in one of which\n  this exposition is written.\n\nBut the practice of courtesy does not end with itself. It opens\nthe way for that consideration of the circumstances of the poor\nwhich we have found so conspicuous in Deuteronomy. As we have seen,\nYahweh's precepts contemplate with the nicest care the unavoidable\nnecessities of the poor man's life. So He stirs us to endeavour\nto realise the conditions of our poorer brethren, and by doing so\nto avoid the blunders which well-meaning people make by assuming\nthat the conditions of their own life are the norm. There are\nvast varieties of circumstance in the world; and from lack of\nconsideration those more favourably situated excite envies and\nhatreds the bitterness of which they cannot conceive, by simply\ntaking it for granted that every one has the same opportunities for\nrecreation, the same possibilities of rest. To realise clearly what\nlife and death mean to the toiling millions of men; to see that\nmatters which are small to those who live the materially larger and\nfreer life of the class above them are of vital moment to the poor;\nto consider and allow for all such things in their dealings with\nthem,--this is the teaching of Deuteronomy. Hence the command to pay\nthe labourer his wages in the same day. The heart of man responds\nwhen this note is struck. In nothing is the story of Gautama the\nBuddha more true to the best instincts of humanity than in this,\nthat it represents him as making his great renunciation through\ncoming into intimate contact with the pain and misery of ordinary\nlife.[124] That gave him insight, and insight wrought sympathy, and\nsympathy transformed him from being a petty prince of Northern India\ninto the consoler and helper of millions in all Eastern lands. Even\nhopeless pessimism, when born of sympathy, has an immense consoling\npower. Much more should the inextinguishable hope given by Christ,\ncombined as it is with the same sympathetic insight, console men and\nuplift them.\n\n  [124] _Buddhism_, by T. W. Rhys Davids, p. 29.\n\nBut the sixteenth verse of chap. xxiii. reminds us that in that\nancient Deuteronomic world there were sad limitations to these lofty\nsympathies and hopes. If intensively Deuteronomy almost reaches the\nGospel, extensively it shows the whole difference between Judaism\nat its best and Christianity. Below the world of free-born members\nof the Israelite community, to whom the precepts we have hitherto\nbeen considering alone apply, there was the class of slaves, who\nin many respects lay beyond the region of the finer charities. The\norigin of slavery we need not discuss. It was a quite universal\nfeature in all ancient communities, and was doubtless a step upwards\nfrom the custom of destroying all prisoners taken in war. Among the\nHebrews it had always been customary; but in historic times it was\nnot among them the all-important matter it was in Greek and Roman\npolity. Had it been so, it would have been impossible to discuss the\neconomic ideals of Israel without taking this social feature into\nconsideration first. But slaves were comparatively few in Israel,\nand the slave trade can never have been extensive, since no slave\nmarkets are mentioned in the Old Testament. Moreover the social\nstate of the country made owners of slaves share in the slaves'\nwork, and that of itself prevented the growth of the worst abuses.\nBut the most powerful element in making the lot of the slave\ntolerable was undoubtedly the just and pitiful character of the\nIsraelite religion.\n\nThe fundamental position with regard to him was, however, the common\none: he was the property of his master. He could be sold, pledged,\ngiven away as a present, and inherited, and could even be sold to\nforeigners. But a female slave, if taken as a subordinate wife,\ncould not be sold, but only freed if she ceased to occupy that\nposition. Exclusive of the Canaanites, subject to forced labour,\nand the Nethinim, the servants of the Sanctuary, who occupied\nmuch the same place as the _servi publici_ in Rome, there were\ntwo classes of slaves, non-Israelites and Israelites. The ways in\nwhich a non-Israelite slave could come into Israelite hands were\njust what they were elsewhere. They might be prisoners of war,\nthey might be purchased from travelling merchants, they might\nvoluntarily have sold themselves from poverty in a strange land, or\nmight have been sold for debt, and finally they might be children\nborn of slaves. Their lot was of course the hardest. Yet even they\nwere not so entirely unprotected by the law as slaves were among\nGreeks and Romans. They were recognised as men, having certain\ngeneral human rights. The master had no right to kill; and if he\nmaimed his slave he had to give him his freedom, according to the\noldest law (Exod. xvi. 20 f.). The law regarding the killing of a\nslave has often been quoted as singularly harsh, especially that\nclause which says that if a slave when fatally smitten lives for\nsome days after the blow, his death shall not be avenged, \"for he\nis his (the master's) money.\" But it ought, notwithstanding the\nharshness of the expression, to be judged quite otherwise. The fact\nthat death was not immediate was taken to indicate that death was\nnot intended, and consequently the loss of the slave was thought a\nsufficient punishment. But the prohibition of the deliberate murder\nof a slave was a humane provision which could not be paralleled in\nthe Gr\u00e6co-Roman world. Moreover these laws would not seem to have\nbeen widely called into action. The humane spirit became so general\nin Israel that slaves were generally well treated. In Prov. xxix.\n21 over-indulgence to a slave is deprecated, as if it were a common\nerror; and during the whole history there is no mention of evils\nresulting from cruel treatment of slaves, much less any record\nof servile insurrection. Nor is there very frequent mention even\nof runaway slaves. On the other hand, we read of slaves who were\nstewards of their masters' houses; others probably were entrusted\nwith the charge of the education of children.\n\nIn Deuteronomy we find, as we should expect, that the movement\ntowards humanity in dealing with slaves is greatly furthered. In\nchap. xxi. 10 ff. the hardship of a woman's lot when she was taken\ncaptive in war is mitigated with sympathetic insight. To modern\nwomen of the Western world the lot of such an one seems so dreadful\nthat no mitigation of it can make any difference. The current\nteaching among even religious men is that rather than submit to it\na woman is justified in suicide. But in antiquity the personality\nof woman was undeveloped, the chances of life constantly passed\nher from one master to another, and things intolerable now were\ntolerable then. Making even these allowances, however, if we look\nat the law of the Old Testament as being in all its provisions and\n_ab initio_ Divine, it seems impossible to praise it. A law which\ngraciously permitted a captive woman to mourn for her people for\na month, and only then allowed her captor to marry her, but if he\nwished afterwards to get rid of her provided that he should not sell\nher, but should let her go whither she would, cannot be said to be\nin itself compassionate. But, if the customary law of the Israelite\ntribes, restrained and purified by the higher spirit, be regarded as\nthe basis of Old Testament legislation, then the leaven of religion\nand humanity can be seen working nobly, and in a manner worthy of\nrevelation, even in such cases as these. Long after the Christian\nera we see what the ordinary fate of a captive woman was, in the\nconduct of Khalid the \"sword of the Lord,\" one of the first great\nMohammedan soldiers. When he had captured Malik ibn Noweira, who had\nresisted Islam, along with his wife, he gave orders which led to\nMalik's death, and the same night he married his widow.[125] Shortly\nafterwards, at the battle of Yemama, he demanded the daughter of\nhis captive Mojda, and married her, as the Caliph wrote in reproof,\n\"whilst the ground beneath the nuptial couch was yet moistened\nwith the blood of twelve hundred.\" Horrors like these Deuteronomy\nforbids. The frenzied moments of a captive's first grief are\nrespected, and some tenderness is shown to woman in a world where\nher lot at its best had always in it possibilities which cannot now\nbe even thought of with equanimity. The same steady pressure to a\nnobler form of life is likewise seen in the Deuteronomic law dealing\nwith the case of a foreign slave who had taken refuge in Israel\n(Deut. xxiii. 15 f.). In the words, \"Thou shalt not deliver unto\nhis master the slave which is escaped from his master unto thee; he\nshall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he\nshall choose within one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou\nshalt not oppress him,\" we have, thus early, the same legislation\nwhich it is the peculiar boast of England to have introduced into\nthe modern world. \"Slaves cannot breathe in England,\" and the\nmoment they touch British soil in any part of the world they are\nfree. This was the case with the land of Israel according to the\nDeuteronomic conception of what it ought to be.\n\n  [125] Sir W. Muir, _Caliphate_, pp. 26 and 33.\n\nBut the highest points of privilege come to the non-Israelite slave\nin a way which disturbs the modern conscience, for they came by\nmeans of compulsion in religion. In contrast to the day labourer\nand the \"Toshab\" or sojourner, the slave _must_ be of his master's\nreligion. For a heathen, however, that was not a difficulty. His\ngods were gods of his land; and when he left his land and was\ncarried into a foreign country, he had no scruple about worshipping\nthe god of the new land. A typical case of this is found in the\nnarrative 2 Kings xvii., where the immigrants whom the king of\nAssyria had settled in Samaria after Israel had been carried captive\nbesought him to send some one to teach them how to worship Yahweh.\nThis adoption of the master's religion secured equality of slave and\nfree to a degree which could not otherwise have been attained, and\nbrought the slaves fully within the humanity of the Hebrew law. It\ngave them the Sabbath (chap. v. 14). It gave a full share in all the\nreligious festivals and a part in the sacrificial feasts (Deut. xii.\n12 and xvi. 11, 14). Such slaves were, in fact, fully adopted into\nthe family of God, and became brethren, poorer and more unfortunate,\nbut still brethren of their masters. They had indeed no claim to\nfreedom, as Israelite slaves had; they were slaves in perpetuity.\nBut their slavery was of a kind that did not degrade them beneath\nthe condition of man.\n\nWith regard to Israelite slaves the beneficence of the law was\nnaturally still greater. The fullest statement in regard to them\nis found, not in Deuteronomy, but in Lev. xxv. 39-46; but in the\nmain we may suppose that in its larger outlines the distinction\nbetween Israelite and non-Israelite slaves there insisted on was\nalways acknowledged. They were not to be thrust down into the\nlowest depth of slavery, and they were not to be set to the lowest\nkinds of labour, rather to that which hired labourers were wont\nto do, because they were of the children of Israel, of the nation\nwhom Yahweh had brought out of the house of bondage. Further, they\nhad a right to emancipation every seventh year, that is to say,\nwhenever they had served six full years they could claim freedom in\nthe seventh. Their original property was meant to be restored to\nthem in the Sabbatic year, and so their degradation could last only\nfor a very limited time. In Exod. xxi. 2 ff. we find the original\nprovisions concerning the Israelite slave. Deuteronomy simply took\nthese up, and modified them in certain respects. It extends all\nthat Exodus says of the slave to the female slave also, and, in its\ncare for and understanding of the difficulties of the poor, enacts\nthat a slave when set free shall receive a fresh start in life from\nthe cattle, the barn, and the winepress of the former owner. But\nthis anticipation of discharged prisoners' aid societies was too\nhigh a demand upon a faithless generation. Even Jeremiah could not\nget it carried out; and the probability is that none but the most\nspiritually minded of the Jews ever regarded it as binding law.\n\nThe love which love of Yahweh inspired spread still more widely. It\ntook in not only the poor and the slave, but it took account also of\nthe lower animals. It has been often made a reproach to Christianity\nthat it makes no such appeal on behalf of the lower creation as\nBuddhism does. But that reproach (like the kindred one brought by\nJ. S. Mill, that in comparison with the Qur'an the New Testament\nis defective in not pressing civil duty) is tenable only if the\nNew Testament be absolutely severed from the Old. Taken as the\ncompletion of the moral and religious development begun in Israel,\nChristianity takes up into itself all the experience, and all the\nteaching by example, which the Old Testament contains. It does not\nrepeat it, because to the first Christians the Old Testament was\nthe Divinely inspired guide. It was at first their whole Bible,\nand to take the New Testament by itself as an independent product\nis to mutilate both the Old and the New. When the Old Testament,\ntherefore, enjoins kindness to animals we may set down all that\nit prescribes to the credit of Christianity. So much, at least,\nthe latter must be held to teach; and if we consider the spirit as\nwell as the letter of this law, there is no exaggeration in saying\nthat it covers all the ground. Here, as in the case of slaves and\nthe poor, the fundamental reason for kindness is relation to God.\nIn the Yahwist's narrative in Gen. ii. all creatures are formed by\nGod, and God Himself shows kindness to them. Indeed in passages like\nPsalm xxxvi. 7, as Cheyne well remarks, there is an implication\n\"that morally speaking there is no complete break of continuity in\nthe scale of sentient life,\" and that, as is seen by passages like\nJer. xxi. 6, and Isa. iv. 11, the mild domesticated animals \"are in\nfact regarded as a part of the human community.\" In the Decalogue\nthe animals that labour with and for man have their share in the\nSabbath rest, and the produce of the fields during the Sabbatic year\n(Exod. xxiii. 11; Lev. xxv. 7) is to be for them as well as for the\npoor. That they were mere machines of flesh and blood, to be driven\ntill they were worn out, and were then to be cast aside, seems never\nto have occurred to the Israelite mind. These helpful creatures\nhad made a covenant with man, and had a share in the consideration\nwhich the sons of Israel were taught to have for one another. In\nreaching that attainment Israel had reached the only effective\nground for dealing with animals, as Cheyne says, \"without inhumanity\nand without sentimentalism.\" The individual prescriptions of\nDeuteronomy emphasise and bring down these principles into the\npractical life. It is probable that the precept not to seethe a kid\nin its mother's milk (Deut. xiv. 21) was, in part at least, a law\nof kindness, founded upon a reverential feeling for the parental\nrelationship even in this lower sphere. The command in Deut. xxii.\n6 is certainly so. We read there: \"If a bird's nest chance to be\nbefore thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young\nones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs,\nthou shalt not take the dam with the young; thou shalt in any wise\nlet the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself; that\nit may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.\"\nEvidently the ground of sympathy here is the existence and the\nsacredness of the parental relationship. The mother bird is sacred\nas a mother; and length of days is promised to those who regard the\nsanctity of motherhood in this sphere, as it is promised to those\nwho observe the fifth commandment of the Decalogue. Thus intimately\nthe lower creation is drawn into the human sphere.\n\nThe only other precepts under this head are that a fallen animal is\nalways to be lifted (Deut. xxii. 4), and the ox is not to be muzzled\nwhen it is treading out the corn (Deut. xxv. 4). These were ordinary\nprescriptions of humanity, but they too rest upon the sympathetic\nidentification of the sufferings and wants of all sentient beings\nwith those of mankind. It may be objected, however, that St. Paul\ndenies that the last precept really was due to pity for the oxen. In\n1 Cor. ix. 9, referring to it, he says, \"Is it for the oxen that God\ncareth, or saith He it altogether for our sake? Yea, for our sake it\nwas written.