THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Z. 9 
 
CENTRAL CIRCULATION BOOKSTACKS 
 
 The person charging this material is re¬ 
 sponsible for its renewal or its return to 
 the library from which it was borrowed 
 on or before the Latest Date stamped 
 below. You may be charged a minimum 
 fee of $75.00 for each lost book. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
 for disciplinary action and may result In dismissal from 
 the University. 
 
 TO RENEW CALL TELEPHONE CENTER, 333-8400 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 JUL 2 0 1995 
 
 When renewing by phone, write new due date below 
 
 previous due date. 
 
 L162 
 
OUR MODERN DEBT TO 
 
 ISRAEL 
 
 i 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD CHAUNCEY BALDWIN, Ph.D. 
 
 Assistant Professor of English Literature 
 at the University of Illinois 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 SHERMAN, FRENCH # COMPANY 
 
 1913 
 
Copyright, 1913 
 Sherman, French & Company 
 
01 % 
 
 CL CK^si i X— 
 
 And throned on her hills sits Jerusalem yet, 
 
 But with dust on her forehead, and chains on her feet; 
 For the crown of her pride to the mocker hath gone, 
 And the holy Shechinah is dark where it shone. 
 
 Oh, the outward hath gone! but in glory and power, 
 The spirit surviveth the things of an hour; 
 Unchanged, undecaying, its Pentecost flame 
 On the heart’s secret altar is burning the same! 
 
 —Whittier, “Palestine.” 
 
 <i Jr:afc: * / «.» > 
 
PREFACE 
 
 That the world is at last awaking to a sense of 
 its obligation to Israel and to Israelitish thfought 
 there can be no question. The evidence of such 
 an awakening is found in the amazing output 
 during the last decade of books dealing with the 
 literature of Israel. 
 
 Yet among all these books, none, so far as the 
 author is aware, has attempted to show what our 
 modern debt is to the three classes that together 
 molded and guided the thought of Israel — the 
 prophets, the priests, and the sages. Who these 
 men were, and what they did for Israel, and, 
 through Israel, for the world at large is still very 
 Vaguely understood by the general reader. 
 
 To supply this lack of exact knowledge this 
 little book is written. It is not intended for the 
 specialist, but for the layman. Nor does it pre¬ 
 tend to be the result of scholarly research. The 
 material of which it is composed is accessible to 
 all who have the time and patience to collect it. 
 The book aims simply to present briefly the re¬ 
 sults of modern scholarship so far as this schol¬ 
 arship reveals the extent of our modern obliga¬ 
 tion to ancient Israel. The author’s acknowl¬ 
 edgments are due to the editors of The Biblical 
 World and the B’nai B’rith News for their per- 
 
PREFACE 
 
 mission to make use of certain material which has 
 previously appeared in those journals. 
 
 Should the book help to clarify some hazy no¬ 
 tions, and, incidentally, to substitute for grudg¬ 
 ing tolerance of a maligned race, a generous re¬ 
 spect, the purpose of the author will have been 
 achieved. 
 
 Urbana, Illinois, 
 
 September 1, 1913. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL . . . 1 
 
 The rediscovery of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment. Two reasons for its previous 
 neglect — men’s discontent with the 
 textual study of it, and the difficulty of 
 understanding it. Results of the ap¬ 
 plication of the methods of modern 
 scholarship — a revitalization of the 
 Old Testament, and an awaking of the 
 modern world to a fuller recognition of 
 its obligation to Israel. Incidental dis¬ 
 coveries made by modern scholars — 
 that the Old Testament is the literature, 
 viz. the record of the life, of a uniquely 
 gifted race. Peculiarities of Hebrew 
 literature — its variety and its unity. 
 
 The progress of its formal development. 
 
 Early poetry. Hebrew literature the 
 result of the inspired thinking of three 
 groups of leaders — the prophets, the 
 priests and the sages 
 
 II THE PROPHETS.18 
 
 The nature of the prophetic function 
 as understood by the Hebrews them¬ 
 selves. The prophets, spokesmen or in¬ 
 terpreters for God. Their predictions 
 few and always conditional. Histor¬ 
 ical development of prophecy. “ Sons 
 of the prophets.” Prophets an inde- 
 
PAGE 
 
 pendent order — their radicalism and 
 their idealism. Their resultant social 
 position. Their dress and way of life. 
 Method of delivering their message — 
 the oral and the written form. Writ¬ 
 ten prophecy dramatic. Examples of 
 prophetic dialogue. Three fundamen¬ 
 tal propositions of Hebrew prophecy. 
 Amos’s emphasis upon righteousness. 
 Hosea and mercy. Isaiah’s philoso¬ 
 phy of history and his insistence upon 
 humility. Micah’s summary of the 
 teaching of the preceding prophets. 
 His formula for right living. Zephan- 
 iah on national sin and retribution. 
 Nahum’s view of tyranny. Habak- 
 kuk’s message—“The just shall live 
 by faith.” Jeremiah’s tragic life and 
 the outcome — his belief that religion 
 is an individual, not a national, matter. 
 The Exile — its influence, social and 
 economic, and upon the intellectual and 
 emotional life of the Jewish race. Eze¬ 
 kiel’s more spiritualized conception of 
 Jehovah. His vision of religious fel¬ 
 lowship. The first Utopia. A com¬ 
 parison with Plato’s. The second Isai¬ 
 ah’s answer to the question. What is 
 Israel’s vocation? Zechariah’s visions. 
 Malachi’s recognition of the value of 
 heathen worship. Jonah’s protest 
 against intolerance. 
 
 Ill THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROPHETS 
 
 UPON MODERN THOUGHT . . . . 
 
 The prophetic hope of a kingdom of 
 God on earth. The prophetic ideal a 
 social one, akin to that of those who to- 
 
 87 
 
", PAGE 
 
 day are working for a better social 
 order. 
 
 IV THE PRIESTS.95 
 
 The priests and the prophets rad¬ 
 ically opposed. Social position of the 
 priests. Their dress. The priestly func¬ 
 tion. Their message delivered partly 
 through symbolic acts connected with 
 the sacrifice. Meaning of sacrifice — 
 communion preceded by atonement. 
 
 The hortatory message of the priests, 
 delivered through the law. Develop¬ 
 ment of Hebrew law. Israel’s early 
 codes — their uniqueness. Fundamen¬ 
 tal ideas embodied in them. Deuter¬ 
 onomy — law written under prophetic 
 influence. The levitical code, a man¬ 
 ual of religious customs and practices. 
 
 The “ holiness code ” as an expression 
 of Jewish longing for social justice. Its 
 provisions, contrasted with those of Ro¬ 
 man law, for the humane treatment of 
 slaves, and for the welfare of the poor. 
 Effect of the growing supremacy of the 
 priests. 
 
 V THE DEBT OF ISRAEL AND THE WORLD 
 
 TO HEBREW LAW.134 
 
 Effect of Hebrew law upon the racial 
 consciousness of Israel. Christendom’s 
 debt to the priests — institutionally 
 e. g. Sabbath observance, Easter, the 
 eucharist, baptism. Not less important 
 obligations to the priests, certain con¬ 
 ceptions of God and of what He re¬ 
 quires of men. Holiness as an attribute 
 
PAGE 
 
 of God, and a virtue to be sought hy¬ 
 men through the keeping of the law. 
 
 VI THE SAGES.152 
 
 Hebrew estimate of the religious 
 value of the three groups into which 
 they divided their literature. The place 
 of “ The Writings,” the work of the 
 sages in the regard of the Hebrew peo¬ 
 ple. The Sages, unlike the prophets, 
 concerned chiefly with the individual, 
 with the upbuilding of personal charac¬ 
 ter, and the promotion of individual 
 righteousness. The Sages Israel’s moral 
 philosophers. Their position as leaders 
 of Hebrew thought. Their aim and 
 function. Their method of work. Mean¬ 
 ing of wisdom. Its inclusiveness. Em¬ 
 phasis upon conduct. Cosmopolitanism. 
 Evidence of foreign influence upon it. 
 
 Its uniqueness. Beginning and end 
 of wisdom — humility and reverence. 
 
 Forms of wisdom. The proverb, the 
 sages’ use of the descriptive method. 
 
 VII OUR MODERN DEBT TO THE SAGES . 177 
 
 This obligation mostly to be looked 
 for in our modern ideals of character. 
 Hebrew, compared with other ideals of 
 the ancient world. Other ethical ideas 
 which the modern world owes to the 
 sages — the seven deadly sins, and the 
 seven cardinal virtues. The Epistle of 
 James as a connecting link between the 
 wisdom of the Old and the New Testa¬ 
 ment. 
 
VIII THE MESSAGE OF ISRAEL TO THE MOD 
 ERN WORLD.. 
 
 Israel’s message, the answer to three 
 questions, and given through three 
 classes of leaders of Hebrew thought. 
 These leaders unlike in their methods, 
 and divergent in their aims. Their dis¬ 
 agreement only apparent. The impor¬ 
 tance of our modern debt to them. Our 
 modern social ideals due to a belated 
 recognition of our obligation to them. 
 How these ideals find expression. Prob¬ 
 able results of these ideals becoming 
 dominant forces in the lives of common 
 men — a new zeal for righteousness, 
 world peace, a better social order. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 200 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL 
 
 We of the present generation are peculiarly 
 fortunate in that we have been privileged to live 
 in parts of two centuries. Having seen the close 
 of one century and the opening years of another, 
 we can look, Janus-wise, both forward and back¬ 
 ward — forward with confident hope toward the 
 years that are to be, and backward with some 
 justness of appreciation upon the century just 
 closed. Even at this distance, we can with some 
 certainty decide what was the contribution of the 
 nineteenth century to the progress of the race. 
 Yet, when we ask what was the great accomplish¬ 
 ment of that century, we get as many answers as 
 there are interests dear to men’s hearts. The 
 business man will tell us that the great achieve¬ 
 ment of the nineteenth century was the commer¬ 
 cial development of the age — the substitution of 
 the principle of combination for the old principle 
 of competition, and the supplanting of the old 
 idea of rivalry by the new idea of cooperation. 
 And perhaps we should accept his statement as 
 true,, did not further inquiries unsettle our con¬ 
 viction. The educator will tell us that the most 
 
 1 
 
2 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 splendid work of the century was the growth of 
 popular education, which has resulted in making 
 illiteracy comparatively rare. The scientist will 
 tell us that the highest attainment of the century 
 was scientific, and will remind us that science has 
 indeed within the last fifty years opened before 
 us a new heaven and a new earth. With equal 
 confidence, the politician will assure us that the 
 glory of the nineteenth century was the develop¬ 
 ment of popular liberty, and by way of confirma¬ 
 tion will point to the indisputable fact that there 
 is more freedom in the world to-day than ever be¬ 
 fore in human history. Yet they would all be 
 wrong. The crowning glory of the nineteenth 
 century was not the founding of the trusts, nor 
 the enabling of the man in the street to read and 
 write, nor the discovery of radium, nor even the 
 establishment upon a firm basis of the great mod¬ 
 ern republics, but the rediscovery of the Old Tes¬ 
 tament. 
 
 44 Rediscovery,” one may object, 44 1 was not 
 aware that the Old Testament had ever been lost.” 
 Yet the word is an appropriate one, for there 
 was a time within the memory of men now living 
 when the Old Testament seemed in danger of be¬ 
 coming a neglected, if not a forgotten, book. 
 For this neglect and oblivion there were two rea¬ 
 sons. Men were tired of the old textual study, 
 and they found the Old Testament hard to under¬ 
 stand. 
 
 For their discontent with the old textual study 
 
THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL 3 
 
 there was abundant justification. It led those 
 who followed it into the strangest absurdities. 
 Indeed it often resulted in what we might call bib- 
 liomancy — the treatment, that is, of the text as 
 if it were a kind of Delphic oracle. For exam¬ 
 ple, when John Wesley had to decide whether he 
 would go down to Ipswich to preach, he stuck 
 a pin between the leaves of his Bible and read 
 the first text that caught his eye. If it hap¬ 
 pened to be 44 So he (Jonah) paid the fare thereof 
 and went down,” Wesley at once paid his fare, 
 and went. If it was 44 Let him that is on the 
 house-top not go down,” Wesley, with equal 
 promptness, decided not to go. If he found noth¬ 
 ing so pertinent to his perplexity as either of 
 these passages, he twisted what he did find into 
 some pertinency by a mystical or symbolical in¬ 
 terpretation; or else he tried again. But it is 
 not necessary to go so far back as to the time of 
 Wesley to find illustrations of the absurdities into 
 which men were led by the textual method of 
 study. A few years ago, a judge of the supreme 
 court of the state of New York handed down a 
 decision in which he said, “We have the highest 
 possible authority for saying 4 Skin for skin, yea, 
 all that a man hath will he give for his life.’ ” 
 The next day, the New York Herald , in an ex¬ 
 ultant, and, as it seemed to some devout souls, al¬ 
 most blasphemous editorial, announced that the 
 passage quoted had been looked up, and that it 
 was the devil who said it. 44 Now,” said the 
 
4 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 writer, “ we know who is regarded by our supreme 
 court judges as the highest judicial authority in 
 the Empire State.” 1 
 
 An even more adequate reason for the former 
 neglect of the Old Testament is found in the diffi¬ 
 culty of understanding it. In the first place 
 more than two thirds of it is poetry; and for the 
 intelligent reading of poetry a certain amount of 
 training seems to be required to develop the ar¬ 
 tistic appreciation necessary for the enjoyment, 
 and even for the understanding, of a literary 
 genus devoted, not so much to the communication 
 of ideas, as to the expression of feelings. Even 
 the fact that the Old Testament is largely poetry 
 might not have handicapped the student hope¬ 
 lessly, had he 'known that much of it was poetry. 
 But, as Professor Moulton has pointed out, 2 the 
 Bible is the worst printed book in the world. 
 “ No other monument of ancient or modern liter¬ 
 ature,” says Professor Moulton, “ suffers the fate 
 of being put before us in a form that makes it 
 impossible, without strong effort and considera¬ 
 ble training, to take in elements of literary struc¬ 
 ture which in all other books are conveyed di¬ 
 rectly to the eye in a manner impossible to mis¬ 
 take.” Moreover, the difficulty was increased by 
 the fact that the Old Testament is an oriental 
 book, and that the poetry is oriental poetry. Its 
 
 1 The illustration is borrowed from Abbott, Life and 
 Literature of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 4. 
 
 2 Literary Study of the Bible, p. 45. 
 
THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL 5 
 
 versification is totally different, not only from 
 that of English poetry, but from that of any other 
 language with which the student is likely to be 
 conversant. Its constant use of symbolism, and 
 its warmth and fervor still further differentiate 
 it from western poetry, either ancient or modern. 
 Furthermore, the intelligent appreciation of the 
 Old Testament was made immensely more difficult 
 by its being an ancient oriental book. The back¬ 
 ground, the life it records, is that of the ancient 
 Semitic world, a world as far removed from ours 
 as the East is from the West — and farther too, 
 for between that ancient life and ours there in¬ 
 tervene, not only the deep cleavage between the 
 Orient and the Occident, but the long centuries 
 that separate us from it. 
 
 This seemingly impassable gulf the Biblical 
 scholarship of the last two decades has done much 
 to bridge. The modern science of archaeology 
 has summoned from the ancient monuments a cloud 
 of witnesses to correct, or confirm the Biblical 
 data. Modern philology has, through the dis¬ 
 covery of ancient documents, thrown a flood of 
 light upon the Biblical text. The sciences of so¬ 
 ciology and comparative religion, and studies in 
 modern oriental life have all contributed their 
 share to the bridging of the chasm. 2a 
 
 The result of the substitution of the literary 
 and historical study of the Old Testament for 
 
 2a See Kent, Origin and Permanent Value of the Old 
 Testament, pp. 10 ff. 
 
6 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 the older textual method of approach has been 
 such as to prove wholly unfounded the fear shared 
 by many lest the work of Biblical scholars would 
 be wholly destructive. On the contrary, nothing 
 essential has been lost. Though some of the mys¬ 
 tery has disappeared, that lack has been more 
 than compensated by what has been gained. To 
 those of us who have tried it, the historical, or 
 literary, method of study means the rediscovery 
 of the Hebrew scriptures. In the light that has 
 been thrown upon them by the reverent study of 
 modern Biblical scholars, prophet, priest and 
 sage are seen no longer as vague and shadowy fig¬ 
 ures in a past distant and unreal, but are brought 
 before us, as Tissot, the French painter, brings 
 them before us, in the garb and in the surround¬ 
 ings in which they lived. And their words, like 
 their personalities, have become vital — alive 
 with messages for to-day, messages which we in 
 this age cannot afford to ignore. Undoubtedly 
 the most important result of the new interest in 
 Hebrew literature has been the awakening of the 
 world to a keener realization of the incalculable 
 debt that it owes to Israel and to Israelitish 
 thought. We have at last come to understand 
 that modern culture, both artistic and ethical, goes 
 back to Athens and to Jerusalem, but that English 
 culture owes far more to the Hebrew than to the 
 Greek. 3 By clearly revealing the contributions 
 made to our intellectual and moral life by the 
 s See Milman, History of the Jews, Book XXX., and my 
 
THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL 7 
 
 leaders of Israelitish thought, modem scholars 
 have shown that we are what we are, not only 
 morally but intellectually, as a result of the influ¬ 
 ence of Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, of Paul, 
 and of Jesus, rather than as a result of the influ¬ 
 ence of Homer, Hesiod, Sophocles, Aristophanes, 
 Plato, and Aristotle. 
 
 In the process of making clear to the modern 
 world its obligation to Israel, scholars have made 
 certain discoveries, which, like most discoveries 
 after they have been made, seem so obvious now as 
 to be self evident. They have found that the He¬ 
 brew resembles other literatures in being the rec¬ 
 ord of the life of a race. As English literature 
 is the record of the thoughts and feelings of the 
 greatest Englishmen for the last five hundred 
 years, so the Old Testament is the record of the 
 thoughts and feelings of the greatest Hebrews 
 through nearly a thousand years. 
 
 But while Hebrew resembles other literatures in 
 being the record of the life of the race that pro¬ 
 duced it, it differs from other literatures in the life 
 it records. The life of the Hebrew race was indeed 
 the life of a peculiar people. They called them¬ 
 selves “ the chosen people,” and such they really 
 were, not “ chosen ” in a different sense, but for 
 a different purpose from the other great nations 
 
 article, “ The Hebrew and the Greek Ideas of Life,” in The 
 Biblical World, Nov., 1910. 
 
 See, also, J. R. Green, A Short History of the English 
 People, Chap. VIII., Sec. I. 
 
8 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 of antiquity. God chose the Greeks to teach the 
 world a knowledge of beauty, and endowed them 
 with a feeling for proportion, and with a love of 
 symmetry, in short, with a highly developed ar¬ 
 tistic sense that fitted them to become the apos¬ 
 tles of beauty for all humanity. Similarly, God 
 chose the Romans to teach the world the rudiments 
 of the science of government; and to that end 
 gave to the Roman people a genius for law and 
 administration. Some of us like to think that 
 God has chosen the Anglo-Saxon race to teach 
 the world self-government, and that our race has 
 been for that very purpose uniquely gifted with 
 a genius for governing itself. Be that as it may, 
 the calling and endowment of the Hebrew race 
 was in no sense more miraculous than that of the 
 Greek or the Roman. It differed only in the mis¬ 
 sion for which the race was chosen. God chose 
 the Hebrew race to teach the world a knowledge 
 of religion, and to that end bestowed upon the 
 race a genius for religion, an inherent faculty, 
 that is, for recognizing, understanding, and ex¬ 
 pressing “ the life of God in the soul of man.” 
 
 The possession of this unique endowment con¬ 
 stituted their sole claim to recognition as one of 
 the great nations of antiquity. Nothing better 
 illustrates the truth that God seems often to 
 choose the weak things of the earth to confound 
 the mighty, and the things that are not to bring 
 to naught the things that are than the history 
 of the Hebrews. Unlike their neighbors, the As- 
 
THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL 9 
 
 Syrians, they were not a learned people. The 
 Assyrians gave to the world the beginnings of 
 modern science. Our knowledge of astronomy, 
 for example, had its beginnings in Assyria, whose 
 astrologers are said to have determined within 
 two seconds the exact length of the solar year, 
 and not to have been far wrong in their computa¬ 
 tion of the distances of the sun, moon and plan¬ 
 ets from the earth. Nor were the Hebrews an 
 artistic people, like their neighbors on the south, 
 the Egyptians. To the latter the modern world 
 owes the beginnings of art, for the arts of sculp¬ 
 ture and architecture flourished in Egypt more 
 than a thousand years before the Parthenon or 
 the Pantheon were built. The Doric column and 
 the Roman arch were neither Greek nor Roman in 
 origin, but Egyptian. The Hebrews, on the 
 other hand, carved no statues; they painted no 
 pictures; even their architecture was not their 
 own, but was borrowed from the Phoenicians. The 
 first Temple was built, not by Hebrew, but by 
 Phoenician architects. Unlike the Phoenicians, 
 they were not a commercial people. The commer¬ 
 cial instincts of the modern Jew are not an in¬ 
 herent racial characteristic, but have been ac¬ 
 quired. The Phoenicians were the great traders 
 of antiquity. The international trade of the an¬ 
 cient world was practically all in the hands of 
 Phoenician merchants, and was carried on by 
 Phoenician ships. These ships sailed even to 
 what were then literally the ends of the earth, to 
 
10 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Tartessus in Spain, whence they were called 
 66 ships of Tarshish,” a phrase that seems to have 
 been used much as the term 44 Cunarder ” was used 
 a generation ago, or as 44 Dreadnaught ” is em¬ 
 ployed to-day, as a generic term to mean a great 
 ship. Though the 44 ships of Tarshish ” fur¬ 
 nished many a beautiful symbol to the poets of 
 Israel, the Hebrews were not a maritime people. 
 They had no foreign commerce worth mentioning. 
 What little foreign trade they had was carried 
 on through the Phoenicians. 
 