\" But there is no real contradiction here. It is quite\nimpossible that a devout Jew like St. Paul did not believe that\nGod's \"tender mercies are over all His works\" (Psalm cxlv. 9). He\nwould have been false to all his training had he not accepted that\nas a fundamental axiom. His apparent denial does not refer at all to\nthe historic fact that the precept _was_ given because of God's care\nfor oxen. It only signifies that, when taken in its highest sense,\nit was meant to form character in _men_. St. Paul argues, as Alford\nsays, \"that not the oxen, but those for whom the law was given, were\nits objects. Every duty of _humanity_ has for its ultimate ground,\nnot the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare in\nthat system of which man is the head, and therefore man's welfare.\"\nIn fact St. Paul understood the Old Testament as we have seen it\ndemands to be understood, and places the duty of kindness to animals\nin its right relation to man.\n\nIn all relations, therefore, Deuteronomy insists that life's main\nprinciple shall be love illumined by sympathy. Beginning with\nGod and giving man's unquiet heart a firm anchorage there, it\ncommands that all creatures about us shall be embraced in the same\nsympathising tenderness. It forbids us to look upon any of them as\nmere instruments for our use, for all of them have ends of their\nown in the loving thought of God. God is for it the great unifying,\nharmonising power in the world, and from a right conception of Him\nall right living flows. If the New Testament asks with wonder how a\nman who loves not his brother whom he hath seen can love God whom\nhe hath not seen, the Old Testament teaches with equal emphasis the\ncomplementary truth that he who loves not God whom he hath not seen\nwill never love as he ought his brother whom he hath seen. For to it\nYahweh is the first and last word; and all the growth in kindness,\ngentleness, consideration, and goodness which can be traced in\nthe revelation given to Israel, has its source in a conception of\nthe Divine character which from the first was spiritual, and was\nmoreover unique in the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV\n\n_MOSES' FAREWELL SPEECHES_\n\nDEUT. iv. 1-40, xxvii.-xxx.\n\n\nWith the twenty-sixth chapter the entirely homogeneous central\nportion of the Book of Deuteronomy ends, and it concludes it most\nworthily. It prescribes two ceremonies which are meant to give\nsolemn expression to the feeling of thankfulness which the love of\nGod, manifested in so many laws and precepts, covering the commonest\ndetails of life, should have made the predominant feeling. The first\nis the utterance of what we have called the \"liturgy of gratitude\"\nat the time of the feast of firstfruits; and the second is the\nsolemn dedication of the third year's tithe to the poor and the\nfatherless, and the disclaimer of any misuse of it. Further notice\nof either after what has already been said in reference to them\nwould be superfluous. The closing verses (16-19) of the chapter are\na solemn reminder that all these transactions with God had bound\nthe people to Yahweh in a covenant. \"Thou hast avouched Yahweh this\nday to be thy God\" and, \"Yahweh hath avouched thee this day to be a\npeculiar people ('_am seg\u016bll\u0101h_) unto Himself.\" By this they were\nbound to keep Yahweh's statutes and judgments, and do them with\nall their heart and with all their soul, while He, on His part,\nundertakes on these terms to set them \"high above all nations which\nHe hath made in praise, and in name, and in honour,\" and to make\nthem a holy people unto Himself.\n\nBut the original Deuteronomy as read to King Josiah cannot have\nended with chapter xxvi., for the thing that awed him most was\nthe threat of evil and desolation which were to follow the\nnon-observance of this covenant. Now though there are indications of\nsuch dangers in the first twenty-six chapters of Deuteronomy, yet\nthreats are not, so far, a prominent part of this book. The book\nas read must consequently have contained some additional chapters,\nwhich, in part at least, must have contained threats. Now this is\nwhat we have in our Biblical Deuteronomy. But in chapters xxvii. and\nxxviii. there are reduplications which can hardly have formed part\nof the original author's work. An examination of these has led every\none who admits composite authorship in the Pentateuch to see that\nfrom chapter xxvii. onwards the original work has been broken up\nand dovetailed again with the works of JE and P; so that component\nparts of the first four books of the Hexateuch appear along with\nelements which the author of Deuteronomy has supplied. We have,\nin fact, before us, from this point, the work of the editor who\nfitted Deuteronomy into the framework of the Pentateuch; and it is\nof importance, from an expository point of view even, to endeavour\nto restore Deuteronomy to its original form, and to follow out the\ntraces of it that are left.\n\nAs we have said, we must look for the threats and promises which\nundoubtedly formed part of it. These are contained in chapters\nxxvii. and xxviii. But a careful reader will feel at once that\nchapter xxvii. disturbs the connection, and that xxviii. should\nfollow xxvi. In chapter xxvii., vv. 9 and 10 alone seem necessary\nto give a transition to chapter xxviii.; and if all the rest were\nomitted we should have exactly what the narrative in Kings would\nlead us to expect, a coherent, natural sequence of blessings and\ncurses, which should follow faithfulness to the covenant, or\nunfaithfulness. The rest of chapter xxvii. is not consistent either\nwith itself or with Josh. viii. 30, where the accomplishment of\nthat which is commanded here is recorded. In vv. 1-3 Moses and the\nelders command the people to set up great stones and plaister them\nwith plaister and write upon them all the words of this law, on\nthe day when they shall pass over Jordan, that they may go in unto\nthe land. In ver. 4 it is said that these stones are to be set up\nin Mount Ebal, and there an altar of unhewn stones is to be built,\nand sacrifices offered, \"and thou shalt write upon the stones very\nplainly.\" From the position of this last clause and the mention of\nMount Ebal, the course of events would be quite different from that\nwhich vv. 1-3 suggest. The stones were, according to the verses 4\nff., to be set up in Mount Ebal; out of these an altar of unhewn\nstones was to be built; and on them the law was to be inscribed, and\nthis is what Joshua says was done. But if we take all the verses,\n1-8, together, we can reconcile them only by the hypothesis that\nthe stones were set up as soon as Jordan was crossed, plaistered,\nand inscribed with the law; that afterwards they were removed to\nMount Ebal and built into an altar \"of unhewn stone,\" upon which\nsacrifices were offered. But that surely is in the highest degree\nimprobable; and since we know that in other cases two narratives\nhave been combined in the sacred text, that would seem the most\nprobable solution here. Verses 4-8 will in that case be a later\ninsertion, probably from J. In the same connection vv. 15-26 contain\na list of crimes which are visited with a curse and no blessings;\nthis cannot be the proclamation of blessing and cursing which is\nhere required. Further, this list must be by a different author,\nfor it affixes curses to some crimes which are not mentioned in\nDeuteronomy, and omits such sins as idolatry, which are continually\nmentioned there. This section must consequently have been inserted\nhere by some later hand. It must probably have been later even than\nthe time of the writer of Josh. viii. 33 ff., since the arrangement\nas reported there differs from what is prescribed here. Moreover, as\nthere is nothing new in these sections, and all they say is repeated\nsubstantially in chapter xxviii., we may give our attention wholly\nto chapter xxviii. 1-68, as being the original proclamation of\nblessing and curse.\n\nBut other entanglements follow. Chapters xxix. and xxx. manifestly\ncontained an adieu on the part of Moses, who turns finally to the\npeople with an affecting and solemn speech of farewell. That appears\nin chapters xxix. and xxx. But for many reasons it is impossible to\nbelieve that these chapters as they stand are the original speech of\nDeuteronomy.[126] The language is in large part different, and there\nare references to the Book of the Law as being already written out\n(chap. xxix. 19 f. 26, and chap. xxx. 10). It is probably therefore\nan editor's rewriting of the original speech, and from the fact\nthat \"it contains many points of contact with Jeremiah in thoughts\nand words,\" it is probably to be dated in the Exile. But there is\nanother noticeable thing in connection with it. It has a remarkable\nresemblance in these and other respects to chapter iv. 1-40. That\npassage can hardly have originally followed chapters i.-iii., if as\nis most probable these were at first an historic introduction to\nDeuteronomy. The hortative character of iv. 1-40 shows that it must\nhave been placed where it is by a reviser. But the language, though\nnot altogether that of Deuteronomy, is like it, and the thought is\nalso Deuteronomic. Probably the passage must have been transferred\nfrom some other part of Deuteronomy and adapted by the editor. A\nclue to its true place may perhaps be found in ver. 8, where \"all\nthis law\" is spoken of as if it were already given, and in ver. 5,\nwhere we read, \"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments.\"\nThese passages imply that the law of Deuteronomy had been given,\nand in that case chapter iv. must belong to a closing speech. We\nprobably shall not be in error, therefore, in thinking that chapters\niv. 1-40 and xxix. and xxx. are all founded on an original farewell\nspeech which stood in Deuteronomy after the blessing and the curse.\n\n  [126] Cf. Dillmann, _Deuteronomy_, pp. 178 ff.\n\nBut it may be asked, if that be so, why did an editor make these\nchanges? The answer is to be found in two passages in chapters xxxi.\nand xxxii. which cannot be harmonised as they stand. In xxxi. 19 we\nare told that Yahweh commanded Moses to write \"this song\" and teach\nit to the children of Israel, \"that this song may be a witness for\nMe against the children of Israel,\" and ver. 22, \"So Moses wrote\nthis song.\" But in vv. 28 f. we read that \"Moses said, Assemble unto\nme all the elders of the tribes and your officers, that I may speak\nthese words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to witness\nagainst them.\" Obviously \"these words\" are different from \"this\nsong,\" and are meant for a different purpose. The same ambiguity\noccurs at the end of the song in vv. 44 ff., where we first read\nof Moses ending \"this song,\" and in the next verse we read, \"And\nMoses made an end of speaking all these words to all Israel.\" Now\nwhat has become of \"_these words_\"? In all probability they were the\nsubstance of chapters iv. and xxix. and xxx., and were separated\nand amplified, because the editor who fitted Deuteronomy into the\nPentateuch took over the song in chapter xxxii., as well as those\npassages of xxxi. and xxxii. that speak of this song, from JE. He\naccepted them as a fitting conclusion for the career of Moses, and\ntransferred the original speech, which we suppose to have been\nthe last great utterance of the original Deuteronomy, putting the\nmain part of it immediately before the song, but taking parts out\nof it to form a hortatory ending (such as the other Moses' speeches\nhave) to that first one which he had formed out of the historic\nintroduction. This may seem a very complicated process and an\nunlikely one; but after the foundation had been built by Dillmann,\nWestphal has elaborated the whole matter with such luminous force\nthat it seems hardly possible to doubt that the facts can be\naccounted for only in this way. By piecing together iv., xxx., and\nxxxi. he produces a speech so thoroughly coherent and consistent\nthat the mere reading of it becomes the most cogent proof of the\nsubstantial truth of his argument.[127]\n\n  [127] Le _Deuteronome_ (Toulouse, 1891), pp. 62-75. The order in\n  which he disposes of the verses is as follows: Deut. xxxi. 24-29,\n  xxix. 1-15, iv. 1, 2, xxix. 16-21, iv. 3-30, xxix. 22-28, iv. 30,\n  31, xxx. 1-10, iv. 32-40, xxx. 11-20, xxxii. 45-47. If before this\n  we place xxxi. 1-13, we shall probably have the original sequence\n  fully restored.\n\nAn analysis of it will show this, (1) There is the introduction; up\ntill now the people have understood neither the commands nor the\nlove of Yahweh (xxix. 1-9). (2) There is the explanation of the\nCovenant (xxix. 10-15); (3) A command to observe the Covenant (iv.\n1, 2); (4) Warning against individual transgression, which will be\npunished by the destruction of the rebel (xxix. 16-21, iv. 3, 4);\n(5) Warning against collective transgression, which will be punished\nby the ruin of the people (iv. 5-26). The author, from this point\nregarding the transgression as an accomplished fact, announces:\n(6) The dispersion and exile of the people (iv. 27, 28); (7) The\nimpression produced on future generations by the horror of this\ndispersion (xxix. 22-28); (8) The conversion of the exiles to God\n(iv. 30, 31); (9) Their return to the land of their fathers xxx.\n(1-10). (10) In conclusion, it is stated that the power of Yahweh\nto sustain the faith of His people and to save them is guaranteed\nby the past (iv. 32-40); and there is no reason therefore that the\npeople should shrink from obeying the commandment prescribed to\nthem. It is a matter of will. Life and death are before them; let\nthem choose (xxx. 11-20).\n\nThe analysis of the remaining chapters is not difficult. Chapter\nxxxi., vv. 14-23 and 30, form the introduction to the song, chapter\nxxxii., vv. 1-43, just as ver. 44 is the conclusion of it. Both\nintroduction and song are extracted probably from J and E. Verses\n48-52 are after P. Then follows the blessing of Moses, chapter\nxxxiii. Finally, chapter xxxiv. contains an account of Moses' death\nand a final eulogy of him, in which all the sources JE, P, and D\nhave been called into requisition. The threefold cord which runs\nthrough the other books of the Pentateuch was untwisted to receive\nDeuteronomy, and has been re-twisted so as to bind the Pentateuch\ninto one coherent whole. That is the result of the microscopic\nexamination which the text as it stands has undergone, and we may\npretty certainly accept it as correct. But we should not lose\nsight of the fact that, as the book is now arranged, it has a\nnotable coherence of its own, and the impression of unity which it\nconveys is in itself a result of great literary skill. Not only\nhas the editor combined Deuteronomy into the other narratives most\nsuccessfully, but he has done so not only without falsifying, but so\nas to confirm and enhance the impression which the original book was\nmeant to convey.\n\nWe turn now to the substance of the two speeches--the proclamation\nof the blessing and the curse, and the great farewell address. As we\nhave seen, the first is contained in chapter xxviii. If any evidence\nwere now needed that this chapter was written later than the Mosaic\ntime, it might be found in the space given to the curses, and the\nmuch heavier emphasis laid upon them than upon the blessings. Not\nthat Moses might not have prophetically foretold Israel's disregard\nof warnings. But if the heights to which Israel was actually to\nrise had been before the author's mind as still future, instead of\nbeing wrapped in the mists of the past, he could not but have dwelt\nmore equally upon both sides of the picture. Whatever supernatural\ngifts a prophet might have, he was still and in all things a man.\nHe was subject to moods like others, and the determination of these\ndepended upon his surroundings. He was not kept by the power of God\nbeyond the shadows which the clouds in his sky might cast; and we\nmay safely say that if the curses which are to follow disobedience\nare elaborated and dwelt upon much more than the blessings which\nare to reward obedience, it is because the author lived at a time\nof unfaithfulness and revolt. Obviously his contemporaries were\ngoing far in the evil way, and he warns them with intense and eager\nearnestness against the dangers they are so recklessly incurring.\n\nBut after all we have seen of the spirituality of the Deuteronomic\nteaching, and its insistence upon love as the true bond between\nmen and God and the true motive to all right action, it is perhaps\ndisappointing to some to find how entirely these promises and\nthreats have their centre in the material world. Probably nowhere\nelse will the truth of Bacon's famous saying that \"Prosperity is the\nblessing of the Old Testament\" be more conspicuously seen than here.\nIf Israel be faithful she is promised productivity, riches, success\nin war. Even when it is promised that she shall be established by\nYahweh as a holy people unto Himself, the meaning seems to be that\nthe people shall be separated from others by these earthly favours,\nrather than that they shall have the moral and spiritual qualities\nwhich the word \"holy\" now connotes. Other nations shall fear Israel\nbecause of the Divine favour. Israel shall be raised above them all.\nIf it become unfaithful, on the other hand, it is to be visited\nwith pestilence, consumption, fever, inflammation, sword, blasting,\nmildew. The earth is to be iron beneath them, and the heaven above\nthem brass. Instead of rain they are to have dust; they are to be\nvisited with more than Egyptian plagues. Their minds are to refuse\nto serve them; they are to be defeated in war; their country is to\nbe overrun by marauders; their wives and children, their cattle\nand their crops, are to fall into the enemy's hands. Locusts and\nall known pests are to fall upon their fields; and they themselves\nare to be carried away captive, after having endured the worst\nhorrors of siege, and been compelled by hunger to devour their own\nchildren. And in exile they shall be an astonishment, a proverb, and\na by-word, and shall be ruled by oppressive aliens. Worst of all,\nthey shall there lose hope in God and \"shall serve other gods, even\nwood and stone.\" Their lives shall hang in doubt before them. In the\nmorning they shall say, \"Would God it were evening,\" and at even\nthey shall say, \"Would God it were morning.\" All the deliverance\nYahweh had wrought for them by bringing them out of Egypt would be\nundone, and once more they should go back into Egyptian bondage.\n\nAll that is materialistic enough; but there is no need to make\napology for Deuteronomy, nevertheless. The prophet has taught the\nhigher law; he has rooted all human duty, both to God and man, in\nlove to God, and now he tries to enlist man's natural fear and hope\nas allies of his highest principle. How justifiable that is we have\nalready seen in Chapter XII., pp. 231 ff.\n\nBut a more serious question is raised when it is asked, does\nNature, in definite sober truth, lend itself, in the manner implied\nthroughout this chapter, to the support of religious and moral\nfidelity? At a time when imaginative literature is largely devoting\nitself to an angry or querulous denial of any righteous force\nworking for the unfortunate and the faithful,[128] there can be\nno question what the popular answer to such a question would be.\nBut from the ranks of literature itself we may summon testimony on\nthe other side. Mr. Hall Caine, in his address at the Edinburgh\nPhilosophical Institution, maintains in a wider and more general\nway the essence of the Deuteronomic thesis when he says, \"I count\nhim the greatest genius who touches the magnetic and Divine chord\nin humanity which is always waiting to vibrate to the sublime hope\nof recompense; I count him the greatest man who teaches men that\nthe world is ruled in righteousness.\" And his justification of\nthat position is too admirable not to be quoted: \"Life is made up\nof a multitude of fragments, a sea of many currents, often coming\ninto collision and throwing up breakers. We look around and see\nwrong-doing victorious, and right-doing in the dust; the evil man\ngrowing rich and dying in his bed, the good man becoming poor and\ndying in the street; and our hearts sink and we say, What is God\ndoing after all in this world of His children? But our days are\nfew, our view is limited, we cannot watch the event long enough\nto see the end which Providence sees.\" \"It is the very province\nof imaginative genius,\" he goes on to say, \"to see that which the\ncommon mind cannot see, to offer to it at least suggestions of how\nthese triumphs of unrighteousness may be accounted for in accordance\nwith the law that righteousness rules in the world.\" We would go\nfurther. It is one of the main purposes of inspiration to go beyond\neven imaginative genius, to point out in history not only how right\nmay perhaps ultimately triumph, but how it has been in reality and\nmust be victorious. For it will not do to shut off the world of\nmaterial things from the working of this great and universal law.\nOwing to the narrow fanaticism of science, modern men have become\nsceptical, not only of miracle, but even of the fundamental truth\nthat righteousness is profitable for the life that now is, that in\nfollowing righteousness men are co-operating with the deepest law\nof the universe. But it remains a truth for all that. It is written\ndeep in the heart of man; and in more wavering lines perhaps, but\nstill most legibly, it is written on the face of things. With the\nlimitations of his time and place, this is what the Deuteronomist\npreaches. Doubtless he has not faced, as Job does, the whole of the\nproblem; still less has he attained to the final insight exhibited\nin the New Testament, that temporal gifts may be curses in disguise,\nthat the highest region of recompense is in the eternal life, in\nthe domain of things which are invisible but eternal. He does not\nyet _know_, though he has perhaps a presentiment of it, that being\ncompletely stripped of all earthly good may be the path to the\nhighest victory--the victory which makes men more than conquerors\nthrough Christ. Nevertheless he is, making these allowances, right,\nand the moderns are wrong. In many ways obedience to spiritual\ninspirations does bring worldly prosperity. The absence of moral\nand spiritual faithfulness does affect even the fruitfulness of\nthe soil, the fecundity of animals, the prevalence of disease, the\nstability of ordered life and success in war. This was visible to\nthe ancient world generally in a dim way; but by the inspired men\nof the Old Covenant it was clearly seen, for they were enlightened\nfor the very purpose of seeing the hand of God where others saw it\nnot. But they never thought of tracing out the chain of intermediate\ncauses by which such results were connected with men's spiritual\nstate. They saw the facts, they recognised the truth, and they\nthrew themselves back at once upon the will of God as the sufficient\nexplanation.\n\n  [128] Cf. Recent fiction, _e.g. The African Farm_, _Tess of the\n  D'Urbevilles_, _The Heavenly Twins_.\n\nWe, on the other hand, have been so diligent in tracing out the\nimmediately preceding links of natural causation that, for the most\npart, we have been fatigued before we reached God. We consequently\nhave lost view of Him; and it is wholesome for us to be brought\nsharply into contact with the ancient Oriental mind as we are here,\nin order that we may be forced to go the whole way back to Him. For\nthe fact is that much of that very process of decay and destruction\nfrom moral causes is going on before us in countries like Turkey\nand Morocco, where social righteousness is all but unknown, and\nprivate morality is low. A truly modern mind scorns the idea that\nthe fertility of the soil can be affected by immorality. Yet there\nis the whole of Mesopotamia to show that misgovernment can make a\ngarden into a desert. Where teeming populations once covered the\ncountry with fruitful gardens and luxurious cities, there is now\nin the lands of the Tigris and Euphrates a few handfuls of people,\nand all the fertility of the country has disappeared. Irrigation\nchannels which made all things live have been choked up and have\nbeen gradually filled with drifting sand, and one of the most\npopulous and fertile countries of the world has become a desert.\nIn Palestine the same thing may be seen. Under Turkish domination\nthe character of the soil has been entirely changed. In many\nplaces where in ancient days the hills were terraced to the top\nthe sweeping rains have had their way, and the very soil has been\ncarried off, leaving only rocks to blister in the pitiless sun. Even\nin the less likely sphere of animal fecundity modern science shows\nthat peace and good government and righteous order are causes of\nextraordinary power. And the movements which are going on around us\nat this day in the elevation and depression of nations and races\nhave a visible connection with fidelity or lack of fidelity to known\nprinciples of order and justice. This can be said without concealing\nhow scanty and partial in most cases such attainments are.\nPrevailing principles can be discerned in the providence which rules\nthe world. And these are of such a kind that the connection which\nobedience to the highest known rules of life has with fertility,\nsuccess and prosperity, is constant and intimate. It is, too, far\nwider reaching than at first sight would seem possible. To this\nextent, even modern knowledge justifies these blessings and curses\nof Deuteronomy.\n\nBut it may be asked, Is this all the Old Testament means by such\nthreats and promises? Does it recognise any even self-imposed\nlimitations to the direct action of Divine power? Most probably\nit does not. Though always keeping clear of Pantheism, the Old\nTestament is so filled and possessed by the Divine Presence that\nall second causes are ignored, and the action of God upon nature\nwas conceived, as it could not fail to be, on the analogy of a\nworkman using tools. Now that the methods of Divine action in nature\nhave been studied in the light of science, they have been found to\nbe more fixed and regular than was supposed. The extent of their\noperation, too, has been found to be immeasurably wider, and the\npurposes which have to be cared for at every moment are now seen\nto be infinitely various. As a result, human thought has fallen\nback discouraged, and takes refuge more and more in a conception of\nnature which practically deifies it, or at least entirely separates\nit from any intimate relation to the will of God. It is even denied\nthat there is any purpose in the world at all, or any goal, and\nto chance or fate all the vicissitudes of life and the mechanical\nchanges of nature are attributed. But though we must recognise, as\nthe Old Testament does not, that ordinary Divine action flows out in\nperfectly well-defined channels, and is so stable in its movement\nthat results in the sphere of physical nature may be predicted with\ncertainty; and though we see, as was not seen in ancient days, that\neven God does not always approach His ends by direct and short-cut\npaths,--these considerations only make the Old Testament view more\ninspiring and more healthful for us. We may gather from it the\ninference that if the fertility of a land, the frequency of disease,\nand success in war are so powerfully affected by the moral and\nspiritual quality of a people, it is very likely that in subtler and\nless palpable ways the same influences produce similar effects, even\nin regions where they cannot be traced. If so, whatever allowance\nmay be required for the inevitable simplicity of Old Testament\nconceptions on this subject, however much we miss the limitations\nwe have learned to regard as necessary, the Deuteronomic view as\nto the effects of moral and spiritual declension upon the material\nfortunes of a people is much nearer the truth than our timorous\nand hesitating half-belief. To find these effects emphasised and\naffirmed as they are here, therefore, acts as a much needed tonic\nin our spiritual life. Coming too from a man who possessed, if ever\nman did, Divinely inspired insight into the process of the world\nand the ideal of human life, these promises and warnings bring God\nnear. They dissipate the mists which obscure the workings of God's\nProvidence, and keep before us aspects of truth which it is the\npresent tendency of thought to ignore too much. They declare in\naccents which carry conviction that, even in material things, the\nLord reigneth; and for that the world has reason to be supremely\nglad.\n\nCertainly Christians now know that prosperity in material things is\nby no means God's best gift. That great principle must be held to\nfirmly, as well as the legitimacy of the vivid hopes and fears of\nOld Testament times regarding the material rewards of right-doing.\nIn many ways the new principle must overrule and modify for us\nthose hopes and fears. But with this limitation we are justified\nin occupying the Deuteronomic standpoint and in repeating the\nDeuteronomic warnings. For to its very core the world is God's; and\nthose who find His working everywhere are those whose eyes have been\nopened to the inmost truth of things.\n\nWith regard to the farewell speech contained in chapters xxix.\nand xxx. and the related parts of chapter iv. and chapter xxxi.\nthere is not much to be said. Taken as a whole, it develops the\npromises and threats of the previous chapters, and repeats again\nwith affectionate hortatory purpose much of the history. But there\nis not a great deal that is new; most of the underlying principles\nof the address have been already dealt with. Taken according to the\nreconstruction of the speech and its reinsertion in its original\nframework, the course of things would seem to have been this. After\nthe threats and promises had been concluded, Moses, carrying on the\ninjunction of iii. 28, addressed (chapter xxxii. 8) all the people\nand appointed Joshua to be his successor; then he wrote out \"this\nlaw,\" and produced it before the priests and elders of the people,\nwith the instruction that at the end of every seven years, at the\nfeast of release, in the feast of tabernacles, it should be read\nbefore all Israel, men, women, and children (chapter xxxi., w.\n9-13). Then he gave the book to the Levites, that they might \"lay\nit up\" by the side of the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh their God,\nthat it might be there for a witness against them when they became\nunfaithful, as he foresaw they would. He next summons all Israel\nto him, and delivers the farewell address contained in chapters\niv., xxix., and xxx., an outline of which has already been given\n(p. 438), according to Westphal's recombination. This would seem to\nindicate that Moses himself inaugurated the custom of reading the\nlaw and giving instruction to all the people, which he prescribed\nfor the feast of tabernacles in the year of release. After the law\nhad been given he addressed the whole people in this farewell speech.\n\nBut though on the whole there is no need for detailed exposition\nhere, there are one or two things which ought to be noticed,\nthings which express the spirit of Deuteronomy so directly and\nso sincerely that they can be identified as forming part of the\noriginal Deuteronomic speech. One of these is unquestionably xxx.\n11-20. At the end of the farewell address a return is made to the\ncore of the whole Deuteronomic teaching: \"Thou shalt love Yahweh\nthy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy\nmight.\" This was announced with unique emphasis at the beginning; it\nhas lain behind all the special commands which have been insisted\nupon since; and now it emerges again into view as the conclusion of\nthe whole matter. For beyond doubt this, and not the whole series\nof legal precepts, is what is meant by \"this commandment\" in verse\n11. Both before it, in the sixth and tenth verses, and after it, in\nthe sixteenth and twentieth verses, this precept is repeated and\ninsisted on as the Divine command. Had the individual commands or\nthe whole mass of them together been meant, the phrase used would\nhave been different. It would have been that in ver. 10, where they\nare called \"His commandments and His statutes which are written in\nthis book of the law,\" or something analogous. No, it is the central\ncommand of love to God, without which all external obedience is\nvain, which is the theme of this last great paragraph; and a clear\nperception of this will carry us through both the obscurities of\nit, and the difficulties of St. Paul's application of it in the\nRomans.\n\nOf this then the author of Deuteronomy says: \"It is not too hard\nfor thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou\nshouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto\nus, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? Neither is it beyond\nthe sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us,\nand bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? But\nthe word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart,\nthat thou mayest do it.