 Even geographically the Hebrews were seem¬ 
 ingly least important of the great nations of an¬ 
 tiquity. We seldom stop to think how very small 
 the little pear-shaped country of Palestine (the 
 44 West-land ”) really was. It was only one hun¬ 
 dred and forty miles from Dan to Beersheba, and 
 only forty from the Jordan to the sea. A line 
 drawn from Chicago west to Aurora, south to De¬ 
 catur, east to the Indiana border, and north 
 again to Chicago would enclose it in an area much 
 less than a quarter of the state of Illinois. 
 
 Yet, in spite of their being seemingly the 
 weakest of all the great nations of antiquity, the 
 debt of the modern world to them is immeasurably 
 greater than that to the Assyrians, the Egyptians, 
 and the Phoenicians combined; and it is so because 
 their genius, though neither scientific nor artistic, 
 nor commercial, was ethical and religious. 
 
 The religious genius of the race found expres¬ 
 sion in their literature — the so-called Old Tes- 
 
THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL 11 
 
 tament. Regarding this literature, also, modern 
 scholars have made certain discoveries. They 
 have found that the Old Testament is not a book, 
 nor a part of a book, but a library — that it is 
 really what Saint Jerome long ago called the 
 Bible, “ a divine library,” that it consists of 
 thirty-six books bound together into one volume. 
 They found that these thirty-six books were a 
 collection of varied literary forms, written by 
 many different authors, at periods of time, some 
 of them, widely separate, and for widely differing 
 sets of readers. Probably the most striking 
 characteristic of these books is their variety. 
 The contents of the Old Testament are as varied 
 as if one should bind together into one volume 
 John Knox’s History of the Reformation , Horace 
 Bushnell’s Sermons , Bacon’s Essays , Cowper’s 
 Letters , Shakespeare’s Hamlet , Bunyan’s Pil¬ 
 grim’s Progress , and a hymn book. Every form 
 of literary interest is represented in it. 
 
 Yet the Old Testament is far more than a 
 splendid miscellany. With all its variety, it pos¬ 
 sesses a unity obvious and unmistakable. The 
 whole collection is unified by the fact of its being 
 a chronicle of the religious development of the 
 Hebrew people. It is a record of a gradually 
 unfolding revelation, to a people divinely gifted 
 spiritually, of God’s dealings with humanity. The 
 Old Testament, then, is characterized by variety 
 and unity, for it is a collection of books of widely 
 differing literary forms, brought together into 
 
12 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 one volume which is unified by the historical 
 development that it discloses, and because of the 
 growth of spiritual consciousness that it reveals. 
 
 Though differentiated from other literatures by 
 its unity, Hebrew literature, nevertheless, re¬ 
 sembles them in the progress of its formal 
 development. The order of the books in our Old 
 Testament is entirely misleading, for Hebrew lit¬ 
 erature did not begin with historical prose. Like 
 the literatures of other peoples, it began with lyric 
 poetry. Of this early poetry but little has sur¬ 
 vived, and that little is scattered through the 
 historical books. In writing the histories, which 
 were for the most part compilations of pre-existent 
 material, the historians borrowed freely from cer¬ 
 tain collections of this early poetry. Of these 
 old anthologies the names of two are mentioned 
 as the sources of some of the songs embodied in 
 the historical books. These are the Book of the 
 Wars of Jehovah 4 and the Book of Jashar. 5 
 From the excerpts, it appears that these were col¬ 
 lections of national songs celebrating the deeds of 
 Israel’s heroes. From them, or from other sim¬ 
 ilar anthologies, is quoted, also, the Song of 
 Lamech, sometimes called the “ Song of the 
 Sword,” which is probably one of the oldest frag¬ 
 ments extant of primitive Hebrew lyric poetry. 
 It is' found in the fourth chapter of Genesis, and 
 consists of only six verses. 
 
 4 Num. 21:14 if. sJosh. 10:13 if. 2 Sam. 1:18. 
 
THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL IS 
 
 Adah and Zilla, hear my voice; 
 
 Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: 
 For I have slain a man for wounding me, 
 
 And a young man for bruising me: 
 
 If Cain shall be avenged seven fold, 
 
 Truly Lamech seventy and seven-fold. 
 
 The primitive savagery of this little song of 
 revenge is itself a proof of its antiquity. Yet, 
 simple and primitive as it is, it illustrates as well 
 as a more elaborate example would, the essential 
 characteristics of Hebrew poetry. 
 
 Hebrew versification is not, like Greek and 
 Roman versification, based on quantity, or the 
 time it takes to pronounce certain syllables; nor, 
 like old English poetry, upon the principle of a 
 scheme of accents and alliteration; nor, like the 
 poetry of modern languages, upon a basis of reg¬ 
 ularly recurring accents; but on a system of 
 parallelism, each verse of a couplet being repeated 
 in a slightly different form, like a sound and its 
 echo. If we look closely at the little poem above 
 quoted, we shall see that the statements occur in 
 pairs, the second of each pair being in a sense 
 an echo of the preceding. Thus, the assertions 
 in the second couplet 
 
 I have slain a man for wounding me 
 And a young man for bruising me 
 
 are not meant to imply that Lamech had killed 
 two men. The doubling of the statement is merely 
 
14 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 the characteristic poetic parallelism. 6 To this 
 parallelism Watts-Dunton has applied the more 
 suggestive name 44 sense-rhythm,” and Dr. Van 
 Dyke, the term 44 thought-rhyme.” Both desig¬ 
 nations emphasize the fact that the controlling 
 rhythm is the rhythm of meaning, a thought- 
 measure, rather than a form-measure. 
 
 Of this thought-rhyme there are usually dis¬ 
 tinguished four varieties. The second verse may 
 repeat the thought of the first, 7 as when Joshua 
 sang, 
 
 Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, 
 
 And thou Moon, in the valley of Aijalon; 
 
 where we have synonymous parallelism. Or, the 
 thought of the first verse is emphasized by a con¬ 
 trasting statement in the second, as in the closing 
 couplet of Deborah’s song, 8 
 
 So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord: 
 
 But let them that love thee be as the sun when he 
 goeth forth in his might. 
 
 This is called antithetical parallelism. Again, 
 the second verse may be neither a repetition nor 
 a contrast to the first, but may supplement or 
 
 6 Bishop Lowth first gave to this balancing of the parts 
 of the sentence, one against another, the familiar name of 
 parallelism. Lowth, Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones, 
 1753. 
 
 7 The Hebrew stanza, though normally consisting of two 
 verses, may be, and often is, expanded into a tercet, or even 
 to a quatrain. 
 
 8 Judges 5:31. 
 
THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL 15 
 
 complete it by stating a comparison, a reason, 
 a motive, or a consequence. Examples are: 
 
 As cold water to a thirsty soul, 
 
 So is good news from a far country. 
 
 Ye mountains of Gilboa! Let there be no dew nor 
 rain upon you . . . 
 
 For there the shield of the mighty was vilely cast 
 away. 
 
 Publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; 
 
 Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice. 
 
 Answer not a fool according to his folly: 
 
 Lest thou be like him. 
 
 This is known as synthetic parallelism. A 
 fourth variety is the climactic. In this form the 
 first verse does not form a complete sentence, and 
 the second repeats certain words from it and 
 finishes the statement. 
 
 Give unto the Lord, O ye sons of the mighty, 
 
 Give unto the Lord glory and strength. 
 
 The ultimate source of the Hebrew form of 
 versification 9 is unknown. 10 Probably it came 
 direct from nature. Life itself is rhythmical, 
 walking, breathing, the action of the heart; and, in 
 
 9 For a more complete exposition of the characteristics of 
 Hebrew versification, see Driver, Introduction to the Litera¬ 
 ture of the Old Testament, Chap. VIII. 
 
 10 Babylonian and Egyptian poetry share with it the com¬ 
 mon Semitic parallelism. 
 
16 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 external nature, such common phenomena as the 
 ebb and flow of the tide, all help to make parallel¬ 
 ism seem the most natural form in which emotional 
 thought could find expression. Dean Stanley said 
 of it: 
 
 44 4 The rapid strokes as of alternate wings,’ 
 4 the heaving and sinking as of the troubled heart,’ 
 which have been beautifully described as the essence 
 of the parallel structure of Hebrew verse, are 
 exactly suited for the endless play of human feel¬ 
 ing, and for the understanding of every age and 
 nation.” 
 
 Because it was suited 44 for the understanding of 
 every age and nation,” and because it did not 
 depend for its effect upon meter and rhyme, which 
 cannot be transferred from one language to 
 another, Hebrew poetry loses comparatively little 
 in translation. Because it possesses 44 a rhythm 
 largely independent of the features, prosodical or 
 
 other, of any individual language-a rhythm 
 
 free, varied and indeterminate, or rather deter¬ 
 minate only by what has been called 4 the energy 
 of the spirit which sings within the bosom of him 
 who speaks,’ and therefore adaptable to every 
 emotion, from the most delicate to the most 
 energetic,” 11 it was suited, as no other poetry could 
 be, to be rendered almost without loss in English. 
 
 The story of the development of Hebrew litera- 
 
 ii “ The Authorized Version and its Influence,” by Pro¬ 
 fessor A. S. Cook, in Vol. IV. of the Cambridge History of 
 English Literature. 
 
THE LITERATURE OF ISRAEL IT 
 
 ture through lyric and ballad and prose heroic 
 legend, and connected prose historical narrative 
 to the prophetic literature of the eighth century — 
 the earliest books that have come down to us in 
 their original form — is too long a story to be 
 repeated here. The reader w r ill find it given at 
 length in many popular handbooks now readily 
 accessible. 12 
 
 As we have it, in its completed form, the litera-A- 
 ture of Israel (the Old Testament) represents 
 roughly a thousand years of divinely guided 
 thought of the three classes of leaders who to¬ 
 gether guided and molded the thoughts of Israel. 
 These leaders were the prophets, the priests, 
 and the sages. What these three classes who pro¬ 
 duced the literature of Israel really were; what 
 they stood for in the life of the nation; and, finally, 
 what each class contributed to the ethical equip¬ 
 ment of Israel, and through Israel, to the modern 
 world is to be the subject of our consideration. 
 We may naturally begin with the prophets. 
 
 12 One of the most readable accounts of the development 
 of Hebrew literature is to be found in Fowler’s History of 
 the Literature of Ancient Israel From the Earliest Times 
 to 135 B. C., pp. 10-104. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE PROPHETS 
 
 In view of the importance of the prophets, 
 both for their own times, and for any study of 
 the influence of Israel upon modern thought, it 
 is imperative that one should clearly understand 
 what was the prophetic function. Exactly who 
 these sixteen men were, what they aspired for 
 and did, what they were for their time and what 
 they still are for ours, what portion of our common 
 stock of ethical ideas we owe to them — these 
 are questions about which the average man has 
 only the vaguest ideas. Without having thought 
 much about it, he supposes that prophecy was 
 “ history written beforehand,” 1 and that the 
 prophet’s special duty and significance consisted 
 in foretelling the coming of Christ. Such a sup¬ 
 position, it seems hardly necessary to point out, 
 is totally unjust both to the character and to the 
 importance of Israelitish prophecy. Prediction 
 
 i Justin Martyr’s definition of the word prophet, which 
 represents a prevalent misconception that has persisted even 
 to our own time, is found in the first Apologia CXXXI., 
 “ There were among the Jews certain men who were 
 prophets of God, through whom the prophetic spirit pub¬ 
 lished beforehand things that were to come to pass ere ever 
 they happened.” 
 
 18 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 19 
 
 was indeed a part of the prophetic work, but it was 
 by no means exclusively the prophetic function. 
 
 Prophecy was occupied with the destinies of 
 the kingdom of God — sometimes even the far- 
 distant consummation and glory of the kingdom. 
 But, though the prophet looked forward rather 
 .than backward, though indeed the prophets lived 
 in the future in a sense that the priests and the 
 sages did not, we must not restrict prophecy to 
 the foretelling of the future. The prophets were 
 essentially men of the present. 
 
 Their mission was to save Israel by recalling 
 the nation to the obligations of the covenant. 
 They were not soothsayers. Only occasionally 
 do they venture predictions, and then only as an 
 expression of their sublime faith. Moreover, all 
 their predictions were conditional, and were so 
 understood at the time they were uttered. Jonah, 
 for example, first refused his mission to Nineveh 
 because he feared that his prediction of the coming 
 destruction of the city would, on account of the 
 people’s repentance, be unfulfilled; that is, he 
 knew that the fulfillment of his prophecy depended 
 upon the conduct of the people whose destruction 
 he foretold. Thus it has happened that many a 
 dire announcement of impending doom has been 
 unrealized, and that the fulfillment of many a 
 glorious prediction has been long deferred, because 
 both were conditional, and because conditions, 
 upon which the predictions were contingent, 
 changed. 
 
20 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 No better corrective for the popular miscon¬ 
 ception of the true prophetic function can be found 
 than an examination of the etymology of the 
 Hebrew word for prophet, for by this means we 
 can find out what the Hebrews themselves under¬ 
 stood by it. The Hebraic w r ord for prophet is 
 closely allied to an Arabic word that means to 
 proclaim something, or to carry out some man¬ 
 date. 2 It would appear, therefore, that the 
 Hebrew word in its root meaning signified the 
 delivery of some message, and that the prophet was 
 a deputed speaker. That such actually was the 
 fundamental meaning of the word among the 
 Hebrews appears from a passage in Exodus, 3 
 where we are told that Moses hesitated and drew 
 back from his vocation to deliver Israel, saying, 
 “ O Lord, I am not a man of words, neither here¬ 
 tofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy ser¬ 
 vant: for I am slow of speech, and of a slow 
 tongue.” And the Lord, accordingly, designated 
 Aaron as Moses’ spokesman, saying, “ And he shall 
 be thy prophet unto the people: and it shall come 
 to pass that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou 
 shalt be to him as God.” So it appears that 
 Aaron was to be Moses’ prophet in the same sense 
 that Moses was to be God’s prophet. He was to 
 be his spokesman or interpreter. 
 
 2 Several alternative derivations of the Hebrew word for 
 prophet are discussed by L. W. Batten in The Hebrew 
 Prophet, p. 344; in Hastings’s Bible Dictionary, article 
 “Prophet”; and in Cornill’s Prophets of Israel, pp. 6 fF. 
 
 3 Ex. 4:10 fF. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 21 
 
 Such a conception, involving the idea that God 
 revealed his will to certain selected individuals, 
 who thus became his interpreters, was a gradual 
 growth; and this growth, or historical develop¬ 
 ment, is involved in considerable obscurity. It is 
 quite probable that prophecy is an outgrowth of 
 44 divination.” Of the 46 diviners 99 and their 
 methods we know comparatively little, except 
 that they were men who sought to discover 
 the divine will by external means — arrows, 
 rods, and the sacred lot. Joseph, we are told, 4 
 was a diviner; and Balaam also was such at 
 least by reputed calling. 5 The art of divination 
 seems to have been borrowed originally from the 
 Canaanites, 6 and was by the provisions of the 
 Deuteronomic code 7 expressly forbidden as “ an 
 abomination unto the Lord.” It seems, how¬ 
 ever, never entirely to have disappeared in 
 Israel; both Isaiah and Micah 8 in the eighth 
 century, and in the post-exilic period, Zech- 
 ariah 9 referring contemptuously to the false 
 prophets as diviners. Succeeding the diviners, 
 and immediately preceding the prophets were the 
 44 seers,” 10 whose function was to disclose to 
 individuals the secrets of the present and of the 
 immediate future. The office of the seer was some¬ 
 what similar to that of the modern clairvoyant. 
 
 4 Gen. 44:15. 8 Is. 44:25; Mic. 3:6. 
 
 6 Num. 22:7, 18. « Zech. 10:2. 
 
 6 I Sam. 6:2. io I Sam. 9:9. 
 
 7Deut. 18:10-14. 
 
22 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 To him men went to 66 inquire of the Lord,” as 
 formerly they had gone to the priest to obtain the 
 sacred oracle by means of the sacred lot, the “ Urim 
 and Thummim.” For such services, the seer was 
 paid a fee; a quarter of a shekel in at least one 
 instance 11 is mentioned as the amount required. 
 Samuel, to whom this fee was to be paid, was the 
 first to represent in a complete degree the develop¬ 
 ment of the idea of “ prophet ” as the mouth-piece 
 of God. It is noteworthy that the Hebrews them¬ 
 selves seem to have regarded him as the first of 
 the prophetic line; at all events, the author of 
 Hebrews in the muster-roll of the national heroes 
 mentions “Samuel and the prophets,” 12 as if he 
 headed the list. Moses, to be sure, is frequently 
 spoken of as a prophet, but in such a way as to 
 suggest that the term was applied to him in a 
 retrospective sense. There is nothing to indicate 
 that he was ever called a prophet in his own day. 
 Samuel undoubtedly represents the completion of 
 the long development covering many centuries, 
 the stages of which are traceable in the names that 
 were successively applied to the man supposed to 
 be on somewhat intimate terms with God. 
 
 It is in the time of Samuel that we first hear of 
 communities of prophets. They seem to have con¬ 
 gregated about the several local sanctuaries, for 
 the places mentioned as their residences were local 
 centers of Jehovah-worship. Such were Ramah in 
 
 ii I Sam. 9:8. 
 
 12 Heb. 11:32. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 23 
 
 Mount Ephraim; 13 Bethel in the same vicinity; 14 
 Gibeah in Benjamin; 15 Jericho on the Jordan 16 
 and Gilgal. 17 The number of these groups of 
 prophets at this particular time and their close 
 association with the worship of the period were 
 resultant upon the awakening of patriotism caused 
 by the rigors of Philistine oppression. This 
 seems to have been more severe than any the nation 
 had suffered hitherto. It certainly was suffi¬ 
 cient to call forth a new national spirit; and in 
 Israel patriotism and religion were, if not synon¬ 
 ymous, at least correlative terms. Israel’s enemies 
 were looked upon as foes of Jehovah; and only by 
 His help could Israel hope to throw off the yoke 
 of the oppressors. The oppression of the nation 
 by a foreign enemy was, consequently, the signal 
 for the appearance of a more devout adherence to 
 the Captain of the Hosts of Israel, and of a more 
 fervid patriotism. 
 
 The patriotic fervor of these groups of prophets 
 seems not to have been altogether according 
 to knowledge. They expressed it by singing, 
 dancing, and an excitation of manner analogous to 
 the deportment of the modern oriental dervish. 18 
 Like all emotional excitement, that of the prophets 
 was highly contagious. 19 The story is told that 
 when Saul in pursuit of David went to Naioth, he 
 
 is I Sam. 19:18. 1 7 II Kings 4:38. 
 
 14 II Kings 2:3. is I Sam. 10:5. 
 
 is I Sam. 10:5, 10. 1 ® I Sam. 19:20-24. 
 
 16 II Kings 2:5. 
 
24 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 caught the prophetic spirit, “ and he also stripped 
 off his clothes, and he also prophesied before 
 Samuel, and fell down naked all that day 
 and all that night. Wherefore they say, is Saul 
 also among the prophets P 20 This saying has been 
 misinterpreted, and the prevalent opinion of the 
 prophetic ecstasy, consequently, misunderstood. 
 They did not mean to ask why so worldly a man 
 found himself in so exalted company, but rather 
 how so distinguished a person could feel at home 
 in such questionable society. 
 
 Though there is no evidence that Samuel origi¬ 
 nated these prophetic communities, he seems to 
 have been in close relation with them, appearing 
 at the head of one of them in the passage just 
 referred to. 21 The probability is that he saw the 
 value of the religious patriotism of the prophets, 
 and that he allied himself with them as a means of 
 promoting the end he had in view, the establishment 
 of a theocracy, a kingdom of God on earth. 
 
 In the attempt to realize this dream of a king¬ 
 dom of God on earth through the establishment of 
 the monarchy upon a firm basis, Samuel and his 
 successors, Elijah and Elisha, 22 worked in close 
 relation with the reigning king. They acted as 
 his counsellors, and addressed him in the name of 
 God; through him directly influencing govern¬ 
 mental policies. Later, in the reign of kings out 
 
 20 I Sam. 19:24. 
 
 211 Sam. 19:20. 
 
 22 These men were often called by the Hebrews “ The 
 former prophets.” 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 25 
 
 of sympathy with the theocratic idea, such an al¬ 
 liance became impossible. Hence arose the sepa¬ 
 ration of religion and politics, and the complete 
 independence of the prophetic order, the prophets 
 taking their place over against all classes as the 
 immediate servants of Jehovah. They no longer 
 headed political movements, nor allied themselves 
 with any political party in the state. Unlike the 
 priests, who were the staunch supporters of the 
 existing order, the prophets were always pro- 
 testants. Theirs was invariably the voice of pro¬ 
 test against existing conditions, against the ten¬ 
 dency to degrade the worship of Jehovah into a 
 sensuous ritualism, and against the mistaken pol¬ 
 icy of trying to strengthen the political life of the 
 nation by worldly alliances with their idolatrous 
 neighbors. 
 