\" That is to say, there is no mystery or\ndifficulty about this commandment of love. Neither have you to go\nto the uttermost parts of the sea to hear it, nor need you search\ninto the mysteries of heaven. It has been brought near to you by all\nthe mercy and forgiveness and kindness of Yahweh; it has been made\nknown to you now by my mouth, even in its pettiest applications. But\nthat is not all; it is graven on your own heart, which leaps up in\nglad response to this demand, and in answer to the manifestation of\nGod's love for you. It is really the fundamental principle of your\nown nature that is appealed to. You should clearly feel that life in\nthe love of God and man is the only fit life for you who are made in\nthe image of God. If you do, then the fulfilment of all the Divine\nprecepts will be easy, and your lives will lighten more and more\nunto the perfect day.\n\nNow, for an Oriental of the pre-Christian era such teaching is\nmost marvellous. How marvellous it is Christians perhaps find it\ndifficult to see. In point of fact, many have denied that Old\nTestament teaching ever had this character. Misled by the doctrines\nof Islam, the great Semitic religion of to-day, many assert that\nthe religion of ancient Israel called upon men to submit to mere\npower in submitting to God. But the appeal of our text to the\nheart of man shows that this is an error. No such appeal has ever\nbeen made to Mohammedans. Their state of mind in regard to God is\nrepresented by the remark of a recent traveller in Persia. Speaking\nof the Persian Babis, who may be described roughly as an heretical\nsect whose minds have been formed by Mohammedanism, he says: \"They\nseemed to have no conception of absolute good, or absolute truth;\nto them good was merely what God chose to ordain, and truth what\nHe chose to reveal, so that they could not understand how any one\ncould attempt to test the truth of a religion by an ethical and\nmoral standard.\"[129] Now that is precisely the opposite of the\nDeuteronomic attitude. Israel is encouraged and incited to right\naction by having it pointed out that not only experience, not only\nDivinely given statutes and judgments, but the very nature of man\nitself guarantees the truth of this supreme law of love. The law\nlaid upon men is nothing strange to, or incongruous with, their own\nbetter selves. It is the very thing which their hearts have cried\nout for; when it is proclaimed the higher nature in man recognises\nit and bows before it. It is not received because of fear, nor is it\nbowed before because it is backed by power which can smite men to\nthe dust. No; even in its ruins human nature is nobler than that;\nand Deuteronomy everywhere teaches with burning conviction that God\nis too ethical and spiritual in nature to accept the submission of a\nslave.\n\n  [129] _A Year Among the Persians_, E. G. Browne, p. 406.\n\nThis reading of our passage is plainly that which St. Paul takes in\nRom. x. 5 and 6. He perceives, what so many fail to do, that the\nspirit and scope of the Deuteronomic teaching are different from\nthat of the purely legal sections of the Pentateuch. Paul therefore\nquotes the Pentateuch as having already made the distinction\nbetween works and faith which he wishes to emphasise, and as having\ndistinctly given preference to the latter. Leviticus, keeps men\nat the level of the worker for wages, while Deuteronomy in this\npassage, by making love to God the essence of all true observance\nof the law, raises them almost to the level of sons. And just as\nin those ancient days the highest manifestations of God had not to\nbe laboured for and sought by impotent strivings, but had plainly\nbeen made known to them and had found an echo in their hearts, so\nnow the highest revelation had been brought near to men in Christ,\nand had found a similar response. They did not need to seek it in\nheaven, for it had been brought to earth in the Incarnation. They\ndid not need to descend into the abyss, for all that was needed had\nbeen brought thence by Christ at His resurrection. And in the New\nTestament as in the Old, the simplicity of the entrance into true\nrelations with God is emphasised. Love and faith are the fundamental\nconditions. From them obedience will naturally issue, since \"to\nfaith all things are possible, and to love all things are easy.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV\n\n_THE SONG AND BLESSING OF MOSES_\n\n(A). THE SONG OF MOSES\n\nDEUT. xxxii.\n\n\nCritics have debated the date, authorship, and history of this song.\nFor the present purpose it is sufficient, perhaps, to refer to the\nstatement on these points in the note below.[130]\n\n  [130] The song is described, in the narrative framework, as\n  delivered through Moses to the children of Israel. On the other\n  hand, internal evidence points to a date after the establishment\n  of the monarchy--when the days of Moses and the events of the\n  wilderness were old, when the fruits of the land were gifts of\n  God in present use, and when ingratitude and rebellion had become\n  conspicuous, so that judgment was impending. Either, then, Moses\n  took his stand, in the spirit, at a point of time long subsequent\n  to his own death, adapted the song to its circumstances, and spoke\n  not to his own generation but to one much later; or a later prophet\n  must be the writer. The objection to the former view is supported\n  by arguments drawn from various features in the language and the\n  allusions of the song, which are asserted to be indicative of the\n  later origin. On the detail of these we cannot dwell. But the\n  most interesting part of the argument is the position that the\n  transference of the prophetic consciousness to a remote future\n  period, in order to give hope and guidance to a generation not the\n  prophet's own, is too improbable to be admitted.\n\n  Such a process is now generally regarded as not impossible indeed,\n  but unheard of in the history of prophecy. The examination of the\n  prophets of the Old Testament has convinced students that the\n  prophet's vision starts from his own time, and is primarily for\n  the comfort and warning of his contemporaries. His words may have\n  a more remote reference, but must have the nearer one. Hence Isa.\n  xl.-lxvi. is now ascribed to a prophet or prophets of the Exile. The\n  principle is really the same as that which determines the authorship\n  of Deut. xxxiv. 5-12. No one now holds the view of some Jews, that\n  Moses by the spirit of prophecy wrote this himself. Yet if Moses\n  could in a poem address his people as sinning and suffering through\n  rebellions induced by their prosperity in Canaan, which they had\n  not entered when he died, one might as well believe him to describe\n  his own decease. In both cases we have to suppose the mind of Moses\n  transported to a period when he had been removed by death, that he\n  might look back upon and speak of events which when he wrote were\n  still future. Now in both cases a reason is lacking. Every one\n  accepts the view that since Joshua or Eleazar was there to write the\n  account of Moses' death, it is unlikely the lawgiver should have\n  been inspired to write it himself. Just so, since Yahweh inspired\n  new prophets at every crisis of His people's history, it seems\n  unlikely that the spirit of Moses should be transferred to, and made\n  at home in, the circumstances of a distant generation, in order\n  to deliver to it a message which could have been made known by a\n  prophet to whom the time was present. Neither Kamphausen nor Oettli\n  nor Dillmann nor the English expositors who accept the non-Mosaic\n  authorship of the song have any doubt as to the supernatural\n  character of prophecy. They found upon observations as to the manner\n  of Old Testament prophecy, which ought to regulate interpretation.\n\n  According to critical views the ascription to Moses of the reception\n  and delivery of this song was taken by the Deuteronomist from JE.\n  Kautzsch supposes that an editor to whom the song was known as\n  passing under the name of Moses may have inserted it. Dillmann\n  suggests grounds for believing that several prayers and poems\n  ascribed to Moses (including Psalm xc.) were in circulation in\n  prophetic circles in the Northern Kingdom, and that this one of\n  them was inserted here as its appropriate place. The case would be\n  parallel to the ascription of various later Psalms to David. Compare\n  also the discussions as to the song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii.\n\n  The view that a mistake as to the Mosaic authorship, for which the\n  writers of JE were not responsible, was handed on in perfect good\n  faith, is compatible with the doctrine of inspiration as held by\n  representatives of the orthodox Evangelical school in Germany, and\n  by the newer Evangelicals in England. Cf. Oettli, _Deuteronomy_, p.\n  22, and Sanday's _Bampton Lecture_.\n\nBut in discussing the meaning and contents of the song the\ndifferences referred to cause no difficulties. On any supposition\nthe time and circumstances, whether assumed as present, or actually\nand really present to the prophet's mind, can clearly be identified\nas not earlier than those of the Syrian wars. Accepted as dealing\nwith that time, this poem takes its place among the Psalms of that\nperiod. Its subject is a very common one in Scripture: the goodness\nof Yahweh to His people, and their unfaithfulness to Him; His grief\nat their rebellion; His punishment of them by heathen oppressors;\nand His turning in love to them, along with His destruction of\nthe nations who had prematurely triumphed over the people of God.\nPractically this is the burden of all the prophecies, as indeed\nit may be said to be the burden of the whole Book of Deuteronomy\nitself. Here it is stated and elaborated with great poetic skill;\nbut in the main, the essential thought, there is little that has not\nalready been elucidated.\n\nAs regards form the poem is among the finest specimens of Hebrew\nliterary art which the Old Testament contains. Every verse contains\nat least two parallel clauses of three words or word-complexes each,\nand the parallelism in the great majority of instances is of the\n\"Synonymous\" kind; that is to say, \"the second line enforces the\nthought of the first by repeating, and as it were _echoing_ it in a\nvaried form.\"[131] But into this as a foundation there is wrought a\ngreat deal of pleasing variation. The two-clause verses are varied\nby single instances or couplets or triplets of four-clause verses;\nwhile in two cases, at the emphatic end of sections, in vv. 14 and\n39, the rare five-clause verse is found. Further, the synonymous\nparallelism is relieved by occasional appearances of the \"synthetic\"\nparallelism, in which \"the second line contains neither a repetition\nnor a contrast to the thought of the first, but in different ways\nsupplements and completes it,\"[132] _e.g._ vv. 8, 19, and 27.\n\n  [131] Cf. Driver's _Introduction_, 5th edition, p. 340.\n\n  [132] Cf. Driver, _cit. loc._\n\nThe contents of the song are in every way worthy of the origin\nassigned to it, and higher praise than that it is impossible to\nconceive. Beginning with a fine exordium calling upon heaven and\nearth to give ear, the inspired poet expresses the hope that his\nteaching may fall with refreshing and fertilising power upon the\nhearts of men, for he is about to proclaim the name of Yahweh, to\nwhom all greatness is to be ascribed. In vv. 4 ff. the character and\ndealings of Yahweh are set over against those of the people:--\n\n    \"The Rock! His deeds are perfect,\n    For all His ways are judgment;\n    A God of faithfulness and without falsity,\n    Just and upright is He.\"\n\nThey, on the contrary, were perverse and crooked; and, acting\ncorruptly, they requited all Yahweh's benefits with rebellion. To\nwin them from that perverseness, he calls upon his people to look\nback upon the whole course of God's dealings with them. Even before\nIsrael had appeared among the nations, Yahweh had taken thought for\nHis people. When He assigned their lands to the various nations\nof the world He had always before Him the provision that must be\nmade for the children of Israel, and had left a space for them from\nwhich none but Yahweh could ever drive them out. For He had the same\nneed of and delight in His people as the nations had in the lands\nassigned to them, the lot of their inheritance. And not only had He\nthus prepared a place for Israel from the beginning, but He had led\nhim through the wilderness, through \"the waste, the howling desert.\"\n\n    \"He compassed him about, He cared for him,\n    He kept him as the apple of His eye.\"\n\nTo depict the Divine care worthily, he ventures upon a simile of a\nspecially tender kind, rare in the Old Testament, but to which our\nLord's comparison of His own brooding affection for Jerusalem to\nthat of a \"hen gathering her chickens under her wing\" is parallel.\n\n    \"As an eagle stirs up her nest,\n    Flutters above her young;\n    He, Yahweh, spread abroad His wings, He took him,\n    He bore him upon His pinions.\"\n\nAll the hardship and the toil were of God's appointment to drive\nHis beloved people upwards and onwards. Whatever they might think\nor believe now, it was Yahweh alone, without companion or ally, who\nhad done this for them, borne them up through it, and had bestowed\nupon them all the luxury of the goodly land once promised to their\nfathers. Even from the rocks He had given them honey, and the rocky\nsoil had produced the olive tree. They had, too, all the luxuries of\na pastoral people in abundance, and the wheat and foaming wine which\nwere the finest products of agriculture.\n\nIn every way their God had blessed them. They had all the prosperity\nwhich a complete fulfilment of the will of God could have brought,\nbut the result of it all was unfaithfulness and rejection of Him.\nJeshurun, the upright people, as the sacred singer in bitter irony\ncalls Israel, waxed fat and wanton. Instead of being drawn to God\nby His benefits, they had been puffed up with conceit concerning\ntheir own power and discernment. Full of these, they had mingled\nidolatrous rites with their worship of Yahweh. He had suffered them\nto reap the results of their own unfaithfulness in defeat at the\nhands of their foes.\n\nInstead of seeking the cause of their ill-success in themselves,\nthey had found it in the weakness of their God. All the victories\nYahweh had given them over foes whose strength they had feared were\nforgotten, and they \"despised the Rock of their salvation.\" They had\nadopted new and upstart deities whom their fathers had never heard\nof, who as they had come up in a day might disappear in a day, and\nneglected the Rock who begat them.\n\nYahweh on His part saw all this, and scorned His people and their\ndoings. In a vivid imaginative picture the poet represents Him as\nresolving to hide His face from them, to see what their end would\nbe. Without the shining of God's countenance there could be but\none issue for a people who were so faithless and perverse. He will\nrecompense them for their doings.\n\n    \"They made Me jealous with a no-God,\n    They vexed Me with their vain idols,\n    And I will make them jealous with a no-people,\n    With a foolish nation will I vex them.\"\n\nFor the fire of Divine wrath is kindled against them. It burns in\nYahweh with an all-consuming power, and fills the universe even to\nthe lowest depths of Sheol. Upon this sinful people it is about to\nburst forth; Yahweh will exhaust all His arrows upon them. By famine\nand drought; by disease and the rage of wild beasts, and of \"the\ncrawlers of the dust\"; by giving them up to their enemies, and by\noverwhelming them with terror. He will destroy this people, \"the\nyoung man and the virgin, the suckling and the man of grey hairs\"\nalike. Nothing could save them, save Yahweh's respect for His own\nname.\n\n    \"I had said, I shall blow them away,\n    I shall make their memory to cease from among men:\n    Were it not that I feared vexation from the enemy,\n    Lest their adversaries should misdeem,\n    Lest they should say, _Our_ hand is exalted,\n    And Yahweh hath not done all this.\"\n\nNothing but that stood between them and utter destruction, for\nas a nation they had no capacity for receiving and profiting by\ninstruction. If they had been wise they would have known that there\nwas but a step between them and death; they would have seen that\ntheir deeds had separated them from Yahweh, and could have but one\nissue. Their frequent and shameful defeats should have taught them\nthat, for\n\n    \"How could one chase a thousand,\n    And two put to flight ten thousand,\n    Were it not that their Rock had sold them,\n    And that Yahweh had delivered them up?\"\n\nThere was no possible explanation of Israel's defeats but this;\nfor neither in the gods of the heathen nor in the heathen nations\nthemselves was there anything to account for them. Their gods were\nnot comparable to the Rock of Israel; even Israel's enemies knew\nas much as that. Israel might forget and doubt Yahweh's power, but\nthose who had been smitten before Him in Israel's happier days knew\nthat He was above all their gods. Nor was the explanation to be\nsought in the heathen nations themselves. For they were not vines of\nYahweh's planting, but shoots from the vine of Sodom, tainted by the\nsoil of Gomorrah. They were, perhaps, in race, of the old Canaanite\nstock; in any case they were morally and spiritually related to\nthem, and their acts were such as brought death and destruction\nwith them. In themselves, consequently, they could not have been\nstrong enough to discomfit the people of God as they were doing,\nnor could they have been helped to that by any favour of His. Only\nthe determination of Yahweh to chastise His people could explain\nIsrael's unhappy fate in war.\n\nBut Yahweh's purpose was only to chastise. He was in no way finally\nforgetful of His chosen, nor of the ineradicable evil of their\nenemies' nature. The inner character of men and things is always\npresent to Him, and their deeds are laid up with Him as that which\nmust be dealt with, for it is one of the glories of Deity to sweep\nevil away and to restore anything that has good at its heart.\nRecompense is God's great function in the world, and evil, however\nstrong it may be, and however long it may triumph, must one day be\ndealt with by Him. It is laid up and sealed\n\n    \"Against the day of vengeance and of recompense,\n    Against the time when their foot shall slip;\n    For the day of their calamity is at hand,\n    And hastening are the things prepared for them.\"\n\nWithout that, justice could never be done to the people of God; and\njustice should be done to them when they had been brought to the\nverge of extinction, when, according to the antique Hebrew phrase,\nthere \"was none fettered or set free,\" none left under or over age.\nThen when all but the worst had come, Yahweh would demand, \"Where\nare their gods, with whom they took refuge, and who have eaten\nthe fat of their sacrifices, and drunk the wine of their drink\nofferings?\" He will challenge them to arise and help in this last\ndisastrous state of their votaries.\n\nBut there will be no response, and it will be made clear beyond all\ndoubting that Yahweh alone is God. He will declare Himself, saying:--\n\n    \"See now that I, I, am He,\n    And there is no god with Me:\n    _I_ kill, and _I_ make alive;\n    I wound, and I heal:\n    And there is none that delivereth out of My hand.\"\n\nIn that great day of Yahweh's manifested glory He will stand forth\nin the fulness of avenging power. Before the universe He will pledge\nHimself by the most solemn oath to bring down the pride of His\nenemies. In a death-dealing judgment, such as is seen only when the\nevil elements in the world have brought about a mere carnival of\nwickedness, and only universal death can cleanse, He will recompense\nupon evil-doers the evil they have wrought, and to a renovated world\nbring peace. There are few finer or more impressive imaginative\npassages in Scripture than this:--\n\n    \"For I lift up My hand to heaven,\n    And say, (As) I live for ever,\n    If I whet My gleaming sword,\n    And My hand take hold on judgment,\n    I will take vengeance upon Mine enemies,\n    And I will recompense them that hate Me.\n    I will make Mine arrows drunk with blood,\n    And My sword shall devour flesh,\n    With the blood of the slain and the captives,\n    From the chief of the leaders of the enemy.\"\n\nWith this great vision of judgment the poet leaves his people. For\nthem the first necessity evidently was that they should be assured\nthat Yahweh reigned, that evil could not ultimately prosper. With\ntheir whole horizon dominated and illumined by this tremendous\nfigure of the ever living and avenging God, their faith in the moral\ngovernment of the world and in the ultimate deliverance of their\nnation would be restored.\n\nThe poem closes with a stanza in which the seer and singer calls\nupon the nations to rejoice because of Yahweh's people. The\ndeliverance worked for them will be so great and so memorable that\neven the heathen who see it must rejoice. They will see His justice\nand His faithfulness, and will gain new confidence in the stability\nand the moral character of the forces which rule the world.\n\n\n(B) THE BLESSING OF MOSES\n\nDEUT. xxxiii.\n\nBesides the farewell speeches and the farewell song, we have in this\nchapter yet another closing utterance attributed to Moses. Here, as\nin the case of the song, we relegate critical matters to the note\nbelow.[133]\n\n  [133] The blessing of Moses was certainly not written by the author\n  of Deuteronomy: the vocabulary and the style are different from his.\n  Nor probably was the poem inserted here by him, but rather by the\n  final editor of the Pentateuch who is believed to have brought these\n  closing chapters into their present shape (cf. Chap. XXIV.). The\n  authority on which he relied may have been E.\n\nAs to the authorship of the blessing, Volck and Keil ascribe it\nto Moses. The great majority of recent students regard it, at all\nevents in its present form, as post-Mosaic, on grounds drawn from\nfeatures in the poem, and from the principles of prophetic exegesis\nreferred to in the note (p. 452). Opinions differ much as to the\ndate to be assigned, varying from the time of David to that of\nJeroboam II. The general assumption is that the blessing is the\nwork of a Northern Israelite; and the feeling for the tribes of\nLevi and Judah which it embodies is the chief indication on which\na conjecture can be hazarded. That would agree with a date later\nthan Solomon and not later than Jehoshaphat--a period when many in\nthe Northern Kingdom still looked with reverence to the sanctuary\nat Jerusalem, and when the Northern Levites still resented the\nintrusion by Jeroboam of a mixed multitude into the priesthood.\n\nAs to form, and partly as to contents, the blessing of Moses is\nmodelled on the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix). One conspicuous\ndifference is the introduction into that before us of a prose\nheading before most of the sections, analogous to the headings\nwhich appear in Arabic poetry (as the _Hamasa_) before each\nquatrain or longer poem. There is no ground for treating these as\nlater insertions, nor for separating other portions, as some have\nproposed, as later than the main composition.\n\nWe must notice in the first place the remarkable difference in tone\nand outlook between the blessing and the song of Moses. In the\nlatter evil-doing and approaching judgment are the burden; here the\noutward and inward condition of Israel leaves little to be desired.\nSatisfaction is breathed in every line, for both temporally and\nspiritually the state of the people is almost ideally happy. Nowhere\nis there a shadow; even on the horizon there is scarcely a cloud.\nNow even an optimist would need a background of actual prosperity to\ndraw such a picture of idyllic happiness for any nation, and we may\ntherefore conclude that the poem has in view one of the few halcyon\nperiods of Israel, before social wrongs had ruined the yeomen\nfarmers, or war and conquest had corrupted the powerful. The nation\nis as yet faithful to Yahweh, and possesses in peace the land which\nHe had given them to inherit.\n\nThe central part of the poem is of course the ten blessings promised\nto the various tribes, but these are preceded by an introduction\n(vv. 2-5), in which the formation of the people is traced to\nYahweh's revelation of Himself and His coming forth as their King.\nThey are followed also by a concluding section (vv. 26-29), in\nwhich the God of Jeshurun is declared to be incomparable, and His\npeople are depicted as supremely happy under His protecting care.\nThe language is in parts obscure, and though the general scope is\nalways plain, yet there are verses the meaning of which can only be\nconjectured. This is especially the case in the introduction. Of the\nfive lines of ver. 2, the fourth and fifth as they stand are hardly\nintelligible; the fifth indeed is not intelligible at all. In ver.\n3 again, while the first and second clauses are fairly clear, the\nthird and fourth are as they stand untranslatable. But the general\nsignification of the introductory verses (2-5) is that the Divine\nrevelation of Himself which Yahweh bestowed upon His people as He\ncame with them from Sinai, Paran, and Seir through the wilderness,\nand the establishment of the covenant which made Yahweh Israel's\nKing, together with the bestowal of an inheritance upon them, is\nthe foundation and beginning of that happiness which is to be\ndescribed. It is all traced back to the \"dawning\" of God upon them,\nHis \"shining out\" upon them from Sinai, and Seir, and Paran. These\nare named simply as the most prominent points in that region whence\nthe people came out into Canaan, and where the great revelation\nhad been bestowed. God had risen like the sun and had shed forth\nlight upon them there, so that they walked no more in darkness. The\nsight of God was, on this view, the great and fundamental fact in\nthe history of the chosen people. They, like all who have seen that\ngreat sight, were henceforth separate from others, with different\nduties and obligations, with hopes and desires and joys unknown to\nall beside. And the ground of this condescension on the part of God\nwas His love for His people. He loved them, and the saints among\nthem were upheld by Him. By Moses He gave them a law, which was to\nhold from generation to generation; and He had crowned His gifts to\nthem by becoming their King when the heads of the people entered\ninto covenant with Him.\n\nThen follow the blessings, beginning with good wishes for Reuben\nas the firstborn. But the tribe is not highly favoured. It is\nhowever less severely dealt with than in Jacob's blessing. There\ninstability and obscurity are foretold of it. Here it would seem as\nif the fortunes of the tribe were at the lowest ebb, and a wish is\nexpressed that it may not be suffered to die out. From the earliest\ntimes the tribe of Reuben seems to have been tending to decay. At\nthe first census taken under Moses the number of Reubenites capable\nof bearing arms was 46,500 men (Numb. i. 21), at the second 43,730\n(Numb. xxvi. 7). Both passages are from P, and consequently this\ndecadence of the tribe must have been present to that author's\nmind. In David's day they had still possession of part of their\nheritage, but even then their best estate was past. They had allowed\nmany Moabites to remain in the territory they conquered. These\nmost certainly caused trouble and gained the upper hand in places,\nuntil before the days of Mesa, king of Moab, as we learn from his\ninscription,[134] a great part of the cities formerly Reubenite\nwere in Moabite or Gadite hands. In Isaiah xv. and xvi. again,\nHeshbon and Elealeh, cities still Reubenite in Mesa's day, appear\nas Moabite, so that the bulk of the territory assigned to the tribe\nmust have been lost.[135] This record confirms the view that the\nblessing was written between Rehoboam and Jehoshaphat, and throws\nlight upon our verse:--\n\n    \"May Reuben live, and not die,\n    So that his men be few.\"\n\n  [134] Dillmann, _Deuteronomy_, p. 420.\n\n  [135] Baethgen's Riehm, _Handw\u00f6rterbuch_, p. 1321.\n\nThe blessing of Judah follows, but in contrast with the great\ndestiny foretold for this tribe in Jacob's blessing what is here\nsaid is strangely short and unenthusiastic:--\n\n    \"Hear, O Yahweh, Judah's voice,\n    And bring him to his people;\n    With his hands has he striven for it (his people);\n    And a help against his enemies be thou.\"\n\nSome whose opinions we are bound to respect, as Oettli, think\nthis refers merely to Judah's being appointed to lead the van of\nthe invasion, as in Judges i. 1 and xx. 8. In that case we should\nhave to conceive that on some occasion Judah was absent leading\nthe conquest, and got into dangerous circumstances, which are here\nreferred to. But it would seem that any such temporary danger could\nhardly have a place here. In all the other blessings permanent\nconditions only are regarded; and the sole historical fact we\nreally know that would explain this reference is the division of\nthe kingdom. But, it may be said, all critics agree that the author\nof the blessing is a Northern Israelite: now we cannot suppose a\nNorthern man to speak in this way of Judah, for it was the ten\ntribes that revolted from the house of David, not Judah from them.\nWe must remember, however, that though that is how Scripture, which\nin this matter represents the Southern view, regards the matter,\nthe Northern Israelites could look at the separation from another\nstandpoint. To those even who were favourable to the Davidic house,\nand regretted the folly of Rehoboam, it might seem that Judah had\nfirst broken away from the kingdom as united under Saul; and the\nrevolt under Jeroboam would appear to be only a resumption of the\nolder state of things, from which Judah had again separated itself.\nWhat circumstance can be referred to in the request to hear Judah's\nvoice cannot now be ascertained; but it is not at all unlikely\nthat some indication of a wish for reunion, perhaps expressed in\nsome public prayer, may have been given in the first period of the\nseparation. The rest of the verse would fit this hypothesis as well\nas it fits the other, and I think with the light we at present have\nwe must hold the reference to be as suggested.\n\nWith the eighth verse the blessing of Levi (one of the two most\nheartfelt and sympathetic) begins. In it Yahweh is addressed thus:--\n\n    \"Thy Urim and thy Thummim be to the men (_i.e._ tribe) of thy\n        devoted one (_i.e._ Moses or Aaron),\n    Whom thou didst prove at Massah,\n    With whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah.\"\n\nIn the last lines the relative pronoun is ambiguous, as it may refer\neither to \"men,\" for which in Hebrew we have the collective singular\n'_ish_, or to \"thy devoted one.\" The last is the more probable; but\nin either case there is a superficial discrepancy here between the\nhistorical books and this statement. In Exod. xvii. 1-7, as well as\nin Deuteronomy itself, it is the people who strove with Moses and\nproved or tempted Yahweh. On this account some would have us believe\nthat a different account of the events at Massah and Meribah was\nin this writer's mind. But that is the result of a mere itch for\ndiscovering discrepancies. It lies in the very nature of the case\nthat there should be another side to it. The beginning was with\nthe people; but just as the wandering in the wilderness is said to\nhave been meant by God to prove Israel, so this insubordination of\nthe people was meant to prove Moses or Aaron, and their failure\nto stand the proof made Yahweh strive with them. The verse, then,\nfounds Levi's claim to possess the chief oracle and to instruct\nIsrael first of all upon their connection with Moses or Aaron, or\nboth, since they had been exceptionally tried and had proved their\ndevotion. The next verse, then, goes on to found it also on the\nfaithfulness of the Levites, when they were called upon by Moses\n(Exod. xxxii. 26-29) to punish the people for their worship of the\ngolden calf. In vv. 27 and 29 of that chapter we find the same\nphrases,\n\n    9 \"Who (_i.e._ the tribe) said unto his father and to his mother,\n      I have not seen him;\n      Who recognised not his brother, and would know nought of his son;\n      For they kept Thy commandment,\n      And kept guard over Thy covenant.\"\n\nBeing such--\n\n    10 \"Let them teach Jacob Thy judgments,\n       And Israel Thy Torah;\n       Let them put incense in Thy nostrils,\n       And whole burnt-offerings upon Thine altars.\"\n\nHere we have the whole priestly duties assigned to the Levites. They\nare to perform judicial functions; to give Torah, or instruction,\nby means of the Urim and Thummim and otherwise; to offer incense\nin the Holy Place, and sacrifices in the court of the Temple. As\nearly as this, therefore (on any supposition we need regard, long\nbefore Deuteronomy), we find the Levites fully established as\nthe priestly tribe. Before the earliest writing prophets this was\nso--a fact of the greatest importance for the history of Israelite\nreligion. The remaining verse beseeches Yahweh to accept the work of\nLevi's hands, and to smite down his enemies. Evidently when this was\nwritten special enmity was being shown to this tribe; and, as has\nbeen said already, the religious proceedings of Jeroboam I. would be\nsufficient to call forth such a cry to Yahweh.\n\nIn ver. 12 the tribe of Benjamin is dealt with, and it is depicted\nas specially blessed by the Divine favour and the Divine presence.