 Their attitude of insurgency naturally brought 
 them into conflict with the priests. As the stead¬ 
 fast upholders of the established order in church 
 and state, the latter looked, with the distrust that 
 the conservative always feels for the radical, upon 
 the idealism of the prophets. Their general atti¬ 
 tude is perfectly exemplified in the position taken 
 by Amaziah, the priest of the sanctuary at Bethel 
 on the occasion of the preaching of Amos. After 
 having complained to King Jeroboam, charging 
 Amos with conspiring to incite a rebellion against 
 the king’s authority, he sarcastically advises the 
 prophet to go back to Judah whence he had 
 come, saying, “ O thou seer, go, flee thee away 
 
26 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and 
 prophesy there: but prophesy not again any 
 more at Bethel: for it is the king’s sanctuary, and 
 it is a royal house.” 23 
 
 The priests’ dislike of the prophets was on the 
 whole well founded, for the prophets not only dis¬ 
 paraged the priestly office, but depreciated the 
 whole ceremonial system with which the priests 
 were identified. Amos decries the idea that the 
 sacrificial cult was of ancient origin: 66 Did you 
 
 bring me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness 
 forty years, O house of Israel? ” 24 he asks iron¬ 
 ically. Even more denunciatory of the priests is 
 Hosea. Including both the royal house and their 
 supporters, the priestly hierarchy, in one sweep¬ 
 ing arraignment, he cries out, “ Hear this, O ye 
 priests, and hearken O house of Israel, and give 
 ear, O house of the king, for unto you pertaineth 
 the judgment: for ye have been a snare at Miz- 
 pah, and a net spread upon Tabor.” 25 He even 
 charges the priests with the most revolting 
 crimes. 26 In contrast to the polluted sacrifices 
 of such “ blind mouths,” God, he says, desires 
 “ mercy and not sacrifice, and knowledge of God 
 more than burnt offerings.” 27 
 
 Partly owing to their recalcitrant attitude to¬ 
 ward the ruling class, the social position of the 
 prophets was relatively lower than that of the 
 
 23 Amos 7:12, 13. 26 Hos. 6:9. 
 
 24 Am. 5:25. 27 Hos. 6:6. 
 
 25 Hos. 5:1. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 27 
 
 priests, who were the most influential class in the 
 Hebrew state. Such social inferiority was re¬ 
 flected in their dress. In contrast to the white 
 robes of the priests, they wore a somber-hued 
 mantle of camel’s hair. This became a symbol 
 of the prophetic office in much the same way as 
 the clerical coat, the cassock waistcoat, and white 
 tie of the modern clergyman are badges of his of¬ 
 fice. When Elijah was commissioned to anoint 
 Elisha as his successor, he found Elisha plowing 
 in the field, and) cast upon him his mantle. 28 
 Saul readily recognized Samuel by the mantle, 
 when, at his request, the witch of Endor summoned 
 the prophet from the abode of the dead. 29 Simi¬ 
 larly, Ahaziah, when he hears that the person met 
 by his messengers was “ a man with a garment of 
 hair, and girt with a girdle of leather about his 
 loins,” immediately identified him, saying, “ It is 
 Elijah, the Tishbite.” The leather girdle is so 
 frequently referred to as to make it probable that 
 this, too, was an essential part of the prophet’s 
 costume. 30 There was also a distinguishing mark 
 upon the forehead between the eyes, probably a 
 scar following an incision. When the prophet 
 went to meet Ahab, after the battle with the Syr¬ 
 ians, he disguised himself “ with his headband 
 over his eyes,” covering the characteristic scar. 
 As soon as he took the headband away from his 
 
 28 I Kings 19:16 if. 
 
 29 I Sam. 28:13 ff. 
 
 so See also Jer. 14, Matt. 3:4, Mark 1:6. 
 
28 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 eyes, Ahab “ discerned him that he was of the 
 prophets.” 31 
 
 Though some of the prophets were self-support¬ 
 ing, many of them seem to have lived in a pre¬ 
 carious way upon the free-will offerings of the 
 pious. A considerable source of income was the 
 fees paid by those who came to consult them. Ap¬ 
 parently these fees were not fixed, but varied with 
 the circumstances of the giver, somewhat like the 
 perquisites of the modern clergyman for perform¬ 
 ing the marriage ceremony. Though the rather 
 modest sum of a quarter of a shekel (about six¬ 
 teen cents) is once mentioned 32 as adequate, the 
 fees paid were sometimes very large. When Ben- 
 hadad, king of Syria, sent Hazael to meet Elisha 
 to ask whether the king should recover from his 
 illness, we are told that Hazael “ took a present 
 with him even of every good thing of Damascus, 
 forty camels’ burden.” 33 In course of time the 
 custom of accepting fees became so notorious an 
 abuse that the greater prophets mention it more 
 than once as one of the most flagrant evils of their 
 time. Side by side with Ezekiel’s denunciation 
 of the priests, is his arraignment of the mercenary 
 prophets, who “ go about like a roaring lion rav¬ 
 ening the prey: they have devoured souls; they 
 take treasure and precious things; they have made 
 her widows many in the midst thereof.” 34 The 
 Second-Isaiah, also, protests in the same breath 
 
 si I Kings 20:35-41. 33 11 Kings 8:7-9. 
 
 32 I Sam. 9:7, 8. 34 Ezek. 22:25. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 29 
 
 that 44 the priests teach for hire and the prophets 
 divine for money.” 
 
 The prophet’s chief business, however, was not 
 giving advice, either gratuitously or for a fee, but 
 preaching. All the prophets were orators, and 
 orators who spoke extempore, rather than essay¬ 
 ists ; and probably all the prophecies were deliv¬ 
 ered orally before being committed to writing. 35 
 Moreover, it is certain that the early prophecies 
 were not only oral, but lyrical, and accompanied 
 by music. The company of prophets that Saul 
 met after his anointing were prophesying to the 
 music of a psaltery, and a timbrel, and a pipe, 
 and a harp played by minstrels who went before 
 them. 36 Elisha, it will be remembered, called for 
 a minstrel to accompany his discourse before the 
 three kings. 44 And it came to pass, when the 
 minstrel played, that the hand of Jehovah came 
 upon him.” 37 
 
 The occasions of the delivery of the prophetic 
 addresses were mainly the popular gatherings at 
 feasts, and for worship at the favorite shrines. 
 Amos, for example, spoke at Bethel; 38 and the 
 language of the indignant chief priest implies that 
 Amos was out of order, not in speaking there, but 
 
 35 A possible exception is Ezekiel’s prophecy; but even in 
 this there is no evidence to prove that any part of the book, 
 unless it be chapters 40-48, was written before being de¬ 
 livered. 
 
 36 I Sam. 10:5. 
 
 37 II Kings 3:15. 
 
 38 Amos 7:10. 
 
SO OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 only because he had inveighed against the king, 
 who was regarded as the proprietor of the sanctu¬ 
 ary. Jeremiah preached, standing “ in the gate 
 of the Lord’s house; 39 and later when he was not 
 allowed to enter the “ house of the Lord,” he com¬ 
 missioned Baruch to read his written prophecy 
 on a great fast day before the Temple at Jerusa¬ 
 lem. 40 
 
 In their preaching, the prophets made an ex¬ 
 tensive use of at least one of the methods employed 
 in our modern elementary schools. They taught 
 by object lessons. Hosea gave to each of his 
 three children names that reiterated every time 
 they were pronounced the prophet’s stern menace 
 of overthrow for the northern kingdom. 41 Isaiah 
 wore for three years the shameful garb of a slave 
 to impress upon his contemporaries his grim pre¬ 
 diction that the Egyptians, in whom the Hebrews 
 trusted, would be led away captive by Assyria. 42 
 Similarly Jeremiah wore a wooden yoke, symbolic 
 of the yoke of Assyrian servitude borne by the na¬ 
 tions. 43 Some of the symbolic prophecies seem 
 to have been literary illustrations rather than to 
 have been actually performed. It is difficult to 
 see, for example, how Jeremiah could have fulfilled 
 in any literal way the command to lay great stones 
 with mortar in the brick pavement 66 which is at 
 the entry of Pharaoh’s house in Tahpanhes.” 44 
 
 42 is. 20:1-4. 
 
 43 Jer. .28:10, 13. 
 
 44 Jer. 43:8, 9. 
 
 39 Jer. 7:1. 
 
 40 Jer. 36:9 ff. 
 
 4 1 Hos. 1. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 31 
 
 Such a piece of seeming vandalism as this would 
 certainly have been bitterly resented by the Egyp¬ 
 tians, and would probably have cost the prophet 
 his life. Scarcely less fatal would have been such 
 a test of endurance as that described in the fourth 
 chapter of Ezekiel, where the prophet is com¬ 
 manded to lie on his left side for three hundred 
 and ninety days, pointing with bared arm to a 
 portrayal of the horrors of a siege; and having 
 done this, to lie on his right side for forty days 
 more, in a similar attitude, prophesying the while 
 against the house of Judah. 45 The fact that 
 these symbolic acts were not in all cases actually 
 performed did not lessen their value as illustra¬ 
 tions of the truths the prophets were trying to en¬ 
 force, even though their appeal was through the 
 written word. 
 
 In exchanging the written for the oral form, 
 the prophets were not actuated by literary ambi¬ 
 tion. They were not trying to furnish classics 
 for the perusal of a later age. The written was 
 to serve the same purpose as the spoken word. 
 In both his speaking and his writing, the prophet 
 invariably addressed, not posterity, but his im¬ 
 mediate contemporaries, speaking chiefly of pres¬ 
 ent sin, and present duty. Moreover, it is highly 
 improbable that many of the prophets could write, 
 writing in ancient Israel being a highly special¬ 
 ized profession, followed by comparatively few. 
 Some controlling necessity must have influenced 
 45 Ezek. 4:1-8. 
 
32 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 the prophets to change from the oral to the writ¬ 
 ten form of appeal. What this necessity was we 
 know, at least in the case of Jeremiah. For twen¬ 
 ty-one years he had confined himself to oral 
 preaching, but in the fourth year of king Jehoia- 
 kim’s reign, he dictated to Baruch the scribe, the 
 prophecies he had hitherto delivered orally. 
 “ And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying, I am 
 shut up; I cannot go into the house of the Lord: 
 therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou 
 hast written from my mouth, the words of the 
 Lord in the ears of the people in the Lord’s house 
 upon the fast day. ... It may be they will pre¬ 
 sent their supplication before the Lord, and will 
 return every one from his evil way. . . .” 46 The 
 passage is deeply significant, both because it states 
 the purpose of the writing, which is thus seen to 
 be identical with the purpose of Jeremiah’s oral 
 preaching — namely, to recall Judah from its 
 “ evil way ”— and because it also explicitly 
 states the reason for the substitution of the writ¬ 
 ten for the oral form of address. The reason is 
 suggested by the statement “ I am shut up, I can¬ 
 not go into the house of the Lord.” This has been 
 interpreted 47 to mean, not that Jeremiah was in 
 prison at the time, for this could not have been 
 the case, but that he was in danger of his life, if 
 he appeared in public. Indeed, as a result of 
 Baruch’s public reading of the roll before the 
 
 46jer. 36:1-6. 
 
 47 Batten, The Hebrew Prophet, p. 145. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 S3 
 
 king, an attempt was made to imprison both the 
 prophet and the scribe. The significance of the 
 whole incident is unmistakable. The change 
 from the oral to the written form of prophecy 
 was due to the fact that, for one reason or another, 
 it had become impossible for the prophet to reach 
 the ears of the people, so that he was obliged to 
 have recourse for the delivery of his message, to 
 the written form. 
 
 As a result of this change, we have the prophet¬ 
 ical literature, which comprises more than one- 
 half the contents of the Old Testament. When 
 we examine this literature with a view to ascer¬ 
 taining its literary characteristics, we find that 
 it is in form dramatic, that it is written in the 
 form of dialogue, but with the names of the speak¬ 
 ers omitted. Such an omission adds incalculably 
 to the difficulty of understanding the prophetic 
 books, for one is continually at a loss to identify 
 the speaker in a given passage. Usually the chief 
 speaker is Jehovah; sometimes it is the prophet 
 himself who speaks for Jehovah, while the other 
 parts of the dialogue are borne by the people. 
 Often, however, the dialogue is rendered more com¬ 
 plex by the introduction of other speakers. Now, 
 these are the heathen; and again, they are merely 
 disembodied voices who interrupt the speeches 
 with lyric utterances expressing the feelings 
 aroused by the preceding speech, in this way re¬ 
 sembling the choruses in an oratorio. To real¬ 
 ize what a serious obstacle to the understanding 
 
34 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 of written prophecy is offered by the omission of 
 the names of the speakers, one has but to consider 
 how difficult it would be to read intelligently one 
 of Shakespeare’s plays under similar conditions 
 — that is, w T ith no suggestion as to who is speak¬ 
 ing, and with no indentation of the lines to in¬ 
 dicate a change of speaker. As an illustration 
 we may glance at a few familiar lines from one of 
 Shakespeare’s best-known plays 48 printed, as the 
 prophetic books are usually printed, in a way 
 to give the minimum of help to the understand¬ 
 ing. 
 
 44 Why doth the Jew pause? take thy forfeiture. 
 Give me my principal and let me go. I have it 
 ready for thee; here it is. He hath refused it in 
 the open court: He shall have merely justice and 
 his bond. A Daniel, still say I, a second Daniel! 
 I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word. 
 Shall I not barely have my principal? Thou 
 shalt have nothing but the forfeiture, to be so 
 taken at thy peril, Jew. Why, then the devil 
 give him good of it! I’ll stay no longer here in 
 question.” 
 
 An example of the simplest form of prophetic 
 dialogue is found in the sixty-third chapter of 
 Isaiah — the vision of the divine Warrior from 
 Edom. The speakers are the prophet and Jeho¬ 
 vah, the two awed questions of the prophet being 
 answered by the stately announcement of Him 
 4 8 The Merchant of Venice, Act IV., Sc. I., 11, 335-344. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 35 
 
 who comes to judge the earth, and save His peo¬ 
 ple. 49 
 
 (The Prophet.) 
 
 Who is this that cometh from Edom, 
 
 With crimson garments from Bozrah? 
 
 This that is glorious in his apparel, 
 
 Marching in the greatness of his strength? 
 
 (Jehovah.) 
 
 I that speak in righteousness, 
 
 Mighty to save. 
 
 (The Prophet.) 
 
 Wherefore art thou red 
 In thine apparel. 
 
 And thy garments 
 
 Like him that treadeth in the winefat? 
 
 (Jehovah.) 
 
 I have trodden the winepress alone; 
 
 And of the peoples there was no man with me: 
 Yea, I trod them in mine anger, 
 
 And trampled them in my fury; 
 
 And their lifeblood is sprinkled upon my gar¬ 
 ments, 
 
 And I have stained all my raiment. 
 
 For the day of vengeance was in my heart, 
 
 And the year of my redeemed is come. 
 
 And I looked, and there was none to help; 
 
 And I wandered that there was none to uphold: 
 
 49 The arrangement of the text is that of “ The Modern 
 Reader’s Bible,” edited by Professor R. G. Moulton. 
 
36 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; 
 
 And my fury, it upheld me. 
 
 And I trod down the peoples in mine anger. 
 And made them drunk in my fury. 
 
 And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth. 
 
 A more elaborate example of the prophetic di¬ 
 alogue, and more difficult to understand as ordi¬ 
 narily printed, because in it occur the lyrical 
 cries of disembodied voices, is found in the fortieth 
 chapter of Isaiah. 
 
 (Jehovah.) 
 
 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people saith your God. 
 
 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, 
 
 And cry unto her. 
 
 That her warfare is accomplished, 
 
 That her iniquity is pardoned 
 That she hath received of the Lord’s hand 
 double for all her sins. 
 
 (First Voice.) 
 
 Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, 
 Make straight in the desert a high way for 
 our God. 
 
 Every valley shall be exalted. 
 
 And every mountain and hill shall be made 
 low: 
 
 And the crooked shall be made straight, 
 
 And the rough places plain: 
 
 And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, 
 
 And all flesh shall see it together: 
 
 For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. 
 
 (Second Voice.) 
 
 Cry! 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 37 
 
 (Third Voice.) 
 
 What shall I cry? 
 
 All flesh is grass, 
 
 And all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of 
 the field: 
 
 The grass withereth, 
 
 The flower fadeth, 
 
 Because the breath of the Lord bloweth upon 
 it: 
 
 Surely the people is grass! 
 
 (Fourth Voice.) 
 
 The grass withereth, 
 
 The flower fadeth: 
 
 But the word of our God shall stand for ever. 
 
 (Fifth Voice.) 
 
 O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, 
 
 Get thee up into the high mountain; 
 
 O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, 
 Lift up thy voice with strength; 
 
 Lift it up, be not afraid; 
 
 Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold, your 
 God! 
 
 (Sixth Voice.) 
 
 Behold the Lord God will come as a mighty one, 
 And his arm shall rule for him: 
 
 Behold, his reward is with him, 
 
 And his recompence before him. 
 
 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd, 
 
 He shall gather the lambs in his arm, 
 
 And carry them in his bosom, 
 
 And shall gently lead them that give suck. 
 
38 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Sometimes the prophetic dialogue is further 
 complicated and obscured by the introduction of 
 description, or of narrated vision, designed to fur¬ 
 nish a background or setting for the dialogue. 
 An interesting illustration is furnished by the 
 tenth chapter of Isaiah, where the message con¬ 
 cerning Assyria is, without any explanation, in¬ 
 terrupted by a narrated vision of the approach 
 from the north of an invading army of Assyrians, 
 and the consternation caused by its devastating 
 march toward the holy city. 
 
 He is come to Aiath — 
 
 He is passed through Migron — 
 
 At Michmash he layeth up his baggage — 
 
 They are gone over the pass — 
 
 They have taken up their lodging at Geba — 
 Ramah trembleth — 
 
 Gibeah of Saul is fled. 
 
 Cry aloud with thy voice, O daughter of Gallim! 
 Hearken, O Laishah! 
 
 O thou poor Anathoth! 
 
 Madmenah is a fugitive — 
 
 The inhabitants of Gebim gather themselves to flee — 
 This very day shall he halt at Nob — 
 
 He shaketh his hand at the mount of the daughter of 
 Zion, the hill of Jerusalem. 
 
 To the dramatic complexity of Hebrew proph¬ 
 ecy English literature furnishes no very close an¬ 
 alogy. Probably the nearest approach is Shel¬ 
 ley’s lyrical drama Prometheus Unbound. A 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 39 
 
 much closer analogy is furnished by the sacred 
 oratorio, with its solos corresponding to the proph¬ 
 etic monologues, its duets and quartettes corre¬ 
 sponding to the prophetic dialogues, and its crash¬ 
 ing choruses corresponding to the dirges and tri¬ 
 umph songs of prophecy. 
 
 Thus by stirring address, by the lyric utter¬ 
 ance of impassioned poetry, now by symbolic 
 acts, now by written tract or historical illustra¬ 
 tion, by whatever best means were at hand, the 
 prophets sought to impress upon the half-awak¬ 
 ened conscience of the nation,— upon careless 
 monarchs and yet more careless people — the di¬ 
 vinely inspired truths that glowed within their 
 own enlightened souls. Sometimes they played 
 the role of statesmen, fearlessly advocating the 
 theory that Israel was a theocracy; sometimes 
 they played the role of social reformers, pointing 
 out the evils of the social system, luxury, the lust 
 of the eye, and the pride of life, and the oppres¬ 
 sion of the poor. As social reformers, they be¬ 
 came the champions of the oppressed; and as such, 
 they assailed most often those sins of commercial 
 dishonesty which in modern times have been sup¬ 
 posed to be particularly characteristic of the Jew, 
 but from which Gentiles are not, it appears, 
 wholly exempt. Always they stood forth as eth¬ 
 ical and religious leaders. 
 
 Their ethical and religious teaching may be 
 summarized in three fundamental propositions. 
 Their most insistent emphasis was upon the na- 
 
40 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 tion’s obligation to be faithful to the covenant be¬ 
 tween Jehovah and Israel, whereby Jehovah had 
 chosen Israel out of all the nations of the earth 
 to be His people, and whereby they in return had 
 elected to serve Him faithfully. Though this 
 idea of the covenant was the most fundamental 
 part of the prophetic teaching, the second was 
 scarcely less important — namely, the purpose of 
 the covenant, which was the building up of a king¬ 
 dom of God on earth. Such a kingdom was to be 
 the external expression of the covenant, for the 
 end and aim of the covenant was, in the prophetic 
 thought, the kingdom of God on earth founded, 
 and though not yet realized, destined to be real¬ 
 ized as a universal dominion through Israel. 
 Closely allied to this thought of the hope of Israel 
 as part of the larger hope for the world at large 
 was the third of the prophetic ideals — the con¬ 
 servation of the Hebrew state, as the condition 
 of realizing the hope of a kingdom of God on 
 earth. The Israelitish state as it then existed 
 seemed to them a sacred thing, because it was 
 in their thought the kingdom of God already 
 formed and destined to attain to a perfect purity 
 of faith and morals, and to become the spiritual 
 leader of the nations of the world. Ultimately, 
 it is true, the prophets did come to realize that 
 the kingdom of God might exist apart from any 
 embodiment of it in the form of a political state, 
 that, indeed, the destruction of the Jewish state 
 might be the triumph of their God — the triumph 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 41 
 
 of righteousness over sin — and that, therefore, 
 the religious ideals of Israel might survive their 
 national overthrow. But it was not till after the 
 Exile, when the scepter was seen to have departed 
 forever from Judah, that such a complete spirit¬ 
 ualization of the hope of Israel could occur. 
 
 It is in the union of aims at the same time so 
 idealistic and so practical as those embodied in 
 the three propositions just referred to, that the 
 uniqueness of Israelitish prophecy. consists. 
 Other nations had their prophets; but a succes¬ 
 sion of men so absorbed in “ the living God,” and 
 at the same time so intensely practical in their 
 aims, at once statesmen, reformers, and idealists, 
 cannot be found in antiquity outside of Israel. 
 In a very true sense it may be said that prophecy 
 is one of the world’s debts to Israel, for, taken 
 as a class, the Hebrew prophets have been without 
 a parallel in human history in their work and 
 influence. 
 
 The influence of the prophets upon modern 
 thought has been simply incalculable. Lowell’s 
 poetical assertion is entirely capable of proof. 
 
 Slowly the bible of the race is writ, 
 
 And not on paper leaves, nor leaves of stone; 
 
 Each age, each kindred adds to it, 
 
 Texts of despair or hope, of joy or moan. 
 
 While swings the sea, while mists the mountains 
 shroud, 
 
 While thunder’s surges burst on cliffs of cloud, 
 Still at the prophets’ feet the nations sit. 
 
4>2 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 To each of the prophets the world owes the 
 formulation of some essential truth which today 
 forms a part of our common stock of ethical ideas. 
 Of the prophets of the eighth century, the world 
 owes to Amos the first adequate statement of the 
 truth that God is a God of moral righteousness, 
 and that He demands a moral righteousness in 
 man to correspond with it. Amos first taught 
 that justice and righteousness are the only reali¬ 
 ties in heaven and on earth. Jehovah’s require¬ 
 ments are, in his view, few and simple : “ Seek 
 
 good and not evil. . . . Hate the evil and 
 love the good, and establish judgement in the 
 
 gate.Let judgement roll down as 
 
 waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.” 50 
 In stating these requirements Amos introduced 
 the epoch-making teaching that God demanded 
 justice between nation and nation, man and man, 
 rather than sacred assemblies and offerings, that 
 indeed the most elaborate worship is but an insult 
 to God when offered by those who have no mind to 
 conform their wills and conduct to His require¬ 
 ments. Such an elementary but eternal truth as 
 this can never become superfluous nor obsolete. 
 In Amos’ recognition of the fact that God is a God 
 of justice; and that religion — the moral rela¬ 
 tion of man to God — meant primarily righteous¬ 
 ness, we have one of the most notable contribu¬ 
 tions ever offered to the ethical equipment of the 
 race. 
 
 bo Amos 5:14, 15, 24. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 43 
 
 Not less notable was the contribution of Hosea, 
 the second of 44 the writing prophets.” Amos had 
 revealed God as a God of righteousness; Hosea 
 revealed Him as a God of mercy. We sing to- 
 day, 
 
 There’s a wideness in God’s mercy like the wideness 
 of the sea. 
 
 And a kindness in His justice that is more than lib¬ 
 erty. 
 
 and the idea seems trite enough; but when we stop 
 to think that in the eighth century B. C. this 
 thought was absolutely new, we must reckon him 
 who first formulated it one of the greatest relig¬ 
 ious geniuses the world has ever seen. Not only 
 is Hosea the earliest expositor of the truth that 
 love is the highest attribute of God, but he is the 
 first to set forth the equally important truth that 
 God asks for an answering love from men, and 
 that the lack of such love is the basis for Jehovah’s 
 severest censure. It is because 44 truth, loving¬ 
 kindness, knowledge of God ” are lacking that He 
 has a controversy with the inhabitants of the 
 land.” 51 44 Loving-kindness and not sacrifice ” 
 
 are what He desires, and 44 knowledge of God 
 more than burnt offerings.” 52 Righteousness and 
 loving-kindness are to be sown and reaped by the 
 people if they hope to secure and retain God’s 
 favor. 53 They must turn to God and 44 keep mercy 
 
 bi Hos. 4:1. 53 Hos. 10:12. 
 
 52 Hos. 6:6. 
 
M OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 and judgement, and wait on thy God con¬ 
 tinually.” 54 Thus, Hosea thinks of religion as 
 an act of love. And in the utterance of these two 
 ideas — that God is love, and that 44 he prayeth 
 best who loveth best ” — Hosea profoundly in¬ 
 fluenced both the thought of ancient Israel and 
 that of the modern world. 44 It is not too much to 
 say,” writes Comill, 55 44 that the entire faith and 
 theology of later Israel grew out of Hosea, that 
 all its characteristic views and ideas are to be first 
 found in his book.” It is equally true that to him 
 44 the faith and theology ” of the Gentile world 
 owes an incalculable debt. One finds it every¬ 
 where. When Whittier sings, 
 
 Immortal Love, forever full, 
 
 Forever flowing free, 
 
 Forever shared, forever whole, 
 
 A never-ebbing sea! 
 
 We bring no ghastly holocaust, 
 
 We pile no graven stone; 
 
 He serves thee best who loveth most 
 His brothers and Thy own. 
 
 Thy litanies, sweet offices 
 Of love and gratitude; 
 
 Thy sacramental liturgies 
 The joy of doing good. 66 
 
 54 Hos. 12:6. 
 
 55 Prophets of Israel, p. 53. 
 
 56 “ Our Master,” 11. 1-4, and 137-145. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 45 
 
 we recognize the “ characteristic views and ideas ” 
 of the prophet who has not been inaptly called 57 
 “ the Saint John of the Old Testament.” 
 
 To Isaiah, also, the world owes some of its 
 most valued intellectual possessions. It was 
 Isaiah, the statesman, who first formulated a real 
 philosophy of history. He was the first to see 
 in human history, not a meaningless succession of 
 unrelated events, but a gradually unfolding rev¬ 
 elation of God’s purposes for humanity. His¬ 
 tory is to Isaiah a drama, whose stage is the world, 
 and all the men and women in it merely players. 
 Its solemn scenes and acts present an articulated 
 plan, a divine purpose which is being progressively 
 realized in the providential government of the 
 world. 58 Even in the stirring political changes 
 of his own time, Isaiah saw the ordered progress 
 of a drama whose denouement should be a day of 
 crisis and of final hope for humanity. And thus, 
 in Isaiah’s thought, Jehovah “ reigns supreme 
 alike in the realm of nature, and the sphere of 
 human history; and the crash of kingdoms, the 
 total dissolution of the old order of the Hebrew 
 world, which accompanied the advance of Assyria, 
 is to the prophet nothing else than the crowning 
 proof of Jehovah’s absolute dominion, asserting 
 itself in the abasement of all that disputes His 
 supremacy.” 59 The failure of Israel’s leaders to 
 
 57 Fairweather, The Pre-Exilic Prophets, p. 47. 
 
 88 See Is. 5:12; 10:12, 23; 14:24, 26 ff; 28:21 ff. 
 
 59 Robertson Smith, Prophets, p. 226. 
 
46 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 see human history as the working out of a divine 
 plan is the cause of severe denunciation. 60 More¬ 
 over, his own recognition of it is the source of the 
 sublime confidence, which has been remarked 61 as 
 one of his most pronounced characteristics. 
 44 What supernatural confidence is necessary,” 
 says Orelli, 44 in the very age when God’s true ser¬ 
 vants were compelled to announce ruthless judg¬ 
 ment on the temple, and it seemed as if . . . 
 God’s kingdom in Israel was a beautiful dream 
 lacking confirmation, to promise such a position 
 in the world to this very temple! ” No wonder 
 that, with such discernment, Isaiah has been called 
 the 44 prophet of faith.” 
 
 He might also justly be called the 44 prophet of 
 reverence,” for in his emphasis upon reverence 
 as a fundamental element in religion, Isaiah made 
 an important contribution to the world’s stock of 
 theological ideas. His ideal of true religion is 
 distinctly stated in the words, 44 Jehovah of hosts, 
 Him shall ye sanctify, and let Him be your 
 dread.” 62 Isaiah believed, as Dante and Spenser 
 afterwards believed, that the first of mortal sins 
 was pride. His statement implies, therefore, that 
 the prime necessity for Godly living is the negation 
 of pride. Man’s proper attitude is one of humility 
 before Him who alone is exalted. 63 It implies, 
 
 60 E. g. Is. 22:11. 
 
 61 Orelli, Old Testament Prophecy, p. 258. 
 
 62 Is. 8:13, cf. 29:13. 
 
 63 Is. 2:11. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 47 
 
 also, implicit trust and submission to His will, for 
 Isaiah makes humble faith the basis, not only of 
 political, but of religious life as well. For some 
 thirty centuries men have been testing the truth 
 of the prophet’s declaration. Now it seems a 
 truism when we read in Tennyson’s poetry, 
 
 Kind hearts are more than coronets, 
 
 And simple faith than Norman blood. 
 
 But we must not forget that these spiritual dis¬ 
 coveries, which are as familiar to us now as the 
 principle of gravitation, were once newly dis¬ 
 covered by men who deserve, therefore, not less, 
 but more gratitude from us than does he who re¬ 
 vealed for the first time some natural law. 
 
 It was reserved for a humbler prophet than 
 Isaiah, however, to utter what was undoubtedly 
 the noblest affirmation of Hebrew prophecy. 
 This is found in Micah’s reply to the eager ques¬ 
 tion of the penitent people who ask whether it 
 will suffice for them to offer their first born in 
 sacrifice for their transgressions, “ He hath 
 showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth 
 the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to 
 love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” 64 
 Here we have combined the essential teachings of 
 all the prophets who had gone before. Amos had 
 laid stress upon the necessity of righteousness, and 
 Micah exhorts men to “ do justly.” Hosea had 
 
 04 Micah 6:8. 
 
48 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 preached the necessity of love; and here Micah 
 insists upon loving-kindness as one of the three 
 fundamentals of religion. Isaiah had emphasized 
 the need of humble faith; and Micah demands a 
 lowly walk with God as a primary religious virtue. 
 Thus, Micah embodies the great ethical ideas 
 which his predecessors had stated, combining jus¬ 
 tice, love and humble faith in one great categorical 
 imperative. The requirements of true religion 
 never were better stated. Israel’s teachers of a 
 later day could do little more than reiterate what 
 Micah had already said. 44 True religion and un¬ 
 defiled before God and the Father is this,” 
 said the apostle James, 65 44 to visit the fatherless 
 and the widow in their affliction, and keep him¬ 
 self unspotted from the world.” Nor has any one 
 in all the Christian centuries been able to formu¬ 
 late a better statement. Justice between man and 
 man, charity, and humble-hearted faith are still 
 the sum total of God’s requirements. 
 
 To the prophets of the seventh century, also, 
 the debt of the modem world is very great. To 
 the prophet Zephaniah it owes the first complete 
 and adequate statement of the relation of national 
 sin and retribution. He it was who saw clearly 
 that moral forces must be reckoned with in the 
 world’s administration, that national wrong-doing 
 will be followed by national punishment as inev¬ 
 itably as the night follows the day, because such 
 a sequence is part of the moral order of the world. 
 
 65 James 1:27. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 49 
 
 This punishment he foresees as “ Jehovah’s day,” 
 the triumph of righteousness over sin. In 
 language of somber vigor he pictures this day of 
 vengeance: 
 
 The great Day of the Lord is near: 
 
 It is near and hasteth greatly! 
 
 Even the voice of the Day of the Lord; 
 
 The mighty man crieth there bitterly! 
 
 That Day is a day of wrath, 
 
 A day of trouble and distress, 
 
 A day of wasteness and desolation, 
 
 A day of darkness and gloominess, 
 
 A day of clouds and thick darkness, 
 
 A day of the trumpet and alarm 
 
 Against the fenced cities, 
 
 And against the high battlements! 
 
 And I will bring distress upon men, that they 
 shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned 
 against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured 
 out as dust, and their flesh as dung. Neither their 
 silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in 
 the day of the Lord’s wrath; but the whole land 
 shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for 
 he shall make an end, yea, a terrible end, of all 
 them that dwell in the land.” 66 
 
 As illustrative of the extent of Zephaniah’s in¬ 
 fluence upon the thought of Christendom, it may 
 be sufficient to remind ourselves that the passage 
 66 Zeph. 1:14-18. 
 
50 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 just quoted has inspired the most stately of the 
 hymns of the Christian church. The Dies irae of 
 Thomas of Celano, a Franciscan monk of the 
 thirteenth century, is little more than a paraphrase 
 and expansion of the Vulgate translation of Zeph- 
 aniah’s “ doom song.” 
 
 The message of Zephaniah was reiterated and 
 re-emphasized by his contemporary Nahum. The 
 latter’s “ taunt song ” over doomed Assyria, 
 weakened by the Scythian invasions, and soon to 
 fall before the rising power of the Persians and 
 the Medes, is not a mere diatribe against a hostile 
 nation, nor is it “ only an exultant cry of ven¬ 
 geance from the cruelly oppressed.” 67 Nahum 
 had a great truth to proclaim, the eternal prin¬ 
 ciple that they who do not rule in righteousness 
 shall perish from the earth, that the world’s king¬ 
 doms built on the foundation of force and fraud 
 are destined to certain destruction. Nahum saw 
 the truth that tyranny is suicide. It is a truth 
 that the nations have been slow to learn, which, 
 indeed, the great empires of antiquity never 
 learned, which Spain learned only after the dis¬ 
 integration of that once powerful empire, and 
 which Christian America has learned only through 
 the discipline of a most bitter experience. Only 
 through the suffering of the civil war did America 
 come to realize that the penalty of tyranny is 
 appalling and inevitable. It was Lincoln, the 
 
 67 Fowler, The Prophets, p. 53. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 51 
 
 great interpreter of the democratic spirit, who 
 said: 68 
 
 “ Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that 
 this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass 
 away. Yet if God wills that it continue until all 
 the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred 
 and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and 
 until every drop of blood drawn with the lash 
 shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as 
 was said three thousand years ago, so still it must 
 be said that the judgments of the Lord are true 
 and righteous altogether.” Certainly no judg¬ 
 ment of the Lord is truer or more righteous than 
 this which Nahum enunciated in the seventh cen¬ 
 tury B. C. 
 
 No less timely, and no less influential in mold¬ 
 ing the thought of a later age, was the truth set 
 forth by Habakkuk. Looking from his prophetic 
 watch-tower upon the nations surrounding Israel, 
 and seeing nothing but the tyranny of the strong 
 oppressing the weak, the Chaldeans even more in¬ 
 solent and overbearing than the Assyrians whom 
 they had overthrown, his faith in the moral gov¬ 
 ernment of the world seems partially to fail, and 
 he cries out, 69 “ Thou that art of purer eyes than 
 to behold evil, and that canst not look on perverse¬ 
 ness, wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal 
 treacherously, and boldest thy peace when the 
 
 68 The Second Inaugural Address. 
 
 69 Hab. 1:13. 
 
52 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 wicked swalloweth up the man that is more right¬ 
 eous than he; and makest men as the fishes of the 
 sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler 
 over them? He taketh up all of them with the 
 angle, he catcheth them in his net, and gathereth 
 them in his drag: therefore he rejoiceth and is 
 glad.” Jehovah’s answer given in the following 
 section of the dialogue 70 is this, 44 Behold his soul 
 is puffed up, it is not upright in him: but the just 
 shall live by his faith.” The meaning is that the 
 Chaldean 44 flown with insolence and wine ” is 
 doomed by his very arrogance to a speedy over¬ 
 throw according to the ancient law that pride is 
 the forerunner of destruction; whereas the right¬ 
 eous shall survive by his endurance, his fidelity, 
 his stedfast integrity. It was a message that 
 Israel took to heart. Through centuries of suf¬ 
 fering the oppressor’s wrong, and the spurns that 
 patient merit of the unworthy takes, Israel has 
 stood firm, living by his faith. Endurance has 
 been for three thousand years the most obvious, 
 and by no means the least admirable trait of the 
 Hebrew race. And it is a quality worthy of emu¬ 
 lation. It is the quality that Saint Paul selects 71 
 as the motto of Christianity. 44 The just,” he 
 says, 44 shall live by faith.” 72 
 
 The most voluminous writer of the prophets of 
 
 70 Hab. 2:2, 3. 
 
 71 Heb. 10:38. 
 
 72 The word used is the nearest Greek equivalent of the 
 Hebrew word found in Habakkuk. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 53 
 
 the seventh century was Jeremiah, and his mes¬ 
 sage was in importance and influence quite worthy 
 of the space the prophecy occupies in the Old 
 Testament literature. The message was the 
 product of a personal struggle. No prophet was 
 in his generation more unpopular. Tradition 
 says he was finally stoned by his own people. Be 
 that as it may, his whole life was a martyrdom 
 of unsuccessful struggle against fearful odds. 
 The false prophets of his time bitterly resented 
 his arraignment of them. 73 The priests, also, 
 hated him, for his ridicule of the doctrine of the 
 inviolability of Mount Zion, which had been for¬ 
 mulated by Isaiah in the preceding century, and 
 had afterwards become a dogma. 74 They de¬ 
 tested him still more for his fearless denunciation 
 of their pretensions. 75 The sages execrated him 
 because of his contempt for their vaunted wis¬ 
 dom. 76 The princes of the royal house vilified 
 and slandered him to the king, demanding his exe¬ 
 cution. 77 His fellow citizens of Anathoth planned 
 his assassination. 78 King Jehoiakim heaped in¬ 
 sults upon him by burning his writings, 79 and 
 would have imprisoned him, had he been able to 
 apprehend him. His successor, Zedekiah, at the 
 suggestion of the nobles, did actually authorize 
 his imprisonment. 80 Thus, the common people 
 
 7 3 Jer. 23:9 if, and chap. 28. 77 J e r. 38:4. 
 
 74 Jer. 7:4. 78 J er . 11:21, 22. 
 
 75 Jer. 8:8. 79 J er . 36:23. 
 
 76 Jer. 8:9. so J er . 38:4, 5. 
 
54 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 and the political and intellectual leaders of the 
 nation seem to have ignored their differences in 
 their common hatred of this man who brought 
 them such an amazing and unwelcome message of 
 impending ruin. 81 
 
 It is little to be wondered at that Jeremiah, 
 tired of the struggle, should have longed to es¬ 
 cape. 82 Like Job, he looked upon his life as a 
 long servitude; and, like him, he cursed the day 
 of his birth. 83 He seemed to' himself to have 
 failed in his mission, and doubted the genuineness 
 of his call to undertake it. 84 Yet out of his 
 sense of failure, and out of his sense of isolation 
 from his people, grew a keener realization than 
 any prophet hitherto had felt of the truth that 
 religion, or a right relationship between man and 
 God, was an individual, and not a national, mat¬ 
 ter. Such a discovery could not have come even 
 to him, had not the indifference of careless mon- 
 archs and a careless people forced upon him the 
 conviction that the realization of the religious 
 ideals of Israel could be hoped for no longer in 
 the corporate life of the nation, but only in the 
 life of the individual. It is this hope which alone 
 saves him from despair. Like Amos, 85 a century 
 earlier, he too looks forward to a happy future 
 for Israel; but the two prophets conceive of this 
 future in different ways. Amos speaks of it as a 
 
 81 See, for example, Jer. 8:1-3. 
 
 82 Jer. 9:2. 
 
 9 3 Jer. 20:14 ff. 
 
 84 Jer. 20:7. 
 
 85 Amos 9:15. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 55 
 
 time when Israel shall be restored to God’s favor, 
 and to national integrity and prosperity. Jere¬ 
 miah, on the other hand, while he predicts that 
 Jehovah will turn again the captivity of Jacob’s 
 tents, 86 does not anticipate a renewal of the old 
 covenant relations between Jehovah and Israel. 
 Instead, there will be a new covenant between God 
 and the individual souls of His people. “ Behold, 
 the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a 
 new covenant with the house of Israel, and with 
 the house of Judah: not according to the cov¬ 
 enant that I made with their fathers . . . 
 But this is the covenant that I will make with the 
 house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; 
 I will put my law in their inward parts, and in 
 their heart will I write it; and I will be their 
 God, and they shall be my people.” 87 Scorn and 
 shame and persecution were the portion of this 
 martyr-prophet in his life; yet out of his suffer¬ 
 ing grew a new conception of religion as a cov¬ 
 enant between God and the individual soul, which 
 is today the most treasured possession alike of 
 Jew and Gentile. 88 
 
 Between the prophets of the seventh century 
 and those that remain to be considered, there in¬ 
 tervenes the deep and wide cleavage of the Exile, 
 with the momentous changes which that period 
 produced in Jewish life and thought. As a result 
 
 ssjer. 30:18. 
 
 87 Jer. 31:31-33. 
 
 88 See, also, Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets, pp. 
 324, 325. 
 
56 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 of these changes, the prophets of the Exile and 
 the restoration faced conditions and problems 
 totally different from those of their predecessors. 
 During the generation that they lived in captivity, 
 the Jews, with that marvelous power of adapting 
 themselves to their surroundings which has always 
 been a characteristic of the race, became, instead 
 of an agricultural, a commercial people. There 
 is no question that the absorbing interest of the 
 modern Jews in trade, and particularly in finance, 
 is not a fundamental characteristic of the race; 
 but that it is an acquired characteristic, and that 
 it is due to the influence of the Exile. How 
 strong that influence was is attested by the fact 
 that through all the changes and chances of their 
 subsequent history the Jewish race has retained 
 its interest in commerce and finance. 
 
 Perhaps it is not unreasonable to date the fond¬ 
 ness of the Jewish race for statecraft, also, from 
 the apprenticeship they served in Chaldea. There 
 at least some of them developed administrative 
 and diplomatic skill of no mean order. Some of 
 them, like Joseph in Egypt, rose to positions of 
 trust and responsibility in Babylon. Daniel, if 
 we are to credit the narrative portions of the 
 book that bears his name as being wholly his¬ 
 torical, occupied high administrative positions 
 successively under Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar 
 (NarbonidusP), and Darius, the Mede. Zerub- 
 babel was appointed by Cyrus as the leader of 
 the first colonists who returned to Judea, and as 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 57 
 
 governor of the colony, Ezra, “ a ready scribe of 
 the law,” appears, also, to have been high in favor 
 at the Persian court. Artaxerxes Longimanus 
 gave him letters and money, and every encourage¬ 
 ment in his work of collecting and leading a second 
 body of returning exiles home. Nehemiah was 
 cup-bearer to Artaxerxes Longimanus; and about 
 444 B. C. was commissioned by the latter as gover¬ 
 nor of Judea. 
 