\nYahweh covers him all the day long, and dwells between his\nshoulders. There can hardly be a doubt that the reference is to the\nsituation of the Temple at Jerusalem, on the hill of Zion, towards\nthe loftier boundary of Benjamin's territory.\n\nVerses 13-17 contain the blessing of Joseph, _i.e._ of the two\ntribes Ephraim and Manasseh.\n\n    13 \"Blessed of Yahweh be his land\n       By the precious things of heaven from above,\n       By the deep which crouches beneath;\n\n    14 \"By the precious things of the sun,\n       And the precious things of the moons;\n\n    15 \"And by the (precious things of the) tops of the ancient mountains\n       And by the precious things of the everlasting hills;\n\n    16 \"And by the precious things of the earth and its fulness.\n       And may the good-will of Him that dwelt in the bush\n       Come upon Joseph's head,\n       And upon the top of the head of the crowned among his brethren.\n\n    17 \"May the firstborn of his ox be glorious;\n       And the horns thereof like the horns of the wild-ox;\n       With them may he gore the peoples, even all the earth's ends\n           together.\n       These (_i.e._ thus blessed) are the myriads of Ephraim,\n       And these the thousands of Manasseh.\"\n\nSupreme fertility is to be his, and the favour of Yahweh is to\nrest upon him as the kingly tribe in Israel. The curious phrase\nat the beginning of the seventeenth verse has been supposed to be\na reference to some individual, Joshua, Jeroboam II., or to the\nEphraimite kings as a whole. But the subject of the blessing is\nthe Josephite tribes, and there seems to be no good reason why the\nreference should be changed here. It cannot, therefore, refer to\nless than a whole tribe, and as according to Gen. xlviii. 14 Ephraim\nreceived the blessing of the firstborn, it must be Ephraim which is\nJoseph's firstborn ox. This view is confirmed by the last clause of\nthe verse, in which the myriads of Ephraim are spoken of, and only\nthe thousands of Manasseh. Obviously this must refer to times like\nthose of Omri, when the Israelite kingship was in its first youthful\nenergy, and was extending conquest on every hand.\n\nThe benedictions which remain are addressed to Zebulun, Issachar,\nGad, Dan, Naphtali, and Asher. They need little comment beyond close\ntranslation.\n\n    18 \"And of Zebulun he said,\n       Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out;\n       And, Issachar, in thy tents.\n\n    19 \"They shall call the peoples unto the mountain;\n       They shall offer sacrifices of righteousness:\n       For they shall suck the abundance of the seas,\n       And the hidden treasures of the sand.\"\n\nThe territory of Zebulun stretched from the Sea of Galilee to the\nMediterranean, probably quite down to the sea near Akko, in any case\nnear enough to give it an active share in the sea traffic. Issachar,\nwhose tribal land was the plain of Esdraelon, also shares in it; but\nthe contrast between \"thy going out\" and \"thy tents\" implies that\nZebulun took the more active part in the traffic. The reference in\nverse 19, clauses _a_ and _b_, is obscure. As the Septuagint reads\n\"they shall destroy\" instead of \"unto the mountain,\" the text may be\ncorrupt. It may perhaps be an allusion to the sacrificial feasts at\ninaugurated fairs to which surrounding peoples were called, as Stade\nsuggests.\n\n    20 \"And of Gad he said,\n       Blessed be the enlarger of Gad:\n       He dwelleth as a lioness,\n       And teareth the arm, yea, the crown of the head.\n\n    21 \"And he looked out the first part for himself,\n       Because there a (tribal) ruler's portion lay ready;\n       And he came with the heads of the people,\n       He executed the justice of Yahweh,\n       And His judgments in company with Israel.\"\n\nAt this time Gad was in possession of a wide territory, and was\nfamed for courage and success in war. His foresight in choosing the\nfirst of the conquered land as a worthy tribal portion is praised,\nand his faithfulness in carrying out his bargain to accompany the\nnation in its attack on the west Jordan land.\n\n    22 \"And of Dan he said,\n       Dan is a lion's whelp,\n       Leaping forth from Bashan.\"\n\nThis does not mean that Dan's territory was Bashan, but only that\nhis attack was as fierce and unexpected as that of a lion leaping\nforth from the crevices and caves of the rocks in Bashan.\n\n    23 \"And of Naphtali he said,\n       O Naphtali, sated with favour,\n       And full of the blessing of Yahweh:\n       Possess thou the sea and the south.\"\n\nThe soil in the territory of Naphtali was specially fruitful, in the\nregion of Huleh and on the shore of the Sea of Gennesaret. These are\nthe sea and the hot south part which the tribe is called upon to\ntake as a possession, and because of which the favour of Yahweh and\nHis blessing specially rested upon it.\n\n    24 \"And of Asher he said,\n       Blessed above children be Asher;\n       May he be the favoured of his brethren,\n       And dip his feet in oil.\n\n    25 \"Iron and brass (be) thy bars;\n       And as thy days (so may) thy strength (be).\"\n\nThe last line is extremely doubtful. The word translated \"thy\nstrength\" is really not known, and that meaning probably implies\nanother reading; \"thy bars\" in the previous line is also doubtful.\nThe reference to oil probably implies that the olive tree was\nspecially fruitful, in the country inhabited by Asher, but why he\nshould be specially favoured of his brethren can now hardly be\nconjectured.\n\nIn the concluding verses we have an exaltation of Israel's God and\nof His people. Speaking out of the time when Israel had driven\nout its enemies and was in full and undisturbed possession of its\nheritage (ver. 28), the poet declares to Jeshurun how incomparable\nGod is. He rides upon the heaven to bring help to them, and He comes\nin the clouds with majesty. The God of old time is Israel's refuge\nor dwelling, covering him from above, and beneath, _i.e._ on the\nearth. His everlasting arms bear His people up in their weariness,\nand shelter them there against all foes. He has proved this by\nthrusting out before them, and by commanding them to destroy, their\nenemies.\n\n    28 \"And so Israel came to dwell in safety,\n       The fountain of Jacob alone,\n       In a land of corn and wine;\n       Yea, His heavens drop down dew.\n\n    29 \"Happy art thou, O Israel:\n       Who is like unto thee?\n       A people saved by Yahweh,\n       The shield of thy help\n       And the sword of thy majesty!\n       Thine enemies shall feign friendship to thee;\n       And thou shalt tread upon their high places.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI\n\n_MOSES' CHARACTER AND DEATH_\n\n\nIt has been often said, and it has even become a principle of\nthe critical school, that the historical notices in the earlier\ndocuments of the Old Testament represent nothing but the ideas\ncurrent at the time when they were written. Whether they depict\nan Abraham, a Jacob, or a Moses, all they really tell us is the\nkind of character which at such times was held to be heroic. In\nthis way the value of the historic parts of Deuteronomy have been\ncalled in question, and we have been told that all we can gather\nfrom them about Moses is the kind of character which the pious, in\nthe age of Manasseh, would feel justified in attributing to their\ngreat religious hero. But it is manifestly unfair to estimate the\nstatements of men who write in good faith, as if they were only\nprojecting their own desires and prejudices upon a past which is\nabsolutely dark. It may be true that such writers might be unwilling\nto narrate stories concerning the great men of the past which were\ninconsistent with the esteem in which they were held; but it is much\nmore certain that their narratives will represent the tradition and\nthe current knowledge of their time regarding the heroes of their\nrace. Unless this be true, no reliance could be placed upon anything\nbut absolutely contemporary documents; even these would be open to\nsuspicion, if the human mind were so lawless as to have no scruple\nin filling up all gaps in its knowledge by imaginations. We must\nprotest, therefore, against the notion that what J and E and D tell\nus concerning the life and character of Moses must be discounted in\nany effort we make to represent to ourselves the life and thought of\nthat great leader of Israel. They tell us much more than what was\nthought fitting for a leader of the people in the ninth and eighth\nand seventh centuries B.C. They tell us what was _believed_ in those\ntimes about Moses; and much of what was believed about him must have\nrested upon good authority, upon entirely reliable tradition, or\nupon previous written narratives concerning him.\n\nUp till recently it was held, by men as eminent even as Reuss,\nthat writing was unknown in the days of Moses, and that for long\nafterwards oral tradition alone could be a source of knowledge of\nthe past. But recent discoveries have shown that this is an entire\nmistake. Long before Moses writing was a common accomplishment in\nCanaan; and it seems almost ridiculous to suppose that the man\nwho left his mark so indelibly upon this nation should have been\nignorant of an art with which every master of a village or two\nwas thoroughly conversant. Moreover the fact that the same root\n(_k-t-b_) occurs in every Semitic tongue with the meaning \"to\nwrite,\" would seem to indicate that before their separation from\none another the art of writing was known to all the Semitic tribes.\nThe new facts enormously strengthen that probability, and make the\narguments advanced by those who hold the opposite view look even\nabsurd. But if writing were known and practised in Moses' day in\nCanaan, it would be marvellous if many of the great events of the\nearly days had not been recorded. It would be still more marvellous\nif the comparatively late writings, which alone we have at our\ndisposal had not embodied and absorbed much older documents.\n\nBut for still another reason the critical dictum must be held to be\nfalse. Applied in other fields and in regard to other times, this\nsame principle would deprive us of almost every character which has\nbeen considered the glory of humanity. Zarathustra and Buddha have\nalike been sacrificed to this prejudice, and there are men living\nwho say that we know so little about our Lord Jesus Christ that it\nis doubtful whether He ever existed. A method which produces such\nresults _must_ be false. The great source of progress and reform has\nalways been some man possessed by an idea or a principle. Even in\nour own days, when the press and the facilities for communication\nhave given general tendencies a power to realise themselves which\nthey never had in the world's history before, great men are the\nmoving factors in all great changes. In earlier ages this was still\nmore the case. It is an utterly unjustifiable scepticism which\nmakes men contradict the grateful recollection of mankind, in\nregard to those who have raised and comforted humanity. Through all\nobscurities and confusions we can reach that Indian Prince for whom\nthe sight of human misery embittered his own brilliant and enjoyable\nlife. We refuse to give up Zarathustra, though his story is more\nobscure and entangled than that of almost any other great leader\nof mankind. Especially in a history like that of Israel, which\npurports to have been guided in a special manner by revelations of\nthe will of God, the individual man filled with God's spirit is\nquite indispensable. Even if mythical elements in the story could\nbe proved, that would not shake our faith in the existence of\nMoses; for as Steinthal, who holds the very \"advanced\" opinion that\nsolar myths have strayed into the history of Moses, wisely says, it\nis quite as possible to distinguish between the mythical and the\nhistorical Moses as it is to distinguish between the historical\nCharlemagne and the mythical. Because of the general reliability\nof tradition regarding great men therefore, and because also of\nthe proofs we have that writing was common before Moses' day, we\nneed not burden ourselves with the assumption or the fear that the\nDeuteronomic character of Moses may be unreliable.\n\nBut in endeavouring to set forth this conception of the character\nof Moses, we cannot confine ourselves to what appears in this book.\nIt is generally acknowledged that the author had at least the\nYahwist and the Elohist documents in their entirety before him, and\nregarded them with respect, not to say reverence. Consequently we\nmust believe that he accepted what they said of Moses as true. The\nonly document in the Pentateuch that he may not have known in any\nshape was the Priest Codex, but that makes no attempt to depict the\ninner or outer life of Moses. All the personal life and colour in\nthe Biblical narrative belongs to the other sources. For a personal\nestimate, therefore, we lose little by excluding P. Only one other\ncause of suspicion in regard to the historical parts of Deuteronomy\n_could_ arise. If it, comparatively modern as it is, contained much\nthat was new, if it revealed aspects of character for which no\nauthority was quoted, and of which there was no trace in the earlier\nnarratives, there might be reasonable doubt whether these new\ndetails were the product of imagination. But there is very little\nmore in Deuteronomy than there is in the historical parts of the\nother books, though the older narratives are repeated with a vivid\nand insistive pathos which almost seems to make them new.\n\nCombining then what the Deuteronomist himself says with what the\nYahwist and Elohist documents contain, we find that the claim\nusually made for Moses, that he was the founder of an entirely new\nreligion, is not sustained. Again and again it is asserted that\nYahweh had been the God of their fathers, of Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob--so that Moses was simply the renewer of a higher faith\nwhich for a time had been corrupted. Some have even asserted that\nthere had been all down the ages to Moses the memory of a primeval\nrevelation. But if there ever was such a thing, we learn from\nJosh. xxiv. 2, a verse acknowledged to be from the Elohist, that\nthat \"fair beginning of a time\" had been entirely eclipsed, for\nTerah, the father of Abraham, had served other gods beyond the\nflood. Abraham, therefore, rather than Moses, is regarded as the\nfounder of the religion of Yahweh. Whether the word Yahweh (Exod.\nvi. 3) was known or not makes little difference, for all our four\nauthorities teach that Moses' work was the revival of faith in\nthat which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had believed. But the bulk of\nthe people would appear to have been ignorant regarding the God\nof their fathers; and probably the conception which Deuteronomy\nshares with J and E is that in Moses' day Yahweh was the special\nGod of a small circle, perhaps of the tribe of Levi, among whom\na more spiritual conception of God than was common among their\ncountrymen had either been retained, or had arisen anew. Probably\nthen we ought to conceive the circumstances of Moses' early life\nsomewhat in this way. A number of Semitic tribes, more or less\nnearly related to each other and to Edom and Moab, had settled in\nEgypt as semi-agricultural nomads. At first they were tolerated;\nbut they were now being worn down and oppressed by forced labour of\nthe most brutal sort. Either a tribe or a clan among them had the\ngerms of a purer conception of God, and in this tribe or clan Moses,\nthe deliverer of his people, was born. Providentially he escaped\nthe death which awaited all Israelite boys in those days, and grew\nup in the camp of the enemies of his people. By this means he\nreceived all the culture that the best of the oppressors had, while\nthe tie to Israel was neither obscured nor weakened in his mind.\nAt the court of Pharaoh he could not fail to acquire some notions\nof state-craft, and he must have seen that the first step towards\nanything great for his people must be their union and consolidation.\nBut his earliest effort on their behalf showed that he had not\nreally considered and weighed the magnitude of his task. Killing\nan Egyptian oppressor might conceivably have served as a signal\nfor revolt. But in point of fact it frustrated any plans Moses\nmight have had for the good of his people, and drove him into the\nwilderness. Here the germs of various thoughts which education and\nexperience of life had deposited in his mind had time to develop and\ngrow. According to the narrative, it was only at the end of his long\nsojourn in Midian that he had direct revelation from God. But amid\nthe wide and awful solitudes of that wilderness land, as General\nGordon said of himself in the kindred solitudes of the Soudan,\nhe learned himself and God. Whatever deposits of higher faith he\nhad received from his family, no doubt the long, silent broodings\ninseparable from a shepherd's life had increased and vivified it.