 To the great majority of the exiles, however, 
 there came no advancement. They lived as best 
 they could in poverty, and sometimes in persecu¬ 
 tion. The latter was most violent toward the 
 close of the exile, when the menacing power of 
 Cyrus caused a furious outbreak of fanaticism 
 among the Babylonians, who attributed his suc¬ 
 cesses to the anger of their gods. At once they 
 sought to prove their religious zeal by a vigorous 
 persecution of the strangers within their gates. 
 Many of the Jews were killed and all suffered 
 from the obloquy which is always the lot of an 
 alien and subject people when exposed to the 
 fanatical hatred of a stronger and dominant 
 race. 89 A natural result was the development in 
 the Jews of a marked degree of racial narrowness 
 and intolerance. 
 
 Even more significant than these changes, how¬ 
 ever, were those effected by the Exile in the emo- 
 
 89 Some inkling of the suffering of this period may be 
 gathered from the song of exiled patriotism (Psalm 137) 
 which probably belongs to the latter part of the Exile. 
 
58 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 tional and intellectual life of the Jewish race. 
 The interest in education, so marked a character¬ 
 istic of modern Judaism, dates from the Exile, 
 and is due to the intellectual stimulus afforded by 
 contact with Babylonian culture. Not less far- 
 reaching was the effect of the compulsory sepa¬ 
 ration of the race during the Exile from the 
 realities of civic life. The result was an amazing 
 development of what may be called religious imagi¬ 
 nation. The exiles were inspired by great hopes 
 for the future; but these hopes were not limited 
 by the necessities of a historical situation in which 
 they should be realized. Consequently their con¬ 
 ceptions of the future in store for Israel, and their 
 descriptions of the processes by which that future 
 was to be reached became colossal, ornate, and 
 lavishly symbolic. The tendency to the use of 
 symbolism was, no doubt, quickened by the rich 
 imagery of Babylonian art by which during 
 the Exile they were surrounded. At all events, 
 Jewish literature became, to a degree unthought 
 of hitherto, apocalyptic. The leaders of Israel- 
 itish thought came to represent God’s rule of the 
 world, and His providential care of His people, 
 not by the ordinary political and military processes 
 of history, but by awful convulsions and catas¬ 
 trophes both in nature and in politics, in which 
 God Himself appeared, or executed His will 
 through superhuman agencies. 
 
 One of the strangest effects of the Exile was 
 the development of ritual. One would suppose 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 59 
 
 that the destruction of the temple and the neces¬ 
 sary discontinuance of the sacrifices would have 
 opened the mind of Israel to more spiritual con¬ 
 ceptions of God as of one who dwelt not in tem¬ 
 ples made with hands, and who was best pleased 
 with the sacrifices of a broken spirit . 90 As a 
 matter of fact their thoughts continually turned 
 to the “ holy city ” and the ruined temple . 91 
 The sacrifices were, they believed, only intermitted, 
 not forever abolished. Their constant prayer 
 was, 
 
 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: 
 
 Build thou the walls of Jerusalem. 
 
 Then shalt thou delight in the sacrifices of righteous¬ 
 ness. 
 
 In burnt offering and whole burnt offering: 
 
 Then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar . 92 
 
 The temporary discontinuance of the temple serv¬ 
 ice seemed to them to afford a chance for the re¬ 
 construction of the temple ritual on a much more 
 elaborate and detailed system. Moreover, such 
 a reconstruction seemed imperatively needed to 
 make the ritual express the stronger sense of 
 guilt which the punishment of the Exile impressed 
 upon the mind of Israel. 
 
 Closely related to the expansion of the ritual 
 was the growing importance of the priesthood, 
 consequent upon the fall of the monarchy and 
 the subsequent absence of civic life. How im- 
 
 »2 Ps. 51:18, 19. 
 
 90 p s . 51:17. 
 
 9i Ps. 137. 
 
60 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 portant the priesthood became in post-Exilic times 
 may be inferred from the number of priests (4289) 
 who returned to Jerusalem with the first colonists 
 — a very large proportion when we consider that 
 the whole number of free men under the leader¬ 
 ship of Zerubbabel and Joshua was only forty-two 
 thousand, three hundred and sixty. Nor did the 
 importance of the priesthood diminish. Josephus 
 in his account of the service in Herod’s temple, 
 says there were twenty thousand priests, who 
 were divided into twenty four courses, each 
 “ course ” being responsible for the daily sacri¬ 
 fice for one week. During the continuance of the 
 Jewish national life, up to the final destruction 
 of the temple in 70 A. D., the priesthood retained 
 its dominant place of power and influence in poli¬ 
 tics and religion. 
 
 Only by considering the conditions affecting 
 the development of the priesthood during the 
 Exile, can we account for the changes that 
 prophecy underwent. Prophecy with Amos had 
 begun a war against all ritual, saying, “ I hate, 
 I despise your fasts; I will not smell in your 
 solemn assemblies ” ; and with Jeremiah had 
 achieved a religion independent of all priesthood 
 and temple. After the Exile, prophecy reap¬ 
 pears, but in a totally different attitude toward 
 ritual. Ezekiel legislates gravely that at the new 
 moon the sacrifice shall be one bullock, six lambs, 
 one ram, two ephahs of flour, and two hins of oil; 
 and Zechariah, while he proclaims the Messianic 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 61 
 
 king and high priest to be the great feeders of the 
 national life and worship, finds no place beside 
 them for the prophet. 
 
 No less significant than the changed attitude 
 toward ritual and the priesthood was the changed 
 conception of Jehovah and of His relation to the 
 race. Early Israel had thought of their God as 
 simply the God of Palestine and its inhabitants. 
 He was purely a local divinity. The pre-Exilic 
 prophets had, it is true, taught more spiritualized 
 ideas of God, affirming that He was not the God 
 of Israel alone, but of all the families of the earth. 
 It was not till the Exile, however, that we find 
 the complete spiritualization of the idea. To the 
 Exiles He became the one God, omnipotent, and 
 transcending all space relations. They, not 
 Herbert Spencer, are responsible for the idea of 
 “ the immanence of God.” Only in Exilic, or 
 post-Exilic times could have been written the lines 
 of Psalm 139, beginning, 
 
 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? 
 
 Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 
 
 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: 
 
 If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there. 
 If I take the wings of the morning. 
 
 And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 
 Even there shall thy hand lead me, 
 
 And thy right hand shall hold me. 
 
 If I say, Surely the darkness shall overwhelm me, 
 And the light about me shall be night; 
 
 Even the darkness hideth not from thee. 
 
68 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 But the night shineth as the day: 
 
 The darkness and the light are both alike to thee. 
 
 for not till then did the Hebrews conceive of a 
 deity in whom, to borrow the expression of a 
 Jew of a later age, “ we live and move and have 
 our being.” 
 
 Such an exalted conception of deity encouraged 
 a tendency, already nascent, to think of the neces¬ 
 sity of mediators between God and His people. 
 Hence came about the prominence given to angels, 
 regarded as God’s agents. From the earliest 
 times the Hebrews had thought of Jehovah as 
 surrounded by a court of ministers whose duty 
 it was to celebrate His glory, and to execute His 
 will. They were called male’akim, or messengers, 
 a word which the Greeks translated ayyeAoi, 
 whence our English word angels. In primitive 
 Hebrew religion these messengers had been re¬ 
 quired by the fact that God’s residence was 
 thought of as confined to one place, namely Mount 
 Zion. In later Jewish thought they were required 
 rather by the worshiper’s unwillingness to con¬ 
 ceive of Jehovah’s personal appearance in missions 
 of a menial nature. Ezekiel, for example, because 
 he is unable to think of God as humbling Himself 
 to explain the details of the new temple, represents 
 Him as making use of intermediaries. With the 
 post-Exilic prophets this is carried much further. 
 Whereas the former prophets, Amos, Isaiah, and 
 Jeremiah, had themselves directly interceded with 
 God for the people, Zechariah describes the “ in- 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 63 
 
 terpreting angel” as interceding, and as receiv¬ 
 ing the divine comfort. 93 In Zechariah’s prophecy 
 we find for the first time in Jewish literature 
 orders and ranks of angels. Here, also, we see 
 the beginnings of the identification of special 
 angels with different peoples, as of Michael with 
 Israel. 94 
 
 Such, then, were some of the effects of the 
 increase of those conceptions of God’s sublimity 
 and awfulness, which were destined in the later 
 thought of Israel to lift Him to so great a dis¬ 
 tance above men; and to create so numerous a 
 host of intermediaries, both priestly and angelic, 
 between the worshipper and his God. 
 
 Speaking more in detail of the contributions 
 of the Exilic and the post-Exilic prophets to our 
 ethical equipment, we may note that in Ezekiel we 
 find the first statement of the idea that God’s 
 dwelling place is not exclusively in the temple at 
 Jerusalem, but that where His worshippers are, 
 there is He to be found. In the vision that the 
 prophet saw by the Chebar canal, we are told, 
 in gorgeous imagery that has supplied Milton with 
 the material for his account of the Messiah in 
 
 93 Zech. 1:12. See also Zech. 3:1 ff and 2:1 if. In the 
 latter passage the interpreting angel does not communicate 
 directly with Deity, but receives His word from another 
 angel who has come forth from the immediate presence of 
 Jehovah. Later, there came to be recognized five ranks or 
 orders of angels — the “thrones, dominations, princedoms, 
 virtues, powers,” of Milton. Paradise Lost V. 772. 
 
 94 See Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7. 
 
64 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 his chariot of wrath, 95 how Jehovah left the tem¬ 
 ple at Jerusalem to take up his abode among the 
 exiles in Chaldea. 96 
 
 The beautiful statement in the Prayer-book, 
 44 where two or three are gathered together in Thy 
 name there art Thou in the midst of them,” goes 
 back to its ultimate source to Ezekiel, and is 
 first found in his book. Though Jehovah still 
 remained in Hebrew thought a personal, and 
 therefore not an omnipresent, God, this idea of 
 His not being limited to one place marks a great 
 advance in Israelitish thought, and as such 
 prepares the way for the fuller expression found 
 in the book of Jonah of the thought of a God 
 from whose 44 face,” or presence, it is not possible 
 to flee. 
 
 Another contribution of Ezekiel to the world’s 
 religious possessions was closely connected with 
 the work of his predecessor, Jeremiah. The lat¬ 
 ter, it will be remembered, had emancipated 
 Hebrew religion from the persistent notion that 
 it was the nation and not the individual with 
 whom Jehovah had primarily to do. The sense 
 of individual responsibility in matters of religion 
 first found expression in Jeremiah, who taught 
 that a man must stand or fall on his own merits. 
 But beyond this Jeremiah had not gone. It re¬ 
 mained for Ezekiel to develop the idea of reli¬ 
 gious fellowship by educating his compatriots 
 
 as Paradise Lost, Book VI. 
 
 9 6 Ezekiel 10:1; 11:16. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 65 
 
 not only to live religiously as individuals, but to 
 live as religious individuals in a theocracy. 
 
 Ezekiel’s plan of a holy state is interesting 
 partly for its own sake; partly because of the 
 comparison that it inevitably suggests with other 
 and later utopias. It was undoubtedly the first 
 of its kind, antedating Plato’s by nearly two 
 centuries. 97 Yet the fact of its precedence has 
 been persistently ignored. To call Plato’s work 
 the first ideal commonwealth has become one of 
 the commonplaces of literary criticism. Richard 
 Garnett, for example, in his introduction to the 
 “ Everyman ” edition of the Republic , 9S says of 
 it, “ It was probably the first in which full ex¬ 
 pression was given to the longing which must 
 of necessity arise in the human heart when the 
 cosmos and the individual appear at odds, so 
 tersely expressed in Fitzgerald’s Omar Khayyam: 
 
 Ah Love! could you and I with Fate conspire 
 
 To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire, 
 Would we not shatter it to bits — and then 
 
 Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire? 
 
 07 The exact date of the Republic is uncertain. The old 
 belief that Aristophanes ridicules its ideas (community of 
 goods and of women) in the Ecclesiazusae (393 B. C.), 
 and that it was, therefore, known so early, is now generally 
 discredited. Ezekiel’s holy state is described in the last 
 eight chapters of his book. These chapters belong to the 
 second period of the prophet’s ministry; that is, they were 
 written some time within the period which opened six 
 months after the fall of Jerusalem (Jan., 585 B. C.) and 
 570 B. C. 
 
 98 The Republic of Plato in Ten Books translated from 
 the Greek by H. Spens, D. D., Introduc. p. XII. 
 
66 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 In making this assertion, Richard Garnett simply 
 echoes what has often been claimed. In a Ger¬ 
 man work upon the ideal commonwealths," we 
 find the author writing at the very beginning of 
 the chapter on Plato’s Republic , “ Auf hier, wenn 
 wir die Staatsgebilde der Phantasie betrachten, 
 muss sich das Blick zuerst auf Hellas richten.” 
 
 An error equally prevalent is that of regarding 
 Plato’s Republic as the inspiration of every ideal 
 commonwealth planned since that time. That 
 the literary influence of Plato has been very great, 
 there can, of course, be no question. Few books 
 have been so influential. Almost, if not every 
 vision of “ a world unrealized ” written since has 
 owed more or less to that philosopher with the 
 soul of a poet, who, as from some tower of specu¬ 
 lation, looked into the future, and saw the vision 
 of the world, and “ all the wonder that would be.” 
 He it was who suggested such treatises as St. 
 Augustine’s De Civitate Dei, and More’s Utopia; 
 and, through the latter, Campanella’s Civitas 
 Solis, Bacon’s New Atlantis, Harrington’s Oceana , 
 Hobbes’s Leviathan, Sir John Eliot’s Monarchy 
 of Man, Hall’s Mundus Alter et Idem, Filmer’s 
 Patriarcha, Butler’s Erewhon, and Bellamy’s 
 Looking Backward . 10 ° Moreover, this list is 
 
 99 The German work referred to is the Schlarafjia 
 Politico*, published anonymously at Leipsic in 1892. The 
 quotation is from page 7. 
 
 100 Besides the speculative treatises mentioned above, we 
 find another large group obviously inspired by the same 
 original, but less speculative, and more playful in tone. To 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 67 
 
 being continually supplemented by additions from 
 the pens of men dissatisfied with things as they 
 are, and dreaming of things as they think they 
 ought to be. 
 
 Yet, influential as Plato’s Republic has been 
 upon literature, its effect upon the thought of 
 the modern world is negligible in comparison to 
 that exerted by Ezekiel’s holy state, for the lat¬ 
 ter is the source of those ideals of Christendom 
 associated with the phrase “ the kingdom of 
 God.” 101 There can be no question that it is 
 to him that the world owes the first detailed plan 
 of a theocracy — the design of a state in which 
 God is the supreme ruler exercising his authority 
 through the priests or ministers. It is an ideal 
 that has appeared repeatedly in human history 
 — in the rule of the Popes in the Middle Ages, 
 
 the latter class belong Barclay’s Argents, Bishop Francis 
 Goodwin’s Man in the Moon, Bishop John Wilkin’s Discovery 
 of a World in the Moon, Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Paltock’s 
 Peter Wilkins, and Lytton’s Coming Race. A fairly com¬ 
 plete bibliography may be found in the Nova Solyma, edited 
 by Rev Walter Bagley, Lond., 1902, Vol. II, pp. 361 if. 
 Probably the most complete discussion of the whole subject 
 is to be found in the Geschichte des Antiken Kommunismus 
 und Sozialismus, by Dr. Robert Pohlman, professor of 
 ancient history in the University of Erlangen, two volumes, 
 Munich, 1901. Many of the more playful utopias are in¬ 
 cluded in Voyages Imaginaires, Songes, Visions, et Romans 
 Cabalistiques, 37 volumes, Paris, 1787. 
 
 ioi See Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life dfter the Exile, 
 pp. 80 ff; Montefiore, The Religion of the Ancient Hebrews 
 (Hibbert Lectures, 1892), pp. 321 ff; Skinner, “Ezekiel” 
 ( Expositor’s Bible); Cornill, The Prophets of Israel, p. 123; 
 Kraetzschmar, Hand-Kommentar zum Alien Testament. 
 
68 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 and in the Puritan sects of the seventeenth cen¬ 
 tury, like the Fifth Monarchy Men of the period 
 of the Commonwealth in England. Indeed the 
 Puritan Commonwealth itself was in part an 
 attempt to realize the ancient hope of Israel of 
 a kingdom of the saints, a kingdom of God on 
 earth. Such attempts have invariably failed, as 
 the Puritan kingdom of the saints failed when 
 the return of the Stuarts caused it to pass like 
 a dream away, and as such schemes must always 
 fail so long as human nature is what it is. For 
 the realization of Ezekiel’s dream there is required 
 such a citizenship as he assumed of men on whom 
 God has bestowed a new heart and a new mind, 
 who sin only unawares, and on whom, therefore, 
 no punishment save an ecclesiastical penance need 
 ever be imposed. 
 
 Though, of course, there is no connection be¬ 
 tween Plato’s Republic and Ezekiel’s holy state, 
 there is, broadly speaking, a remarkable resem¬ 
 blance between them. Though it is to Ezekiel 
 and not to Plato that the world owes the long 
 deferred hope of a kingdom of God on earth, 
 such a hope was not peculiar to Ezekiel, but 
 was Plato’s also. His city of the perfect is, 
 like Ezekiel’s, a civitas del. It is a celestial 
 commonwealth, a Trapdaeiy p,a h ovpavw 10 2 , he calls 
 it, a likeness of a celestial city. And the object 
 of its corporate life is to furnish to every citizen 
 the maximum of opportunity to grow God-like. 
 
 102 Rep. 592. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 69 
 
 To Plato, the crowning glory of human life, the 
 process by which our mortal nature puts on im¬ 
 mortality, is by becoming like to God, o/*otw<r« r<3 
 0e(o. And such an ideal in its political application 
 means the establishment of a kingdom of God on 
 earth — a kingdom wherein dwelleth righteous¬ 
 ness, ev ots SLKauoovvr] KaroiKet. 103 
 
 It is this transcendentalism, common to Ezekiel 
 and Plato, this faculty of making us 
 
 . . . breathe in worlds 
 To which the heaven of heavens is but a veil, 
 
 that is responsible for a further resemblance be¬ 
 tween the two commonwealths. Both are ideal 
 pictures, impossible of realization, and were so re¬ 
 garded by their authors. In this respect they 
 differ from most of the later Utopias. It is sig¬ 
 nificant that most authors of Utopias, such as 
 More, Bacon, and Campanella, represent their 
 ideal commonwealths as already existing, and need¬ 
 ing only to be described, whereas both Ezekiel and 
 Plato present their conception of a perfect state 
 as existent only in thought. Each is content to 
 remain wholly an idealist; neither makes the 
 slightest claim to be a practical politician. Eze¬ 
 kiel’s vision of a restored and happy Israel has 
 been called “ a sort of Messianic apocalypse, 
 
 103 By “justice” Plato really means righteousness. It is 
 not a pale abstraction, but the root and source of all virtue 
 — the condition and the means of growing like to God. See 
 Nettleship, Lectures and Remains, Vol. II, p. 221 , and 
 Adam, The Vitality of Platonism, pp. 66-67. 
 
70 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 an ideal picture of what ought to come to 
 pass, intended to suggest broad lines of progress 
 rather than to indicate exact details.” 104 Pro¬ 
 fessor Cornill has pointed out 105 that Ezekiel’s 
 plan of a theocracy was entirely impracticable, in 
 other words, was possible only when the Jews were 
 a conquered and subject people, governed by a for¬ 
 eign power. Ezekiel tells us 106 that he saw the 
 plan of the holy city “ in the visions of God,” and 
 Plato, 107 also, speaks of his city of the perfect as 
 one that exists in idea only, “ for I do not think,” 
 he adds, “ that there is such an one anywhere on 
 earth. In heaven . . . there is laid up a pattern 
 of such a city; and he who desires may behold 
 this, and beholding, may govern himself accord¬ 
 ingly. But whether there really is, or ever will be 
 such an one is of no importance to him; for he will 
 act according to the laws of that city and of no 
 other.” “ Nothing actually existing in this 
 world,” says Professor Jowitt in his Introduction 
 to The Dialogues , “ at all resembles Plato’s ideal 
 state, nor does he himself imagine that such a state 
 is possible.” When asked how the ideal could be 
 realized, he replied ironically, 108 “ When one son 
 of a king becomes a philosopher,” referring to his 
 famous paradox in the Republic , “ until kings are 
 philosophers, or philosophers are kings, cities will 
 
 104 Sanders and Kent, Messages of Later Prophecy, p. 114. 
 
 105 Prophets of Israel, pp. 123-124. 
 
 loe Chap. 40:2. 
 
 Rep. 591. 
 