\nEvery possible aspect of it must have been reckoned with, all its\nconsequences explored; and his great and solitary soul, we may be\nsure, had many a time let down soundings into the deeps which were,\nas yet, dark to him. And then--for it is to souls that have yearned\nafter Him in the travail of intellectual and spiritual longing\nthat God gives His great and splendid revelations--Yahweh revealed\nHimself in the flame of the bush, and gave him the final assurance\nand the first impulse for his life's work. It is a touch of reality\nin the narrative which can hardly be mistaken, that it represents\nMoses as shrinking from the responsibility which his call must lay\nupon him. Behind the few and simple objections in the narrative, we\nmust picture to ourselves a whole world of thoughts and feelings\ninto which the call of God had brought tumult and confusion. One\nwould need to be a dry-as-dust pedant not to see here, as in the\ncase of Isaiah's call, the triumphant issue of a long conflict and\nthe decisive moment of a victory over self, which had had already\nmany stages of defeat and only partial success. It is perennially\ntrue to human nature and to the Divine dealings with human nature,\nthat help from on high comes to establish and touch to finer issues\nthat which the true man has striven for with all his powers.\n\nEnlightened and assured by this great revelation of God, Moses left\nthe quiet of the desert to undertake an extraordinarily difficult\ntask. He had to weld jealous tribes into a nation; he had to\nrouse men whose courage had been broken by slavery and cruelty to\nundertake a dangerous revolt; and he had to prepare for the march of\na whole population, burdened with invalids and infants, the feeble\nand the old, through a country which even to-day tries all but the\nstrongest. These things had to be done; and the mere fact that they\nwere accomplished would be inexplicable, without the domination of\na great personality inspired by great ideas of a religious kind.\nFor, in antiquity, the only bond able to hold incongruous elements\ntogether in one nationality was religion. With the people whom\nMoses had to lead the necessity would be the same, or even greater.\nBut the political work which must have preceded any common action\nlikewise demanded a great personality. Though no doubt a common\nmisery might silence jealousies and make men eager to listen to any\npromises of deliverance, yet many troublesome negotiations must have\nbeen carried through successfully before these sentences could have\nbeen written with truth: \"And Moses and Aaron went and gathered\ntogether all the elders of the children of Israel, and the people\nbelieved, and bowed their heads and worshipped.\"\n\nMany conjectures have been hazarded as to what the centre of Moses'\nmessage at this time really was. Some, like Stade, bring it down\nto this, that Yahweh was the God of Israel. Others add to this\nsomewhat meagre statement another equally meagre, that Israel was\nthe people of Yahweh. But unless the character of Yahweh had been\npreviously expounded to the people, there seems little in these\ntwo declarations to excite any enthusiasm or to kindle faith. The\nmere fact of inducing the tribes to put all other gods aside is\ninsufficient to account for any of the results that followed, if to\nMoses Yahweh had remained simply a tribal God, of the same type as\nthe gods of the Canaanites. On the other hand, if he had risen to\nthe conception of God as a spirit, of Yahweh as the only living God,\nas the inspirer and defender of moral life, or even if he had made\nany large approach to these conceptions, it is easy to understand\nhow the hearts of the mass of the people were stirred and filled,\neven though things so high were not, by the generality, thoroughly\nunderstood or long retained. But the hearts of all the chosen, the\nspiritually elect, would be moved by them as the leaves are moved\nby the wind. These, with Moses at their head, formed a nucleus\nwhich bore the people on through all their trials and dangers, and\ngradually leavened the mass to some extent with the same spirit.\n\nEven after this had been accomplished, the main work remained to\nbe done. We cannot agree indeed with many writers who seem to\nthink that the whole life of the Israelite people was started anew\nby Moses. That would involve that every regulation for the most\ntrivial detail of ordinary life was directly revealed, and that\nMoses made a _tabula rasa_ of their minds, rubbing out all previous\nlaws and customs, and writing a God-given constitution in their\nplace. Obviously, that could hardly be; but still a task very\ndifferent, yet almost as difficult, remained for Moses after his\nfirst success. His final aim was to make a virtually new nation\nout of the Hebrew tribes; and their whole constitution and habits\nhad, consequently, to be revised from the new religious standpoint.\nHe and the nation alike had inherited a past, and it was no part of\nhis mission to delete that. Reforms, to be stable, must have a root\nin the habits and thoughts of the people whom they concern. Moses\nwould, consequently, uproot nothing that could be spared; he would\nplant nothing anew which was already flourishing, and was compatible\nwith the new and dominant ideas he had introduced. A great mass\nof the laws and customs of the Hebrews must have been good, and\nsuitable to the stage of moral advancement they had reached before\nMoses came to them. Any measure of civilised life involves so much\nas that. Another great mass, while lying outside of the religious\nsphere, must have been at least compatible with Yahwism. All laws\nand customs coming under these two categories, Moses would naturally\nadopt as part of the legislation of the new nation, and would stamp\nthem with his approval as being in accord with the religion of\nYahweh. They would thus acquire the same authority as if they were\nentirely new, given for the first time by the Divinely inspired\nlawgiver.\n\nBut besides these two classes of laws and customs there must have\nbeen a number which were so bound up with the lower religion that\nthey could not be adopted. They would either be obstructive of the\nnew ideas, or they would be positively hostile to them; for on any\nsupposition heathenism of various sorts was largely mingled with the\nreligion of the Israelite people before their deliverance, and even\nafter it. To sift these out, and to replace them by others more in\naccord with the will of Yahweh as now revealed, must have been the\nchief work of the lawgiver. In that more or less protracted period\nbefore Israel came to Sinai, during which Moses burdened himself\nwith judging the people personally, he must have been doing this\nwork. His reflections in the wilderness had doubtless prepared\nhim for it. In a mind like his, the fruitful principles received\nby the inspiration of the Almighty could not be merely passively\nheld. Like St. Paul in his Arabian sojourn, we must believe that\nMoses in Midian would work out the results of these principles in\nmany directions; and when he led Israel forth, he must have been\nclearly conscious of changes that were indispensable. But it needed\nclose every-day contact with the life of the people to bring out\nall the incompatibilities which he would have to remove. Every day\nunexpected complications would arise; and the people at any rate, if\nMoses himself be supposed to be raised by his inspiration above the\nneeds of experience, would be able to receive the instruction they\nneeded only in concrete examples, here a little and there a little.\nWhen they came to \"seek Yahweh\" in any matter which perplexed them,\nMoses gave them Yahweh's mind on the subject; and each decision\ntended to purify and render innocuous to their higher life some\ndepartment of public or private affairs. Every day at that early\ntime must have been a day of instruction how to apply the principles\nof the higher faith just revived. The better minds among the chiefs\nwere thereby trained to an appreciation of the new point of view;\nand when Jethro suggested that the burden of this work should be\ndivided, quite a sufficient number were found prepared to carry it\non. After this it must have gone on with tenfold speed, and we may\nbelieve that when Sinai was reached the preliminaries on the human\nside to the great revelation had been thoroughly elaborated. The\nDivine presence had been with Moses day by day, judging, deciding,\ninspiring in all their individual concerns as well as in their\ncommon affairs. But that would only bring out more clearly the\nextent of the reformation that remained to be wrought; doubtless\ntoo it had revealed the dulness of heart in regard to the Divine\nwhich has always characterised the mass of men. The need for a more\ncomplete revelation, a more extended and detailed legislation on the\nnew basis, must have been greatly felt. In the great scene at Sinai,\na scene so strange and awe-inspiring that to the latest days of\nIsrael the memory of it thrilled every Israelite heart and exalted\nevery Israelite imagination, this need was adequately met.\n\nIn connection with it Moses rose to new heights of intimacy with the\nDivine. What he had already done was ratified, and in the Decalogue\nthe great lines of moral and social life were marked out for the\npeople. But the most remarkable thing to us, in the narrative of\nthe circle of events which made the mountain of the law for ever\nmemorable, is the sublimity attributed to the character of Moses.\nFrom the day when he smote the Egyptian, at every glimpse we have\nof him we find him always advancing in power of character. The\nshepherd of Midian is nobler, less self-assertive, more overawed by\ncommunion with God, than the son of Pharaoh's daughter, noble as he\nwas. Again, the religious reformer, the popular leader, who needs\nthe very insistence of God to make him lead, who speaks for God\nwith such courageous majesty, who teaches, inspires, and manages a\nturbulent nation with such conspicuous patience, self-repression,\nand success, is greatly more impressive than the Moses of Midianite\ndays. But it is here, at Sinai, that his rank among the leaders of\nmen is fixed for ever. To the people of that time God was above\nall things terrible; and when they came to the mount and found\nthat \"there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon\nthe mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud,\" they\ncould only tremble. Their very fear made it impossible for them to\nunderstand what God desired to reveal concerning Himself. But in\nMoses love had cast out fear. Even to him, doubtless, the darkness\nwas terrible, because it expressed only too well the mystery which\nenwrapped the end of the Divine purposes of which he alone had seen\nthe beginnings; even his mind must have been clouded thick with\ndoubts as to whither Yahweh was leading him and his people; yet he\nwent boldly forth to seek God, venturing all upon that errand.\n\nIn previous perplexities the narrative represents Moses as calling\ninstantly upon Yahweh; but now, when experience had taught him the\nformidable nature of his task, when difficulties had increased\nupon him, when his perplexities of all kinds must have been simply\noverwhelming, he heard the voice of Yahweh calling him to Himself.\nStraightway he went into solitary communion with Him; and when he\npassed with satisfied heart from that communion, he brought with him\nthose immortal words of the Decalogue which, amid all changes since,\nhave been acknowledged to be the true foundation for moral and\nspiritual life. He brought too a commission authorising him to give\nlaws and judgments to his people in accord with what he had heard\nand seen on the mount. However we are to understand the details of\nthe narrative therefore, its meaning is that at this time, and under\nthese circumstances, Moses attained his maximum of inspiration as a\nseer or prophet, and from that time onward stood in a more intimate\nrelation to God than any of the prophets and saints of Israel who\ncame after him. He had found God; and from where he stood with God\nhe saw the paths of religious and political progress plainly marked\nout.\n\nHenceforth he was competent to guide the nation he had made as he\nhad not yet been, and with his power to help them his eagerness to\ndo so grew. Twice during this great crisis of his life the people\nbroke away into evil, and national death was threatened. But with\npassionate supplications for their pardon he threw himself down\nbetween God and them. At precisely the moment when his communion\nwith God was most complete, he rose to the loving recklessness of\ndesiring that if they were to be destroyed he might perish with\nthem. Strangely enough, though the author of Deuteronomy had this\nbefore him, he does not mention it. It cannot have struck even him\nas the crowning point of Moses' career, as it does us. Even in\nhis day the fitness, nay, the necessity, of this self-sacrificing\nspirit as the fruit of deeper knowledge of God, was not yet felt;\nmuch less could it have been felt in the days of the earlier\nhistorians. There must, therefore, be reliable information here as\nto what Moses actually did. Such love as this was not part of the\nIsraelite ideal at the time of our narrative, and from nothing but\nknowledge of the fact could it have been attributed to Moses. We\nmay rank this enthusiasm of love, therefore, as a reliable trait\nin his character. But if it be so, how far must he in his highest\nmoments have transcended his contemporaries, and even the best\nof his successors, in knowledge of the inmost nature of God! His\nthought was so far above them that it remained fruitless for many\ncenturies. Jeremiah's life and death first prepared the way for its\nappreciation, but only in the character of the Servant of Yahweh in\nSecond Isaiah is it surpassed. Now if in this deepest part of true\nreligion Moses possessed such exceptional spiritual insight, it is\nvain to attempt to show that his conception of God was so low, and\nhis aim for man so limited, as modern theorists suppose. The truth\nmust lie rather with those who, like Dr. A. B. Davidson,[136] see in\nhim \"a profoundly reverential ancient mind with thoughts of God so\nbroad that mankind has added little to them. Nothing in the way of\nsublimity of view would be incongruous with such a character, while\nnothing could be more grotesque than to shut it up within the limits\nof the gross conceptions of the mass of the people. He was their\nguiding star, not their fellow, in all that concerned God, and his\nreligious conceptions were by a whole heaven removed from theirs.\nThe entire tragedy of his life just consisted in this, that he had\nto strive with a turbulent and gainsaying people, had to bear with\nthem and train them, had to be content with scarcely perceptible\nadvances, where his strenuous guidance and his patient love should\nhave kindled them to _run_ in the way of God's commandments. But\nthough their progress was lamentably slow, he gave them an impulse\nthey were never to lose. Under the inspiration of the Almighty he so\nfixed their fundamental ideas about God that they never henceforth\ncould get free of his spiritual company. In all their progress\nafterwards they felt the impress of his mind, moulding and shaping\nthem even when they knew it not, and through them he started in the\nworld that redemptive work of God which manifested its highest power\nin Jesus Christ.\"\n\n  [136] \"Moses' God,\" _British Weekly_, February 2, 1893.\n\nFrom this point onward the idea of Moses that Deuteronomy gives\nus is that of a great popular leader, meeting with extraordinary\ncalmness all the crises of government, and guiding his people with\nunwavering steadfastness. Without power, except that which his\nrelation to God and the choice of the people gave him, without\nany official title, he simply dominated the Israelites as long as\nhe lived. And the secret of his success is plainly told us in the\nnarrative. He would not move a single step without Divine guidance\n(Exod. xxxiii. 12): \"And Moses said unto the Lord, See, Thou sayest\nunto me, Bring up this people: but Thou hast not let me know whom\nThou wilt send with me.\" (Ver. 14) \"And He said, Must I go in person\nwith thee and bring thee to thy place of rest? And Moses said,\nIf Thou dost not go with us in person, then rather lead us not\naway hence.