 108 Laws, Bk. V. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 71 
 
 never cease from ill.” 109 Yet to think of the 
 Republic as a mere exercise of fancy without any 
 practical purpose, is wholly to misunderstand Plato 
 and his work. . . . Plato, no less than Ezekiel, 
 was trying to “ suggest broad lines of progress,” 
 even though he did not expect that his own genera¬ 
 tion would travel very far along the road he had 
 pointed out. Asked whether there is any way of 
 making citizens believe in a certain theory, he 
 answered, “ Not in the present generation; I do 
 not see any way of accomplishing this ; but their 
 sons may be made to believe, and their sons’ sons, 
 and posterity after them.” 110 
 
 In their theoretical construction of a perfect 
 state of society, and in their attempt to formulate 
 the governing principles that ought to be regnant 
 in that society, both Ezekiel and Plato wholly ig¬ 
 nored existing conditions. 111 Both presupposed a 
 change in the spirit and temper of the citizens 
 who are to form the body politic. Ezekiel as¬ 
 sumes that the members of the holy state will, at 
 its beginnings, be people upon whom God has be¬ 
 stowed a new heart and a new mind, so that they 
 will walk in the way of His commandments, and ob¬ 
 serve His laws. Though he does not assume that 
 they have attained perfection, he does presuppose 
 
 109 Rep. 501. 
 
 no Rep. 415. 
 
 in There is a striking difference in this respect between 
 Plato and Aristotle, whose Politics is a practical discussion 
 of the best form of government possible under existing con¬ 
 ditions. 
 
72 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 a citizenship of forgiven and sanctified souls, who 
 err, if at all, only inadvertently. There is no mis¬ 
 taking his meaning: “ For I will take you from 
 among the nations, ^nd gather you out of all the 
 countries, and will bring you into your own land. 
 And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you 
 shall be clean from all your filthiness; and from all 
 your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also 
 will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within 
 you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye 
 shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.” 112 
 This purified citizenship was to be the spiritual 
 charge, not of a king, for the function of the king 
 was to disappear with the removal of war, and of 
 the need of a supreme judge, but of a high-priest 
 and his subordinate ministers. These were to con¬ 
 stitute a priestly caste 113 whose divinely sanc¬ 
 tioned office no earthly king could take away. For 
 the preservation of their ritual purity, Ezekiel pro¬ 
 vides most carefully. They are to wear no wool¬ 
 len garment; they must not approach a corpse, 
 unless it be that of parent, child, brother, or un¬ 
 married sister. On passing from the inner to the 
 outer courts of the Temple, they are to lay aside 
 their garments “ that they sanctify not the people 
 with their garments,” in other words lest they min¬ 
 gle the sacred and the profane. 
 
 Plato, also, assumes that the citizens of the per¬ 
 fect state are to be, in Descartes’ famous phrase, 
 
 ns Ezek. 36:25-29. 
 
 ns See W. E. Addis, Hebrew Religion, p. 230 ff. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 73 
 
 “ on the side of the angels.” Though they are not 
 thought of as.having yet attained even to the meas¬ 
 urable sanctification assumed by Ezekiel as prelim¬ 
 inary to the inauguration of his holy state, Plato 
 does represent them as in a process of becoming 
 lovers of justice under the leadership of philoso¬ 
 phers who have themselves passed through a rigor¬ 
 ous course of self-discipline. Plato pins his faith 
 to the best instincts of an ethical aristocracy, just 
 as Ezekiel had pinned his to the best instincts of 
 an ecclesiastical aristocracy. Each believed in the 
 collective sense of the most cultivated, most deli¬ 
 cately perceptive, most spiritually-minded people 
 in the state. The fact that in Ezekiel’s thought 
 such a “ remnant ” meant a priestly aristocracy 
 of morally educated men, and that in Plato’s 
 thought 114 it meant an aristocracy composed of 
 men educated physically, mentally, and morally, is 
 due merely to a difference of racial ideals. 
 
 But the idealism common to Ezekiel and Plato 
 shows itself, not alone in their evident belief in the 
 perfectibility of human nature, but is even more 
 apparent in their formulation of the principles 
 that are to govern the new society. 
 
 The laws governing the holy state, as they 
 are given in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel, 
 are w r holly ritual, and concern (a) the tem¬ 
 ple, 115 (b) the priests, 11 ? (c) the sacrifice, 117 (d) 
 
 Rep. 537-540. 
 
 ns Ezek. 45:1-8. 
 
 H6 Ezek. 44:4-16. 
 
 H7 Ezek. 42:13; 43:13-27; 44:24, 27; 45:17-46:11. 
 
74f OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 times and seasons, the Sabbath, the new moons, 
 and the three feasts. 118 This very meager equip¬ 
 ment of legislation was not, however, to be the 
 only code possessed by the holy state. Although 
 Ezekiel provides no code of laws for the guidance 
 of the civil life of the community, 119 because, ob¬ 
 viously, with such a citizenship as he presupposes, 
 none was needed, he evidently does assume that the 
 regulations he gives will be supplemented by those 
 embodied in the “ holiness code ” of Leviticus. 120 
 Again and again, as when he prescribes the laws 
 that are to govern the life of the priests in the holy 
 state, he expresses himself in terms so nearly iden¬ 
 tical with those of the “ holiness code ” as to prove 
 that he not only was familiar with it, but that he 
 regarded it as an authoritative basis of moral and 
 religious life. 121 
 
 Plato’s scheme, though less ecclesiastical than 
 Ezekiel’s, is no less moral. Baron Bunsen is said 
 to have remarked that the Republic is not so much 
 
 ns Ezek. 44:24; 45:17—46:11. 
 
 No law, in the modern sense of a body of enacted 
 rules, recognized by a community as binding, existed in 
 ancient Israel. The word the Hebrews used for law, 
 “ torah,” meant instruction, guidance, direction. It was a 
 word of far wider application than our word “ law,” for it 
 included both oral and written instruction, and was a general 
 rule of life. 
 
 120 Leviticus, chapters 17-26. 
 
 121 For a full list of these correspondences, see Driver, 
 Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 
 146, 147. These are so numerous as to have led some to 
 believe that Ezekiel was himself the author of the “holiness 
 code.” 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 75 
 
 a state as a church, or at least, a state and a 
 church, and that the church is the superior and 
 dominating element. At all events, Plato recog¬ 
 nized that no permanent social life is possible ex¬ 
 cept it be based on morality. Accordingly, we 
 find the necessity of justice between man and man 
 proved in the first of the ten books into which the 
 treatise is divided. 
 
 And Plato’s idea of justice is as remote from 
 modern notions as Ezekiel’s. It is not embodied 
 in a concrete system of law. Indeed Plato’s aver¬ 
 sion to law is a constant and well recognized fea¬ 
 ture of his political thought. 122 It is not surpris¬ 
 ing, therefore, to find Plato in the Republic con¬ 
 sidering the state as an ethical society, and its life 
 as a moral life. The corporate life of the state 
 he does not think of, any more than Ezekiel did, as 
 based on a conception of rights, nor does he con¬ 
 ceive of justice as the maintenance or correlation 
 of the rights of its citizens. Impressed as the He¬ 
 brews had been, with the truth that only the law 
 written in the heart is really binding, 123 he would 
 have the ruler as unfettered in his action as an art¬ 
 ist in his creation. Consequently, both ruler and 
 citizen are amenable to only one law — the law of 
 justice. And justice is the will to concentrate 
 on one’s own sphere of duty (to avrov TTparreLv) 124 
 
 122 See Barker, Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, 
 
 p. 118. 
 
 123 See Psalm 19. 
 
 124 See Republic (433), “ You will remember the original 
 principle of which we spoke at the foundation of the state, 
 
76 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 and not to meddle with another’s sphere. Justice 
 does not reside, therefore, in an external code, 
 but in the heart of every member of the body pol¬ 
 itic who does his duty in his appointed place. In 
 other words, the justice of the state is based upon 
 the citizen’s sense of duty. Nor is this sense of 
 duty a mere lumen siccwm , a dry light of reason. 
 It is inspired by the same inward principle that 
 Ezekiel thought of as regnant in the hearts of the 
 citizens of the holy city — the sense of brother¬ 
 hood. The three classes into which he would di¬ 
 vide society — rulers, soldiers, and workers — are 
 each to be taught that their country is their 
 mother, 44 that they are, therefore, bound to ad¬ 
 vise for her good, and to defend her against at¬ 
 tacks, and her citizens they are to regard as chil¬ 
 dren of the earth, and their own brothers.” 125 
 So long as duty, that 44 stern daughter of the 
 voice of God,” speaks in the heart of each member 
 of the community, both rulers and governed, the 
 legislative function of the state wholly disappears 
 in Plato’s scheme, and only the executive function 
 remains. Even this is confined to enforcing cer¬ 
 tain broad outlines of education. Ezekiel had 
 placed implicit confidence in a 44 holy ” priest¬ 
 hood ; Plato relied in turn upon an intelligent 
 board of education. The problem of Ezekiel’s 
 state was to make Jerusalem so 44 holy ” a city 
 
 that every man . . . should practice one thing only, that 
 being the thing to which his nature was most perfectly 
 adapted; now justice is either this, or a part of this.” 
 
 125 Republic, 414. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 77 
 
 that Jehovah would feel at home there; the prob¬ 
 lem of Plato’s state was to carry out unchanged 
 the scheme of education laid down by its founder. 
 
 Education, according to the Platonic ideal, had 
 the same ultimate goal as Hebrew education — 
 namely, the knowledge of God. Again and again 
 did the Hebrew wise-men formulate their belief 
 that growth in wisdom meant a knowledge of 
 God’s works and ways here on the earth, and the 
 turning of that knowledge to practical account. 
 To the Hebrew wise-man the beginning and end of 
 wisdom was the fear of the Lord, and to depart 
 from evil was understanding. 120 That is, the He¬ 
 brew ideal of education was an ethical ideal, and 
 its ultimate goal was righteousness of life. 127 No 
 less ethical was the Platonic scheme of education, 
 for its purpose is the knowledge of God, and its 
 consummation is the growing like to Him —o/xoiWis 
 Be a> Kara to Svvarov dv6pe)7T(o. 128 
 
 To Plato, no less than to the Hebrew sage, edu¬ 
 cation meant a growth in righteousness. Speak¬ 
 ing of Plato’s scheme of education, Barker 
 says: 129 “ It is to gain the master-key of conduct 
 and action, since all right conduct and proper 
 
 126 Prov. 1:7. 
 
 127 Pictures illustrative of the Hebrew ideal of the per¬ 
 fectly educated man and woman are found in Job. 31, Prov. 
 31 and in several of the Psalms. 
 
 128 See Adam, The Vitality of Platonism, p. 33; Barker, 
 Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, pp. 125-127; Net- 
 tleship, Lectures on the Republic of Plato, pp. 217 ff; and 
 Pater, Plato and Platonism, pp. 238-240. 
 
 129 Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, p. 127. 
 
78 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 action will be conformed and directed to the end 
 which is the end of all things. This is the real 
 sense in which virtue is knowledge. If this con¬ 
 ception be personalized, we may say that the end of 
 education is the realization of God: it is knowing 
 that all things are one in him, and doing in the 
 light of that knowledge.” 
 
 It is in the seventh book of the Republic 130 that 
 Plato outlines most clearly the stages of this 
 growth in a 44 knowledge which shows the eternal 
 nature in which is no variableness.” One after 
 another, he here enumerates the virtues that will 
 be added, and the vices that will, like soiled gar¬ 
 ments, be laid aside till finally the learner becomes 
 fitted 44 to raise the eye of the soul to the universal 
 light that lightens all things, and behold the abso¬ 
 lute good; for that is the pattern according to 
 which they are to order the state, and the lives of 
 individuals, and the remainder of their own lives 
 also.” 
 
 In view of the fact that Ezekiel’s holy state pre¬ 
 ceded Plato’s by nearly two centuries, a protest 
 against designating the latter as the first book of 
 its kind seems entirely justifiable. The reasona¬ 
 bleness of such a protest becomes the more ap¬ 
 parent upon a brief comparison of the two books, 
 which reveals certain fundamental resemblances 
 between the two authors and their work. We find 
 that both Ezekiel and Plato were transcendental- 
 ists, that they ignored existing conditions, that 
 130 485 ff. 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 79 
 
 they believed in the perfectability of the social or¬ 
 ganism through an educated aristocracy. Nor do 
 we find that the resemblance ends with the idealism 
 of the two authors. Each distrusted the efficacy 
 of external law as a means of social betterment, 
 and each substituted a. moral principle, to be writ¬ 
 ten, not on tables of stone, nor in the pages of a 
 statute book, but in the fleshly tables of the heart 
 of each loyal citizen. The Hebrew citizen was to 
 be loyal to the ideal of holiness; the Greek, to the 
 ideal of duty; and each, in his relations with his 
 fellows, to the ideal of brotherhood. 
 
 The period of the Exile, when political questions, 
 and the practical problems of social life no longer 
 demanded attention, afforded an opportunity, not 
 only for the theoretical construction of an ideal 
 commonwealth such as Ezekiel’s, but also for an¬ 
 swering some of the questions which the ruin of 
 the Hebrew state inevitably suggested. Of these the 
 most insistent was the question, “ For what pur¬ 
 pose was Israel chosen? Wli at was the real voca - 
 tion of the race? ” To the answering of this ques¬ 
 tion, the author of the last twenty-seven chapters 
 of Isaiah addressed himself. His name we do not 
 know. He is variously designated as “ the Sec- 
 ond-Isaiah,” “ Deutero-Isaiah,” or as “ the Great 
 Unknown.” Whoever he was, he discovered a 
 truth of transcendent importance. In the attempt 
 to answer the question, “ What is the vocation of 
 Israel? ” he made known the truth that God’s high¬ 
 est call is the call to service. The calling of Is- 
 
80 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 rael, as he saw it, was to become to the world what 
 the prophet was to Israel — God’s representative 
 and witness, elect for the sake of mankind. In 
 this answer, the Second-Isaiah found an explana¬ 
 tion of the enigmatical history of Israel. To the 
 end that Israel might fulfil its mission to give and 
 not to receive, Israel had been trained in the hard 
 school of adversity. All its sufferings have been 
 borne in its vocation as 44 Servant of Jehovah.” 
 
 In the successive passages in which the prophet 
 portrays the 44 Servant of Jehovah,” made perfect 
 through suffering, and so prepared to redeem the 
 world, he develops the ideal of service which he 
 wished to set before the race. That Israel, ideal¬ 
 ized and personified, is represented by the 44 Serv¬ 
 ant of Jehovah,” there can be no question. He 
 says (and here Jehovah addresses Israel) : 44 But 
 
 thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen 
 the seed of Abraham my friend; thou whom I have 
 taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called 
 thee from the corners thereof, and said unto thee, 
 Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not 
 cast thee away; fear thou not, for I am with thee; 
 be not dismayed, for I am thy God: ...” 131 A 
 little later in the dialogue, 132 the 44 Servant ” 
 speaks, saying: 44 And now saith the Lord that 
 formed me from the womb to be his servant, to 
 bring Jacob again to him, and that Israel be gath¬ 
 ered unto him: . . . yea, he saith, It is too light 
 a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise 
 
 131 Is. 41 :8 ff . 132 Ig. 49:5 ff . 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 81 
 
 up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved 
 of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the 
 Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto 
 the ends of the earth.” It is an ideal that Israel 
 never consciously realized; and yet, as Tennyson 
 says, God fulfills Himself in many ways. Though 
 Israel never attained to the measure of the stature 
 of the fullness of the Christ-like ideal set forth by 
 the unknown prophet of the Exile, the race has, 
 albeit unwillingly, become in a very real sense 
 God’s interpreter to the world. To Israel it was 
 given to 
 
 . . . see and tell 
 Of things invisible to mortal sight. 133 
 
 to Israel it was given 
 
 ... to assert eternal Providence, 
 
 And justify the ways of God to men. 134 
 
 In Zechariah’s dreams we note the full develop¬ 
 ment of the tendency to apocalypse, which has been 
 noted as one of the characteristics of the post- 
 Exilic literature. Here we find eight apocalyptic 
 visions, which, like dissolving views, or the gor¬ 
 geous figures in a kaleidoscope, change and merge 
 insensibly into new combinations of oriental sym¬ 
 bolism. Now the symbols are suggested by the 
 elaborate system of postal communication of the 
 Persian empire, the most complete in the ancient 
 
 133 Paradise Lost, III. 11. 54, 55. 
 
 134 Ibid. I. 11. 25, 26. 
 
82 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 world; now by the war-chariots of Persia, which 
 are employed to symbolize Jehovah’s wrath against 
 the nations of the earth. Together these visions 
 convey a message of hope for Jerusalem; its tem¬ 
 ple is to be restored, its enemies destroyed, its ex¬ 
 iles returned, its sin forgiven, its wickedness re¬ 
 moved, and God’s spirit is to flow through priest 
 and prince of the Davidic line. But, though the 
 message of Zachariah may seem to be one calcu¬ 
 lated to meet local and temporary conditions, it 
 is really timeless and universal. In the vision of 
 the golden candlestick, 130 the prophet expressed a 
 spiritual truth, which, though the world has been 
 slow to learn it, though indeed it has not yet ac¬ 
 cepted it, is destined to become more and more the 
 guiding principle of the world’s life, 64 Not by 
 might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the 
 Lord of Hosts.” It is a truth of which the whole 
 history of Israel is an illustration, and one which 
 is illustrated in every instance where God has 
 chosen the weak things of the earth to confound 
 the mighty, and the things that are not to bring 
 to naught the things that are. 
 
 In the book of Malachi we find the beginning of 
 a respect for heathen religion which was to appear 
 later in a more fully developed form in the book 
 of Jonah. Most emphatically does this nameless 
 prophet 136 contrast the neglect of God by Israel 
 
 135 Zech. 4. This is the vision of the seven-branched 
 golden candlestick of the temple, its lamps fed by the two 
 olive trees, standing, one on either side of it. 
 
 136 The book is anonymous. The word “ Malachi ” is not 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 83 
 
 with the reverence paid to Him among the heathen. 
 “ For from the rising of the sun even unto the go¬ 
 ing down of the same my name is great among the 
 Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered unto 
 my name, and a pure offering, for my name is 
 great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of Hosts.” 
 The lesson of the book is “ that these negligent 
 priests were to know that Jehovah was not, as they 
 might fancy, dependent upon them, and upon the 
 Temple at Jerusalem for acceptable service, for 
 the world was His Temple, and even the heathen 
 were learning to fear Him.” 137 In its recognition 
 that the world was God’s temple, the passage seems 
 like an anticipation of the statement by Israel’s 
 greatest teacher, made to the woman of Samaria, 
 “ Believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this 
 mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the 
 Father. . . . But the hour cometh, and now is, 
 when the true worshipers shall worship the Father 
 in spirit and truth.” 138 That such an anticipa¬ 
 tion, based upon a generous, even catholic, recog¬ 
 nition of the purity of heathen sacrifices, should 
 occur in this book, 1 which lays such stress on the 
 necessity of a pure sacrifice, and in general, upon 
 the temple ritual, is nothing less than amazing. 
 
 The century following 350 b. c. was a period of 
 great humiliation and suffering to the Jewish com- 
 
 a proper name, but is the word translated “ my messenger ” 
 in chap. 3:1. 
 
 137 Mai. 1:11. Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets, 
 p. 509. 
 
 138 John 4:21-23. 
 
84 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 munity. Naturally it left its impress upon the 
 character of the Jewish race. Its most deplora¬ 
 ble effect was in dampening the missionary ardor 
 which had been awakened by the message of the 
 Second-Isaiah. Instead of being filled with a 
 fervid zeal to become Jehovah’s witnesses to the 
 nations, they became filled with a no less fervid 
 desire to see the Gentiles destroyed. Indeed, the 
 overthroAv of the heathen nations came to seem a 
 necessary preliminary to the establishment of Je¬ 
 hovah’s kingdom of righteousness on earth. 139 
 
 As a protest against such narrow intolerance 
 the book of Jonah was written to show that God’s 
 purposes of grace are not limited to Israel alone; 
 but that, conditional upon repentance, they include 
 the heathen as well. Jonah appears as the ex¬ 
 ponent of the popular Israelitish creed. Reluc¬ 
 tant to undertake a mission to the hated enemies 
 of Israel, angry at the non-fulfillment of his pre¬ 
 diction of ruin for Nineveh, Jonah is the personi¬ 
 fication of later Judaism. That in the conscious 
 design of the author of the book he represents the 
 Jewish race is more than probable; it amounts to a 
 certainty. In such a personification, the author 
 presented no new idea. Jeremiah, in referring to 
 the Exile, had said: “ Nebuchadrezzar the king of 
 Babylon hath devoured me, ... he hath swal¬ 
 lowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his maw 
 with my delicates; he hath cast me out. . . . And 
 I will do judgment upon Bel in Babylon, and I 
 139 See, for example, Joel 3 . 
 
THE PROPHETS 
 
 85 
 
 will bring forth out of his mouth that which he 
 hath swallowed up; . . .” 140 Jonah, then, is 
 symbolic of Israel, divinely commissioned to utter 
 to the Gentile world the truths that should make 
 Jehovah’s temple 44 a house of prayer unto all na¬ 
 tions.” This mission they had refused, prefer¬ 
 ring to embark upon the perilous sea of oriental 
 politics, which finally engulfed them. Yet they 
 could not evade their duty, for 44 the sea is his and 
 he made it.” And so they were swallowed up by 
 the world power, Assyria, only to be cast forth 
 again, and recommissioned as Jehovah’s witnesses 
 to heathendom. Still the nation, though no longer 
 disobedient, was in need of discipline. They 
 needed to realize more fully the great prophetic 
 truths — that God’s threats are conditional, that 
 national intolerance was grotesquely incongruous 
 with Jehovah’s all-embracing pity, which makes 
 Him ask, 44 Should not I have pity on Nineveh, 
 that great city, wherein are more than six score 
 thousand persons that cannot discern between 
 their right hand and their left hand; and also 
 much cattle? ” 141 
 
 44 With this question,” says Cornill, 142 44 closes 
 the last book of the prophetic literature of Israel. 
 More simply, as something quite evident, and there¬ 
 fore more sublimely and touchingly, the truth was 
 never spoken in the Old Testament, that God, as 
 
 140 Jer. 51:34, 44. 
 
 141 Jonah 4:11. 
 
 142 Prophets of Israel, p. 173. 
 
86 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Creator of the whole earth, must also be the God 
 and father of the entire world, in whose loving, 
 kind, and fatherly heart all men are equal, before 
 whom is no difference of nation and confession, but 
 only men, whom He has created in his own image. 
 Here Hosea and Jeremiah live anew. The un¬ 
 known author of the Book of Jonah stretches forth 
 his hand to these master hearts and intellects. In 
 the celestial harmony of the infinite Godly love 
 and of the infinite Godly pity, the Israelitic proph¬ 
 ecy rings out as the most costly bequest of Israel 
 to the whole world.” 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROPHETS 
 UPON MODERN THOUGHT 
 
 Of the three classes of Israel’s leaders, the 
 strongest influence was undoubtedly exerted by the 
 prophets. Their ideas are an integral part of our 
 thought, and still are, as they have always been, 
 powerful factors in all attempts of Christianity 
 to influence social and political life. Of the edu¬ 
 cative forces for the development of democracy 
 and social justice, that of the prophets has unques¬ 
 tionably been the greatest. Truly has our own 
 Emerson said of them : 
 
 The word unto the prophets spoken 
 Was writ on tables yet unbroken; 
 
 The word by seers or sibyls told, 
 
 In groves of oak or fanes of gold, 
 
 Still floats upon the morning wind, 
 
 Still whispers to the willing mind. 1 
 
 Whether more “ willing ” or not, men’s minds to¬ 
 day are certainly more open than they have been 
 formerly to the prophetic message. 
 
 And it is a vital one, for it concerns the coming 
 of the kingdom of God — a kingdom wherein dwpll- 
 
 i “ The Problem,” st. 6. 
 
 87 
 
88 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 eth righteousness. They were hoping for a better 
 social order. In our day, also, men are seeking 
 more earnestly than ever before to find out by what 
 system of social evolution the betterment of our 
 social and economic order may be achieved. Vari¬ 
 ous plans are being strenuously advocated — from 
 the social revolution of certain radical reformers, 
 to the non-militant and innocuous suggestions of 
 those who would inaugurate a campaign of educa¬ 
 tion for the substitution of the principle of co¬ 
 operation for the older economic principle of com¬ 
 petition. 2 Amid the babel of conflicting voices, 
 men who recognize the kinship of the prophets’ 
 aims with ours are respectfully considering the 
 methods they advocated for improving the social 
 order. The prophets did not believe the world 
 could be saved except through religion. But they 
 unsparingly condemned those who failed to har¬ 
 monize religion in its ceremonial aspect with re¬ 
 ligion in its social implications. Amos, the first 
 of the “ writing prophets,” announced amid the 
 revels of the feast at Bethel the impending fall of 
 the Northern Kingdom; and declared that this 
 would be the result, not of a lack of ceremonial 
 godliness, but of social righteousness. After de¬ 
 nouncing impartially the political crimes of all the 
 states of Palestine, Amos utters a more detailed 
 denunciation of the social evils of Israel. 
 
 2 See, for example, J. W. Petavel in The Coming Triumph 
 of Christian Civilization. He advocates the establishment of 
 educational colonies, organized as cooperative small-holding 
 societies, which should teach industrial cooperation. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE PROPHETS 89 
 
 “ Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions 
 of Israel, yea, for four, I will not turn away the 
 punishment thereof; because they have sold the 
 righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of 
 shoes: that pant after the dust of the earth on the 
 head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the 
 meek: and a man and his father will go unto the 
 same maid, to profane my holy name: and they 
 lay themselves down beside every altar upon clothes 
 taken in pledge, and in the house of their God they 
 drink the wine of such as have been fined.” 3 The 
 only hope of averting the ruin that Israel’s social 
 sin involves is, he insists, in the inauguration of a 
 new era of social justice. “ Seek good, and not 
 evil, that ye may live; and so the Lord, the God of 
 hosts shall be with you, as ye say. Hate the evil, 
 and love the good, and establish judgment in the 
 gate: it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, 
 will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.” 4 
 
 The prophets who succeeded Amos were not less 
 insistent than he had been upon the idea that re¬ 
 ligious morality is the only thing that God cares 
 about. They, like him, stressed in the religious 
 life, not the creed and ceremonial, but righteous 
 living, without which religion is as nothing. “ I 
 desire goodness and not sacrifice,” said Hosea, 5 
 and Jesus liked to quote the words. 6 The book of 
 
 s Amos 2:6-8. 
 
 4 Amos 5:14, 15. 
 
 5 Hosea 6:6. 
 
 6 Jesus quotes them twice — Matt. 9:13, and Matt. 12:7. 
 
90 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Isaiah begins with a contemptuous description of 
 the means in vogue with the ritualists of his day 
 for averting God’s wrath. The Temple courts, he 
 says, are trampled with the feet of deluded wor¬ 
 shippers, who fancy God will be appeased by the 
 reek of incense used to conceal the stench of the 
 burning flesh of slaughtered beasts. 44 I cannot 
 away with iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your 
 new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hat- 
 eth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to 
 bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, 
 I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make 
 many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full 
 of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away 
 the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; 
 cease to do evil: learn to do well; seek judgment, 
 relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead 
 for the widow.” 7 Micah also, denies that God 
 44 will be pleased with thousands of rams, or with 
 ten thousands of rivers of oil. . . . He hath shewed 
 thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah 
 require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kind¬ 
 ness, and to walk humbly with thy God? ” 8 
 
 Jeremiah, also, regarded the social duties of man 
 as matters of supreme religious importance. 
 Most emphatic is his assertion that social justice 
 is of more account than Temple worship. 44 Thus 
 saith the Lord of hosts,” he says, 44 Amend your 
 ways and your doings, and I will cause you to 
 
 7 Is. 1:13-17. 
 
 8 Micah 6:6-8. Cf. Psalm 40:6; 50:8-15; 51:16, 17. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE PROPHETS 91 
 
 dwell in this place. Trust ye not in lying words 
 saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the 
 Lord, the temple of the Lord are these. For if ye 
 thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if 
 ye thoroughly execute justice between a man and 
 his neighbor; if ye oppress not the stranger, the 
 fatherless and the widow, and shed not innocent 
 blood in this place, neither walk after other gods 
 to your hurt: then w r ill I cause you to dwell in this 
 place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, from 
 of old even for evermore.” 9 Following the exam¬ 
 ple of the earlier prophets, Ezekiel, the priest- 
 prophet of the Exile, whom we should expect to be 
 less radical than his predecessors, indicates not less 
 clearly than they had done the social importance 
 of religion, and insists no less strenuously upon 
 social ethics in these words: 10 44 But if a man be 
 
 just, and do that which is lawful and right, and 
 hath not eaten upon the mountains (food conse¬ 
 crated to idols), neither hath lifted up his eyes to 
 the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath de¬ 
 filed his neighbour’s wife, . . . and hath not 
 wronged any, but hath restored to the debtor his 
 pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given 
 his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the 
 naked with a garment; He that hath not given 
 forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, 
 that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath 
 executed true judgment (justice) between man 
 and man, hath walked in my statutes and hath kept 
 9Jer. 7:3-7. io Ezek. 18:5-9. 
 
92 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall 
 surely live, saith the Lord of hosts.” The preach¬ 
 ing of the prophets never varied in its insistence 
 upon the idea that religion is in the first place a 
 matter between man and his Maker, then a matter 
 between man and society; that it must inspire men 
 to act justly toward others, and that no people 
 can be called religious that does not demand jus¬ 
 tice for itself and do justly to others. Even the 
 last of them, those like Malachi, who preached 
 when the Jewish religion had become a book reli¬ 
 gion, and Judaism had narrowed into a church, 
 when even the prophets had become zealous for 
 the law, for the Temple, and its ritual, were by 
 no means blind to the fact that the national 
 church, with its intolerance and its disregard for 
 social justice, could hardly claim the favor of 
 a holy God, who always regarded the inward and 
 and spiritual above the outward and visible. 
 Malachi denounces ecclesiasticism and formal ob¬ 
 servance of a ceremonial cult, and assures his 
 people that God will be a “ witness against the 
 sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against 
 the false swearers; and against those that oppress 
 the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the 
 fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from 
 his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of 
 hosts.” 11 There is no reason to question the 
 justness of the assertion of Professor George 
 Adam Smith regarding the teaching of the 
 11 Mai. 3:5. 
 
INFLUENCE OF THE PROPHETS 93 
 
 prophets, when he says: 12 44 The student of the 
 
 prophets, as he realizes their equal insistence upon 
 the Word of God, and upon the need of strong 
 and just rulers, upon the religious and economic 
 rights of every common citizen, and upon the 
 substitution, for confidence in ritual, of the ethi¬ 
 cal service of men, must recognize principles of 
 which all social philosophies and systems since 
 constructed present only the fragments and de¬ 
 tails.” 
 
 As the earliest exponents of the fundamental 
 truth that religion and ethics are inseparable, 
 that the chief concern of religion is development 
 of character, the equitable adjustment of human 
 relationships, and the conquest of poverty and 
 vice; and that these concerns are pre-requisite 
 to a realization of the long-deferred hope of the 
 kingdom of righteousness on the earth, the 
 prophets made their most vital contribution to 
 the most important problem of our day. To the 
 great majority of modern men Christianity seems 
 a debt they owe to an institution. They identify 
 it with a membership in some church. Religion 
 means to them the praise and worship of God, 
 valuable for the hopes and consolations it may 
 bring to them in the hour of their trial, difficulty, 
 and sorrow. It is still only the fewest among 
 men who identify religion with life. Says Pro¬ 
 fessor Rauschenbusch: 13 44 Under the influence of 
 
 12 Quoted by Keeble, The Social Teachings of the Bible, 
 p. 46. 
 
 13 Christianity and the Social Crisis, p. 7. 
 
94 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 non-Christians customs and conceptions Christ¬ 
 ianity early developed its own ceremonial system. 
 It is, of course, far more refined. Our places 
 of worship have no stench of blood and entrails; 
 our priests are not expert butchers. But the 
 immense majority of people in Christendom have 
 holy places, where they recite a sacred ritual and 
 go through sacred motions. They receive holy 
 food and submit to washings that cleanse from 
 sin. They have a priesthood with magic powers, 
 which offers a bloodless sacrifice. This Christian 
 ritual grew up, not as the appropriate and 
 aesthetic expression of spiritual emotions, but as 
 the indispensable means of pleasing and appeas¬ 
 ing God, and of securing his favors, temporal 
 and eternal, for those who put their hearts into 
 these processes. This Christian ceremonial sys¬ 
 tem does not differ essentially from that against 
 which the prophets protested; with a few verbal 
 changes, their invectives would still apply.” 
 
 To men in our age, confused in their ideas of 
 what religion really is, and groping blindly for 
 a method of hastening the coming of a better day 
 for humanity, the message of the prophets comes 
 with clarifying power, affirming that religion is 
 to “ seek judgment (justice), and relieve the 
 oppressed ”; 14 and that, until we make society 
 religious in this sense, we shall not realize our 
 ancient hope of the kingdom of God on earth, 
 which these men promised. 
 
 14 Is. 1:17. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE PRIESTS 
 
 From time immemorial, there has been apparent 
 in Judaism a struggle for supremacy between two 
 principles: the formalism of dogmatic ritual, and 
 the direct religious sentiment. Between the 
 idealism of the prophets, sometimes half mystical 
 as in the authors of the prophetic apocalypse, 
 and the discipline of the law, upheld by the 
 priests, who were by training and by precept 
 ritualists, there was perpetual conflict. Both 
 politically and religiously the two classes were 
 diametrically opposed. The prophets were radi¬ 
 cals ; the priests, conservatives. The one class was 
 made up of the opposers, the other, of the up¬ 
 holders of the established order in church and 
 state. 
 
 Partly because they were rightly regarded 
 as the pillars of existing society, the priests con¬ 
 stituted the most influential class in ancient Is¬ 
 rael. As representatives of the people in public 
 worship, and as the guardians and interpreters 
 of the law, they occupied in that ancient life a 
 social position more prominent than that of either 
 the prophets or the sages. This social prom¬ 
 inence was reflected in their dress. In the per- 
 
 95 
 
96 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 formance of their official duties they wore white 
 linen garments. 1 These consisted, first, of a sort 
 of trunk-hose of fine linen, over which was worn 
 a long linen vestment reaching to the feet, fitting 
 closely to the body, and confined just below the 
 breast by a girdle of fine, white linen four fingers 
 broad. After being wound several times around 
 the body, it was tied, and the ends allowed to 
 hang to the ankles. Its whole length was em¬ 
 broidered with flowers of white, and scarlet, and 
 purple, and blue — the four colors of the sanc¬ 
 tuary. The priest wore, also, a turban of white, 
 wound many times around the head, and sewed 
 together. He wore no shoes, at least while per¬ 
 forming his sacred office, the putting off of the 
 shoes being regarded, as in some Oriental coun¬ 
 tries to-day, as a necessary preliminary to enter¬ 
 ing a sacred place. 2 
 
 To the holy place — the space inside the cur¬ 
 tain where the altar stood — the priests alone 
 had access, and there performed their most impor¬ 
 tant function. The essential idea in the Hebrew 
 thought of the priestly function was mediation 
 between God and his people. As mediator, the 
 priest’s highest duty was to represent the people 
 officially in their worship by offering for them 
 the sacrifices, and, above all, the incense. 3 
 Scarcely less important was his duty of interpret- 
 
 1 Ex. 28:40 ff and Josephus, Ant. III. VII. 7. 
 
 2 Ex. 3:5. 
 
 3 Num. 16:40; 18:1-5; Deut. 33:10. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 97 
 
 ing and teaching the law. 4 Subordinate to 
 these two functions were those of communicating 
 the divine will by means of the urim and thum- 
 mim, or sacred lot; 5 and of blessing the people in 
 the name of the Lord. 6 
 
 As official representatives of the people in pub¬ 
 lic worship, the priests delivered their message 
 through certain symbolic acts, mostly connected 
 with the sacrifice. In doing so they made use 
 of the dramatic method of teaching, as contrasted 
 with the hortatory method which they employed 
 as compilers and interpreters of the law. That 
 they should have availed themselves of the dra¬ 
 matic method is not strange when we consider 
 that the Hebrews possessed a strong dramatic 
 instinct, but no theatre in which that instinct 
 could find expression. Consequently, the dra¬ 
 matic impulse tended to the development of a 
 stately ritual, just as in Medieval England the 
 dramatic impulse found expression in the cere¬ 
 mony of the mass, with its elaborate symbolism. 
 Out of the latter grew the modern drama through 
 the miracle play, which was the direct result of 
 the desire of the church to educate the people 
 through giving its mysteries concrete representa¬ 
 tion. One wonders whether, had the Temple not 
 been destroyed, a like evolution might not have 
 resulted in the development of a Hebrew drama. 
 
 ^Deut. 33:10; Lev. 10:10, 11. 
 
 s Num. 27:21. 
 
 ® Num. 6:22-27. 
 
98 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 At all events, the conditions that gave rise to the 
 modern drama seem all to have been represented 
 in ancient Israel. 
 
 The sacrifice, for example, was simply an ob¬ 
 ject lesson — a method of teaching by symbols 
 — certain truths that the priests wished to im¬ 
 press upon the people. Thus the three kinds 
 of sacrifice each possessed a symbolic meaning. 
 The sin and trespass 7 offering visually rep¬ 
 resented the idea of atonement. They implied 
 that an interruption of relations between the wor¬ 
 shipper and God had occurred, and symbolized 
 the need for reconciliation. The burnt offering 
 typified the complete consecration of the wor¬ 
 shipper to God. As the need of national conse¬ 
 cration required to be kept constantly before the 
 eyes of the people, a burnt offering, called the 
 44 continual burnt offering ” was offered each 
 morning and evening. 8 The peace offering 
 shadowed forth the realization of restored peace 
 with God, and the joy of sin forgiven. 9 It is 
 significant that when these three kinds of sacri¬ 
 fices were offered consecutively, the sin offering 
 came first, then the burnt offering, and finally 
 the peace offering, thus emphasizing by a sort 
 of ocular demonstration the order of religious 
 experience — atonement, consecration, and peace. 
 
 7 The trespass or guilt offering was only a special kind of 
 sin offering. See Cambridge Companion to the Bible, p. 407, 
 and Lev. 5:1-9. 
 
 8 Lev. 1:9; Deut. 33:10. 
 
 9 Lev. 22:18, 29. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 99 
 
 Similarly in the ritual of the animal sacrifice 
 there were six symbolic acts. There was first 
 the presentation of the animal at the door of 
 the sanctuary by the person making the offering. 
 The animal must be “ without blemish ” — that 
 is, it must represent on the part of the wor¬ 
 shipper a real sacrifice. He could not give to 
 God what he would not offer to a friend; but, 
 with this one restriction, he might bring what he 
 pleased. The value of the sacrifice was never 
 measured by its costliness. Moreover, by the 
 presentation of the animal was symbolized the vol¬ 
 untary nature of the act. It was never among the 
 Hebrews, as among pagan worshippers, regarded 
 as compulsory. 10 After the presentation, the 
 worshipper pressed his hands upon the head of the 
 animal, thus representing the dedication of the 
 beast to God. 11 Thirdly, the slaying of the ani¬ 
 mal completed the dedication previously symbol¬ 
 ized by the laying on of hands. Fourthly, the 
 priest collected the blood, and applied it in vari¬ 
 ous ways according to the nature of the sacrifice. 
 The blood represented the life. It therefore be¬ 
 longed to God; no man might touch it. 12 Fifthly, 
 the priest, after preparing the body of the animal, 
 burned it on the altar. 13 This burning symbolized 
 the purification and consecration of the worshipper. 
 
 10 Lev. 1:3. 
 
 11 Lev. 16:21; cf. Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9. 
 
 i2 I Sam. 14:32-34; Lev. 17:3 ff. 
 
 is In some cases, the fat only was burnt, as in the case of 
 the peace offering. 
 
100 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Sixthly, in the case of the peace offering, the 
 sacrificial meal was eaten by the person making 
 the sacrifice and by his family. This sacrificial 
 meal represented the union of God and his people, 
 and the rejoicing caused by the restored concord. 
 
 This latter part of the sacrificial cult clearly 
 proves that the primitive idea of the nature of 
 the sacrificial act persisted even to the latest 
 period of Old Testament history. In the early 
 period, deity was supposed to be present and to 
 share the food with his people. Consequently, 
 every meal became in a sense a sacrifice. 14 Such 
 a primitive sacrificial meal is described in 1 
 Samuel, Chap. 9, as having been eaten at Shiloh. 
 The prophet Samuel was present, not however as 
 a priest, for none was needed, but simply as an 
 honored guest to furnish dignity to the feast by 
 bis presence, and sanctity by his blessing of the 
 sacrifice. 15 As on all such occasions when animal 
 food was eaten, God was supposed to be present, 
 and a part of the food was set aside for him; but 
 the important feature of the occasion was not 
 religious, but festal. The modern picnic dig¬ 
 nified by the presence of a clergyman to say 
 grace before the food is eaten furnishes a modern 
 analogy. Indeed, some have gone so far as to 
 assert 16 that the modern picnic is an evolution 
 from such primitive sacrificial feasts, as the New 
 
 14 See W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 236 ff, and 
 Day, Social Life of the Hebrews, p. 42 ff. 
 
 I Sam. 9:13. 
 
 is Day, Social Life of the Hebrews, p. 45. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 101 
 
 England donation party is a survival of the cus¬ 
 tom in later Israel of sending a portion of the 
 slain animal to the priest. That sacrifice was 
 originally thought of as a meal offered to deity 
 is evidenced, also, by the fact that the Hebrew 
 word for sacrifice (minhah) means a gift, and 
 that the gifts offered in sacrifice were al¬ 
 ways something to eat or drink. Again and again 
 the material of the sacrifice is spoken of as the 
 “ food,” or “ bread, of God.” 17 So far as the 
 early sacrificial feast was religious at all, it em¬ 
 bodied a very simple idea. God was thought of 
 as being present with the feasters, as sharing the 
 food with them, and as blessing them. In other 
 words the essential idea in the early sacrifice was 
 communion. 
 
 This basic idea of communion is character¬ 
 istic of all the Hebrew thought of sacrifice, though 
 the fact is somewhat obscured by the later 
 development of the sacrificial cult. The close 
 parallel between the development of the sacri¬ 
 ficial cult and the evolution of the idea of God 
 in Israel has been pointed out. 18 As the con¬ 
 ception grew that Jahwe, the God of the whole 
 world, was an altogether transcendent deity, and 
 when such an awe came to be attached to the 
 divine name that it became unutterable, the idea 
 of the difficulty of sinful man’s approach to such 
 an exalted being became more and more prom- 
 
 17 Lev. 21:6, 8, 17, .21; 22:25; Ezek. 44:7. 
 
 18 S. G. Smith, Religion in the Making, p. 176. 
 
102 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 inent. In other words, as the idea of God became 
 exalted, the difficulty of approaching his awful 
 presence came to be emphasized. 19 The greatest 
 obstacle to man’s approach was sin. Before com¬ 
 munion could be enjoyed, therefore, the sin that 
 separated man from God must be atoned for. 
 Hence it came about that in proportion as the 
 priestly thought of God became exalted, the ritual 
 became more elaborate and more sombre as the 
 idea of the need of atonement became more prom¬ 
 inent. 
 