\" That can only mean that he laid aside self-will, that\nhe put away personal sensitiveness, that he had learned to feel\nhimself unsafe when vanity or self-regard asserted themselves in his\ndecisions, that he sought continually that detachment of view which\nabsolute devotion to the Highest always gives. It means also that he\nknew how dark and dull his own vision was, that clouds and darkness\nwould always be about him, and that it would be impossible for him\nto choose his path, unless he knew what the Divine plan for his\npeople was. And all that is narrated of him afterward shows that his\nprayer was granted. His patience under trial has been handed down\nto us as a marvel. Though his brother and sister rebelled against\nhim, he won them again entirely to himself. Though a faction among\nthe people rose against his authority under Dathan and Abiram, his\npower was not even shaken. Amid all the perversity and childish\nfickleness of Israel he kept them true to their choice of the\ndesert, \"that great and terrible wilderness,\" as against Egypt with\nthe flesh-pots. He kept alive their faith in the promise of Yahweh\nto give them a land flowing with milk and honey, and what was more\nand greater than that, their faith in Him as their Redeemer. By his\nintercourse with Yahweh he was upheld from falling away from his own\nideals, as so many leaders of nations have done, or from despairing\nof them.\n\nThe complaints and perversities of the people did however force him\ninto sin; and perhaps we may take it that the outbreak of petulance\nwhen he smote the rock was only one instance of some general decay\nof character on that side, or perhaps one should rather say, of some\ngeneral falling away from the self-restraint which had distinguished\nhim. It seems strange that this one failure should have been\npunished in him, by exclusion from the land he had so steadfastly\nbelieved in, the land which most of those who actually entered it\nwould never have seen but for him. And it is pathetic to find him\namong that great company of martyrs for the public good, those who\nin order to serve their people have neglected their own characters.\nUnder the stress of public work and the pressure of the stupidity\nand greed of those whom they have sought to guide, many leaders of\nmen have been tempted, and have yielded to the temptation, to forget\nthe demands of their better nature. But whatever their services\nto the world, such unfaithfulness does not pass unpunished. They\nhave to bear the penalty, whosoever they be; and Moses was no more\nan exception than Cromwell or Savonarola was, to mention only\nsome of the nobler examples. He had been courageous when others\nhad faltered. He had been pre-eminently just; for in founding the\njudicial system of Israel he had guarded alike against the tyranny\nof the great and against unjust favour to the small. He had laid\na firm hand upon the education of youth, determined that the best\ninheritance of their people, the knowledge of the laws of Yahweh and\nof His providences, should not be lost to them. He had cleared their\nreligion in principle of all that was unworthy of Yahweh, and he\nhad by resolute valour, and by uncompromising sternness to enemies,\nbrought his great task to a successful issue. But the reward of it\nall, the entrance into the land he had virtually won for his people,\nwas denied to him. It is one of the laws of the Divine government of\nthe world, that with those to whom God specially draws near He is\nmore rigorous than with others. Amos clearly saw and proclaimed this\nprinciple (Amos iii. 2). \"Hear this word that Yahweh hath spoken\nagainst you, children of Israel,\" he says; \"You only have I known of\nall the families of the earth: _therefore_ I will visit upon you\nall your iniquities.\" The pathetic picture of the aged lawgiver,\njudge, and prophet, beseeching God in vain that he might share in\nthe joy which was freely bestowed upon so many less known and less\nworthy than he, pushes home that strenuous teaching. For his sin\nhe died with his last earnest wish unfulfilled, and it was sadly\nlonging eyes that death's finger touched. We remember also that, so\nfar as we can judge, he had no certain hope of a future life other\nthan the shadowy existence of Hades. \"Though he slay me yet will I\ntrust him\" had a much more tragic meaning for Old Testament saints\nthan it can ever have for us, for whom Christ has brought life and\nimmortality to light. Yet, with a so much heavier burden, and with\nso much less of gracious support, they played their high part.\nThat solitary figure on the mountain-top, about to die with the\nfulfilment of his passionate last wish denied him by his God, must\nshame us into silence when we fret because our hopes have perished.\nAll those nations which have had that figure on their horizon have\nbeen permanently enriched in nature by it. In a thousand ways it has\nshot forth instructions; but, above all, it has made men worthy in\ntheir own eyes; for it has been a continuous reminder that God can\nand ought to be served unfalteringly, even when the reward we wish\nis denied us, and when every other consolation is dim.\n\nBut the question may now arise, Is not this character of Moses\nwhich the author of Deuteronomy partly had before him and partly\nhelped to elaborate, too exalted to be reliable? Can we suppose\nthat a man in Moses' day and circumstances could actually have\nentertained such thoughts, and have possessed such a character as\nwe have been depicting? In essentials it would appear to be quite\npossible. Putting aside all distracting questions about details,\nand remembering that it is a mere superstition to suppose that the\nwants and appliances of civilisation are necessary to loftiness\nof character and depth of thought, where is there anything in the\nsituation of Moses which should make this view of him incredible?\nNo doubt there was a rudeness in his surroundings which must\nnecessarily have affected his nature; and the forms of his thinking\nin that early, though by no means primitive, time must have differed\ngreatly from ours. Moreover, as an instrument for scientific inquiry\nand for the verification of facts, the human mind must have been\ngreatly less effective then than it is to-day. But none of these\nthings have much influence upon a man's capacity to receive a new\nand inspiring revelation as to God. Otherwise no child could be a\nChristian. As regards the rudeness of his surroundings, we must not\nconsciously or unconsciously degrade him to the level of a modern\nBedouin. Among the host he led, some doubtless were at that level;\nbut the bulk of Israel must have been above it; and Moses himself,\nfrom his circumstances and his natural endowment, must have stood\nside by side with the most cultured men of his time. Whatever\nignorance or error in science he may have been capable of, and\nhowever rude, according to our ideas, his manner of life, there was\nnothing in these to shut him out from spiritual truth. That which\nProf. Henry Morley has finally said of Dante[137] must have been\ntrue, _mutatis mutandis_, of a man like Moses. \"Dante's knowledge is\nthe knowledge of his time,\" but \"if spiritual truth only came from\nright and perfect knowledge, this would have been a world of dead\nsouls from the first to now, for future centuries in looking back at\nus will wonder at the little faulty knowledge that we think so much.\nBut let the _known_ be what it may, the true soul rises from it to a\nsense of the Divine mysteries of wisdom and love. Dante's knowledge\nmay be full of ignorance, and so is ours. But he fills it as he can\nwith the spirit of God.\" In the East this is even more conspicuously\ntrue, even to this day. What an Israelite under similar conditions\nmight be is seen in the prophet Amos. His external condition was\nof the poorest--a gatherer of sycamore fruit must have been poor\neven for the East--yet he knew accurately the history, not only of\nhis own people, but of the surrounding nations, and brooded on the\npurpose of God in regard to his own people and the world, till he\nbecame a fit recipient of prophetic inspirations. But indeed the\nwhole history of Christianity is a demonstration of this truth. From\nthe first days, when \"not many mighty, not many noble were being\ncalled,\" when it was specially the message to listening slaves, the\nreligion of Christ has had its greatest triumphs among the \"poor\nof the world, rich in faith,\" but in nothing else. These have not\nonly believed it, but they have lived it, and amid the meanest and\nrudest surroundings, with the most limited outlook, have built up\ncharacters often of even resplendent virtue. Whatever primitiveness\nwe may fairly ascribe, therefore, to the life and surroundings of\nMoses, that is no reason why we should think it incredible that\nhe had received lofty spiritual truth from God. If he did such\nthings for Israel as we have seen, if, as almost all admit, he\nactually made a nation, and planted the seeds of a religion of which\nChristianity is the natural complement and crown, then the view\nthat he had a greatly higher idea of God than those about him is\nnot only credible but necessary. If his teaching concerning Yahweh\nhad amounted only to this, that He was the only God Israel was to\nworship, and that they were to be solely His people, then on such a\nbasis nothing more than the ordinary heathen civilisations of the\nSemitic people could have been built. But if he had the thought of\nGod which is embodied in the Decalogue, that could bring with it\neverything in the character of Moses that seems too high for those\nearly days. The knowledge of God as a spiritual and moral being\ncould not fail to moralise and spiritualise the man. The lofty\nconception of human duty, the submission to the will of God, the\npassionate love for his nation which made personal loss nothing to\nMoses, may well have been evoked by the great truth which formed his\nprophetic revelation.\n\n  [137] _Convito of Dante_, Morley's _Universal Library_,\n  Introduction, pp. 6 ff.\n\nBut the narrative itself, considered merely as a history, is of\nsuch a nature as to give confidence that it rests upon some record\nof an actual life. Ideal sketches of great men (setting aside\nthe products of modern fictive art) are much more uniform and\nsuperficially coherent than this character of Moses. The purpose\nof the writer either to exalt or to decry carries all before it,\nand we get from such a source pictures of character so consistent\nthat they cannot possibly be true. Here, however, we have nothing\nof that kind. Rashnesses and weaknesses are narrated, and even\nMoses' good qualities are manifested in unexpected ways in response\nto unexpected evils in the people. The mere fact, also, that his\ngrave was unknown is indicative of truth. Though it would be absurd\nto say that wherever we have the graves of great men pointed out,\nthere we have a mythical story, it is nevertheless true that in the\ncase of every name or character which has come largely under the\ninfluence of the myth-making spirit, the grave has been made much\nof. The Arabian imagination here seems to be typical of the Semitic\nimagination; and in all Moslem lands the graves of the prophets and\nsaints of the Old Testament are pointed out with great reverence,\neven, or perhaps we should say especially, if they be eighty feet\nlong. Though a well-authenticated tomb of Moses, therefore, would\nhave been a proof of his real existence and life among men, the\nabsence of any is a stronger proof of the sobriety and truth of\nthe narrative. That with the goal in sight, and with his great\nwork about to come to fruition, he should have turned away into\nthe solitude of the mountains to die, is so very unlikely to occur\nto the mind of the writer of an ideal life of an ideal leader,\nthat only some tradition of this as a fact can account for it. The\nunexpectedness of such an end to a hero's career is the strongest\nevidence of its truth.\n\nThe result of all the indications is that the story of Moses, as\nthe author of Deuteronomy knew it, rests upon authentic information\nhanded down somehow, probably in written documents, from the\nearliest time. Apart from the question of inspiration, therefore,\nwe may rest upon it as reliable in all essentials. Only in him, and\nthe revelation he received, have we an adequate cause for the great\nupheaval of religious feeling which shaped and characterised all the\nafter-history of Israel.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n_Crown 8vo, cloth, price $1.50 each vol._\n\nFIRST SERIES, 1887-8.\n\n  Colossians,\n  By A. MACLAREN, D.D.\n\n  St. Mark,\n  By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.\n\n  Genesis,\n  By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n  1 Samuel,\n  By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n  2 Samuel,\n  By the same Author.\n\n  Hebrews,\n  By Principal T.C. EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n\nSECOND SERIES, 1888-9.\n\n  Galatians,\n  By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n  The Pastoral Epistles,\n  By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n  Isaiah I.-XXXIX.\n  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D.\n  Vol. I.\n\n  The Book of Revelation,\n  By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.\n\n  1 Corinthians,\n  By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n  The Epistles of St. John,\n  By Rt. Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.\n\n\nTHIRD SERIES, 1889-90.\n\n  Judges and Ruth,\n  By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n  Jeremiah,\n  By Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.\n\n  Isaiah XL.-LXVI,\n  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D.\n  Vol. II.\n\n  St. Matthew,\n  By Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.\n\n  Exodus,\n  By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.\n\n  St. Luke,\n  By Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.\n\n\nFOURTH SERIES, 1890-1.\n\n  Ecclesiastes,\n  By Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.\n\n  St. James and St. Jude,\n  By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n  Proverbs,\n  By Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.\n\n  Leviticus,\n  By Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\n  The Gospel of St. John,\n  By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n  The Acts of the Apostles,\n  By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n\nFIFTH SERIES, 1891-2.\n\n  The Psalms,\n  By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n  1 and 2 Thessalonians,\n  By JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n  The Book of Job,\n  By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n  Ephesians,\n  By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n  The Gospel of St. John,\n  By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n  The Acts of the Apostles,\n  By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n\nSIXTH SERIES, 1892-3.\n\n  1 Kings,\n  By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n  Philippians,\n  By Principal RAINY, D.D.\n\n  Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,\n  By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n  Joshua,\n  By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n  The Psalms,\n  By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n  The Epistles of St. Peter,\n  By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.\n\n\nSEVENTH SERIES, 1893-4.\n\n  2 Kings,\n  By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n  Romans,\n  By H. C. G. MOULE, M.A.\n\n  The Books of Chronicles,\n  By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n  2 Corinthians,\n  By JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n  Numbers,\n  By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n  The Psalms,\n  By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.\n\n\nEIGHTH SERIES, 1895-6.\n\n  Daniel,\n  By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n  The Book of Jeremiah.\n  By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n  Deuteronomy,\n  By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\n  The Song of Solomon and\n  Lamentations,\n  By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n  Ezekiel,\n  By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.\n\n  The Minor Prophets,\n  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D.\n  Two Vols.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nMinor typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected\nwithout note. Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have\nbeen retained as printed.\n\nThe cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the\ntranscriber and is placed in the public domain.\n\nA list of the \"Expositor's Bible\" series has been shifted to the end\nof the book.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Deuteronomy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":160786}