 The whole idea of atonement in the priestly 
 code was based upon a realization of sin as a 
 cause of estrangement from God, and of the need 
 of reconciliation before communion could be en¬ 
 joyed. 20 The sin must in some way be atoned 
 for, “ covered ” is the literal meaning of the word, 
 so as to be put out of God’s sight in order that 
 He and his worshipper might be at-one again. 
 The covering of the sin must be done by God, 
 not by man, for only God could remove it. The 
 sin-offering and the trespass-offering, were not 
 offered, therefore, with the thought of appeasing 
 God’s anger, nor of averting a penalty, but with 
 the thought that by these offerings the soul of 
 the worshipper might be restored to a friendly re¬ 
 lation with God. 21 As Dr. Lyman Abbott says: 22 
 
 19 See Marti, Religion of the Old Testament, pp. 220 ff. 
 
 20 See article “ Atonement ” in The Jewish Encyclopaedia. 
 
 2 1 See A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 
 pp. 320-325. 
 
 22 Life and Literature of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 159. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 10 $ 
 
 “ The Levitical sacrifice was a means for the puri¬ 
 fication of the sinner, not for the pacification of 
 Jehovah.” With this idea of the significance of the 
 atonement in mind, it is easier to understand 
 the symbolism of the sprinkling of the blood. To 
 the Hebrew the blood represented the life. The 
 ceremony of the priest’s sprinkling of the blood 
 upon the altar emphasized the idea that there 
 had been a renewal of man’s covenant of life with 
 God. This appears to be the meaning of the 
 statement in the Law: 23 “For the life of the 
 flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you 
 upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: 
 for it is the blood that maketh atonement by 
 reason of the life.” 
 
 The sacrificial rites were, therefore, a sym¬ 
 bolical drama intended to represent visually and 
 through action certain fundamental truths. 
 These truths were: first, that God is holy; 
 secondly, that man is by his sin estranged from 
 him; thirdly, that the estrangement must be re¬ 
 moved by an atonement (a covering of the sin by 
 deity) before communion can be restored. 
 
 As leaders of Israelitish thought, the priests 
 gave their message, not only dramatically through 
 the symbolism of the sacrificial cult, but partly 
 through the Law, of which they were at the same 
 time the authors, the conservers, and the inter¬ 
 preters. In order to understand their message 
 
 23 Lev. 17:11. See, also, Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, 
 p. 247. 
 
104* OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 it becomes necessary, therefore, to consider 
 briefly what Hebrew law was in distinction from 
 other legal systems. Only by such a comparative 
 method of approach can we hope to understand 
 what was the basic principle upon which the 
 whole system of Hebrew jurisprudence was really 
 founded, and to appreciate the uniqueness and 
 the loftiness of the priestly contribution to the 
 ethical equipment of our race. 
 
 Law, as we to-day understand it, a body of 
 enacted rules recognized by a community as 
 binding, was unknown in ancient Israel. The 
 word they used for law, “ torah,” meant instruc¬ 
 tion, direction, guidance, and was a word of far 
 wider application than our word “ law,” for it 
 included both oral and written instructions, 24 
 and was a general rule of life. Its gradual 
 development, in the light of modern scholarship, 
 may be clearly traced through the four periods 
 which correspond to the stages of growth 
 characteristic of all ancient legal systems of which 
 we have any knowledge. 20 There was, first, the 
 period of natural law, or lawlessness. Secondly, 
 there was the period of divine law, or that in 
 which all questions were referred to and decided 
 by men, or classes, regarded as representing the 
 deity. Such decisions did not presuppose a law 
 
 24 Compare Deut. 17:11. 
 
 25 See Maine, Ancient Law, Int. pp. XV-XVI. See, also, 
 Kent and Sanders, Biblical and Semitic Studies, “ The 
 Growth of Israelitish Law,” pp. 63, 64. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 105 
 
 to have been violated, but were transmitted from 
 a higher power into the judge’s mind at the 
 moment of giving sentence. To this succeeded 
 the period of customary, or unwritten law, when 
 law was assumed to be precisely known to a 
 privileged order or caste. In a time precedent 
 to a knowledge of the art of writing, the existence 
 of such a caste was really necessary to the con¬ 
 servation of the customs of a race. Finally there 
 was a period of codes, or of written law, when 
 pre-existent law was crystallized, and when the 
 spontaneous development of law, consequently, 
 ceased. 
 
 The codification of Israel’s law was a long 
 process, covering several centuries. 26 It began 
 with certain primitive codes, so simple and so con¬ 
 cise as to suggest that they were merely oral in¬ 
 structions reduced to writing. Such is the dec¬ 
 alogue, “ the ten words,” in the two forms (Exod. 
 20: 1-17 and Deut. 5: 6-21); the small book of 
 the covenant 27 and the large book of the cove¬ 
 nant. 28 The briefest examination of this col¬ 
 lection of primitive codes reveals their uniqueness. 
 The fundamental principle that underlies them 
 is that human society is bound together by moral 
 laws that have their origin, not in the will of an 
 
 26 See Fowler, History of the Literature of Ancient Israel, 
 pp. 293 ff, and Fiske, The Great Epic of Israel, pp. 229 IF. 
 
 27 Exod. 34:12-14; 34:17; 34:19-20; 34:18 and 21-23; 
 34:25, 26. 
 
 28 Exod. 20:23-26; 21:2-6; 21:7-11; 21:12-16; 21:17; 
 21:18-25; 21:26-23:19. 
 
106 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 earthly monarch, nor in the collective wills of a 
 legislative body, but in God himself. Being hi 
 source divine, they are as unalterable as the 
 Medes and Persians claimed their laws to be, or 
 as the laws of nature really are. In recognizing 
 these moral laws, and in submitting to them, the 
 Hebrews pledged themselves to a set of principles 
 without a parallel in any human polity. Theirs 
 was a federal and social contract, not between 
 the people at large and certain privileged classes, 
 to whom were to be delegated a little brief 
 authority; nor between the people and certain 
 individuals, regarded as possessing a divine right 
 to govern, but between the Hebrew nation and 
 the founder of the state, regarded as the Lord of 
 the heavens and the earth. Moses, the great 
 law-giver of Israel, is represented as declaring: 29 
 “ Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens 
 is the Lord’s thy God, the earth also, with all 
 that herein is. Only the Lord had a delight in 
 thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed 
 after them, even you above all peoples, as it is 
 this day.” 
 
 Not less fundamental was the idea of mono¬ 
 theism connected with the covenant. “ Thou 
 shalt have no other gods before me ” was the first 
 command of the decalogue; 30 and “ Hear, O 
 Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” 31 
 remained the basic article of the creed of Israel 
 through all succeeding years. No other people 
 29 Deut. 10:14, 15. ^ Ex. 20:3. 3i Deut. 6:4. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 107 
 
 of that age believed this. There was not a civil 
 constitution then in being that was not based 
 upon the assumed truth of polytheism. Israel 
 alone was to justify its election from among the 
 nations by its identification with the worship of 
 the one great Creator. 
 
 Closely related to the emphasis upon the unity 
 of God was the stress laid by these primitive codes 
 upon the unity of the state, and the equality of 
 its citizens. There was absolutely no recognition 
 of a privileged class. The institution of the 
 priesthood, and the setting apart of the tribe of 
 Levi for their peculiar function, with the con¬ 
 sequent development of a sacerdotal and literary 
 aristocracy, was a later phase of legalism, and 
 was entirely opposed to the principles of 
 the early codes. In contrast to the polity of 
 ancient Egypt, for example, there were to be 
 recognized in Israel no hereditary castes. No 
 dignities nor special privileges were to be assigned 
 to one class, and no inherited inferiority to 
 another. All were to be equally privileged, and 
 all were amenable to the same duties. 
 
 The principles governing the inter-relations of 
 the members of the Hebrew community, as set 
 forth by the primitive codes, are thus restated by 
 Doctor Abbott: 32 “ Spiritual reverence for God; 
 preservation of some time free from the drudgery 
 of toil for the development of the higher nature; 
 respect for parents; regard for the rights of per- 
 32 Life and Literature of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 112. 
 
108 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 son, of the family, of property, of reputation; 
 and, last, this respect real and spontaneous, not 
 formal and enforced.” That these are the fun¬ 
 damental laws of human life, upon the mainte¬ 
 nance of which the welfare, and even the con¬ 
 tinued existence of the social order depends, there 
 can, of course, be no question. 44 When a com¬ 
 munity,” continues Doctor Abbott, commenting 
 upon the passage above cited, 44 bases government 
 on either the power of the governor, leading to 
 despotism, or on the consent of the governed, 
 leading to anarchy, it violates the first of these 
 laws. When it substitutes symbols for realities, 
 promotes and encourages the spirit of irreverence, 
 devotes all its energies to material advancement, 
 forgetting all need of, and all ministry to the 
 higher life, and makes every day a workday, and 
 wealth the measure of prosperity, it violates the 
 second, third and fourth laws. When, through 
 the disregard of parents, it suffers the disinte¬ 
 gration of the family, which is itself the unit of 
 organized society, and so prepares the way for 
 widespread social disorder, it violates the fifth 
 law. When it fails to afford protection of the 
 innocent from the oppression of the strong or 
 the violence of mobs, or suffers such industrial 
 conditions as destroy men and women and children 
 before their time in mining and manufacturing 
 industries, it violates the sixth law. When it per¬ 
 mits the practice of polygamy, or encourages 
 licentiousness in legalized forms by freedom of 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 109 
 
 divorce, it violates the seventh law. When it 
 taxes a helpless and prostrate people under forms 
 of law, giving them by law none of the benefits 
 for which governments are organized, it violates 
 the eighth law. When it allows honored citizens 
 whose life has been devoted to the public service 
 of the community to be slandered by a sensational 
 and unprincipled press, and continues to give the 
 press its support, it violates the ninth law. 
 When it depends wholly or chiefly on force to 
 maintain these laws, failing to furnish such edu¬ 
 cation as will make obedience to them voluntary 
 and spontaneous, it violates the tenth law.” The 
 modern broadening of the social consciousness, and 
 the powerful moral impulse aroused by such 
 investigations as that of the state vice commis¬ 
 sions into the relations of poverty, with its drain 
 upon the moral and physical nature, to social 
 delinquency, indicate clearly that at last we are 
 awaking to a realization, belated, but more or less 
 complete, that the fundamental principles under¬ 
 lying Hebrew legislation were the elemental laws 
 of human life, which can be ignored only at the 
 expense of the social order. 
 
 Upon such a substratum the legal system of 
 later Israel was reared. It was a gradual 
 growth, of which some of the stages are clearly 
 evident. One of the most important of them cer¬ 
 tainly was the codification of existing law made 
 in the sixth century R. C. The work was done 
 by a man, or a group of men, whose names are 
 
110 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 unknown, because in the times of Manasseh, when 
 the work was done, discovery would have meant 
 death to the authors, and the destruction of the 
 manuscript. The preservation of the manuscript 
 was insured by concealing it in the Temple. Ma¬ 
 nasseh died in 641 B. C., and Amon, his son, was 
 slain by his own people after a reign of less than 
 two years. The accession of Josiah, a boy of 
 eight, seems to have reawakened the religious spirit 
 in Israel. In the eighteenth year of Josiah (621 
 B. C.) Hilkiah, the priest, gave to Shaphan, the 
 scribe, on the occasion of the latter’s official visit 
 to the Temple, the book of the codes which had 
 been found there. This, Shaphan at once read 
 before the young king. The effect was immediate 
 and far-reaching. The king called the people to¬ 
 gether for a solemn ratification of the book as 
 the law of the kingdom. 33 
 
 The popularization and the public ratification 
 of the Book of Deuteronomy, for this is the name 
 by which we know the manuscript that Hilkiah de¬ 
 livered to Shaphan, 34 were from our modern 
 point of view among the most important events of 
 the ancient world. 44 Their results,” declares Pro¬ 
 fessor Cornill, 35 44 have been simply immeasurable. 
 By them Israel, nay, the whole world, has been 
 
 33 II Kings 23. 
 
 34 See Moore, in his introduction to the edition of “ The 
 
 Book of Deuteronomy ” (International Critical Com¬ 
 
 mentary) and Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the 
 Old Testament, p. 69 if. 
 
 as Prophets of Israel, p. 82 ff. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 111 
 
 directed into new courses. We are today still un¬ 
 der the influence of beliefs which were then pro¬ 
 mulgated for the first time, under the sway of 
 forces which then first came into life.” 
 
 The Deuteronomic 36 code reemphasized certain 
 basis principles of the earlier legislation. At the 
 beginning of the book we find the decalogue re¬ 
 peated, and the author reasserting in unequivocal 
 terms the religious basis of the state, and the 
 unity of God. 37 Like the older codes, this, too, 
 laid great emphasis upon the necessity of a sanc¬ 
 tion in the conscience of the people. Indeed this 
 idea that obedience to law must be voluntary was, 
 and continued to be, one of the unique features 
 of Hebrew legislation. In contrast to the elabo¬ 
 rate system of police, and courts, and penalties 
 that we are accustomed to see employed for the 
 enforcement of the law in modern Christendom, 
 there was in ancient Israel comparatively little 
 legal machinery. The lack of it was due to the 
 Hebrew belief that the law was not something 
 outside man, an injunction laid upon him from 
 without; but that it was an objective presentation 
 of man’s own reason and sense of justice. By the 
 author of Deuteronomy, God is represented as 
 saying to Israel: 38 “For this commandment 
 which I command thee this day, it is not too hard 
 
 36 The name is significant. It means the “ second law,” or 
 the “ second giving of the law.” 
 
 37 Deut. 6:4; 10:17; cf. 3:24, 4:35, 39. 
 
 38 Deut. 30:11-14. 
 
112 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, 
 that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us 
 to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to 
 hear it, that we may do it? Neither is it beyond 
 the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go 
 over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make 
 us hear it, that we may do it ? But the word is very 
 nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, 
 that thou mayest do it.” That obedience to the 
 law was not obligatory, but a matter of moral 
 choice, is emphasized again and again. Once 
 Moses is made to say, 39 “ I call heaven and earth 
 to witness against you this day, that I have set 
 before thee life and death, the blessing and the 
 curse: wherefore choose life, that thou mayest live, 
 thou and thy seed.” 
 
 Yet Deuteronomy was more than an emphatic 
 re-affirmation of the fundamental principle of loy¬ 
 alty to Jehovah laid down in the Covenant. It 
 was a re-formulation of an older legislation, and 
 an adaptation of it, under prophetic influence, to 
 new needs. It was an attempt to realize in prac¬ 
 tice the ideals of the eighth century prophets, to 
 transform the nation, demoralized by the idolatry 
 prevalent under Manasseh’s rule, into a true theoc¬ 
 racy ; to awaken Judah to renewed love to God and 
 man, which Hosea had declared to be the first of 
 human duties. It is noticeable that the remarkable 
 summary of the whole duty of man found in 
 
 39 Deut. 30:19. See, also, Kent, Origin and Permanent 
 Value of the Old Testament, pp. 140, 141. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 113 
 
 Deuteronomy 10:12 is obviously borrowed almost 
 verbatim from Micah’s statement of the essentials 
 of true religion, 40 and hence embodies the essential 
 teachings of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. Nothing 
 better illustrates the extent to which Deuteronomy 
 reflects the spirit of social justice awakened by 
 the prophets of the eighth century 41 than the leg¬ 
 islation regarding slaves. 42 Yet the spirit of al¬ 
 truism in the Deuteronomic legislation appears 
 not alone in the laws regulating the treatment of 
 slaves. Nowhere else in ancient legislation is the 
 sacredness of human life emphasized to the same 
 extent. Elsewhere we may look in vain for such 
 a law as that a man in building a house shall 
 “ make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring 
 not blood upon thy house, if any man fall from 
 thence.” 43 Nor is there anywhere in other an¬ 
 cient legislation, either theoretical or practical, 
 a parallel to the Deuteronomic law regarding 
 homicide by an unknown person. 44 This law is 
 said to be the origin of the coroner’s inquest of 
 modern times. The law provided that, when a 
 man was found slain in the field, the elders and 
 judges should “ measure unto the cities which are 
 
 40 Micah 6:8. 
 
 41 It will be remembered that it was a prophet who first 
 taught by an impressive object lesson the duty of treating 
 humanely prisoners of war. See II Kings 6. Cf. Deut. 
 21:10-14. 
 
 42 See Deut. 15:12—18; 23:15 ff; 24:14 ff. 
 
 43 Deut. 22:8. 
 
 44 Deut. 21 :l-9. The nearest parallel is Plato de Leg. 
 
114 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 round about him that is slain.” Then by a solemn 
 ritual, the elders of the nearest city were to purge 
 their city of the murder, and solemnly to disavow 
 their knowledge of the criminal. In the absence 
 of newspapers, no better means could have been 
 devised to give publicity to the crime, and to 
 force any one knowing the facts to reveal them. 
 
 Nor was human life alone considered worthy 
 of protection by the legalists of ancient Israel. 
 He that doth the ravens feed, yea, providently 
 caters for the sparrow, was thought to require 
 humane treatment of our poor relations, the ani¬ 
 mals. Consequently, the Hebrew was forbidden to 
 44 muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” 45 
 He was prohibited, also, from taking the mother 
 bird from her eggs, 44 that it may be well with 
 thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.” 46 
 Humane societies are usually regarded as of mod¬ 
 ern origin. It is interesting, therefore, to find 
 this national society for the prevention of cruelty 
 to animals dating from the time of Josiah. 
 
 We are hearing a good deal in these days about 
 44 conservation,” and 44 forest preservation ” is be¬ 
 coming a political slogan; but the idea is not a 
 new one. The Hebrews had such a sense of the 
 beauty and the utility of trees that they loved the 
 cedars that waved on Lebanon — 44 the cedars that 
 He hath planted.” 47 The growth of the tree be¬ 
 came to them the symbol of spiritual growth; 
 44 The righteous shall grow like the cedar in Leb- 
 
 45 Deut. 25:4. 46 Deut. 22:6. 4 ? Ps. 104:16. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 115 
 
 anon,” 48 and 44 shall be like a tree planted by the 
 rivers of waters.” 49 So great was their regard 
 for trees that they were forbidden to cut them 
 down even in an enemy’s country, 44 for, is the 
 tree of the field man,” pertinently asks the law¬ 
 giver, 44 that it should be besieged of thee? ” 50 
 
 The book of Deuteronomy was an attempt to 
 realize the prophetic hope of the kingdom of God 
 on earth. Through a pure worship of God, and 
 through righteousness and benevolence of social 
 life, Israel was to become a real theocracy — a 
 nation governed directly by the will of God. 
 Though it failed to accomplish the purpose for 
 which it was designed, though, by making a book 
 the foundation of religion, it substituted the dead 
 letter for the living revelation of God, it never¬ 
 theless merits the designation given it by Professor 
 Cornill of 44 perhaps the most significant and mo¬ 
 mentous book that was ever written.” In justifi¬ 
 cation of his estimate, Professor Cornill says: 
 44 The opposition of secular and sacred, of laity 
 and clergy, of State and Church, the conception 
 of a holy writ and of a divine inspiration, can be 
 traced back in its last roots to the Deuteronomy 
 of the year 621, together with the whole history 
 of revealed religion down to the present time, in¬ 
 cluding not only Judaism but Christianity and 
 Islam, who have simply borrowed these ideas from 
 Judaism.” 51 
 
 48 Ps. 92:12. so Deut. 20:19. 
 
 49 Ps. 1:1. si Prophets of Israel, pp. 89, 90. 
 
116 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 The third stage in the growth of Hebrew legis¬ 
 lation is represented by the Levitical code, so called 
 because it is found in the book of Leviticus (with 
 parts of Exodus) and Numbers. 52 In distinction 
 from Deuteronomy, it is not didactic, but is rather 
 a manual of religious customs and practices. 53 
 As such, it became the official guide of the returned 
 exiles; and was formally proclaimed and adopted 
 in the time of Ezra. 54 Like the Deuteronomic 
 legislation, it was an attempt to present in the 
 concrete form of specific precepts the broadly ethi¬ 
 cal truths that the prophets had long proclaimed. 
 As summarized by Nehemiah, it contained eight 
 important regulations: 55 
 
 1 The prohibition of marriages with the sur¬ 
 rounding heathen. 56 
 
 £ Laws designed to insure a strict observance 
 of the sabbaths and holy days. 57 
 
 3 The law of the sabbatical year with the re¬ 
 mission of all debts. 58 
 
 4 The imposition of a tax annually of one-third 
 of a shekel per capita for the support of the 
 temple services, including the offerings. 59 
 
 52 Exod. 25-31; 34:29-40:38; Leviticus, and Numbers. 
 
 53 See Harper, The Priestly Element in the Old Testa¬ 
 ment, p. 188. 
 
 54 Neh. 8-10. 
 
 55 This summary is taken from Harper, Priestly Element 
 in the Old Testament, p. 49. 
 
 56 Neh. 10:30. 
 
 57 Neh. 10:31. 
 
 58 Neh. 10:31. 
 
 59 Neh. 10:32, 33. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 117 
 
 5 The arrangement for the furnishing of the 
 wood for the burnt offerings. 60 
 
 6 The law requiring the bringing of the first- 
 fruits and firstlings to the priests at the tem¬ 
 ple. 61 
 
 7 The law requiring the people to give tithes 
 to the Levites, and that the priests bring tithes 
 of these tithes to the temple. 62 
 
 8 The regulations calling for hearty support 
 of the temple and constant faithfulness to it. 63 
 
 Some of these regulations are unknown to the 
 Deuteronomic code, as the law of the sabbatical 
 year; the tax of one-third of a shekel for the tem¬ 
 ple services; the law regarding the supply of fire¬ 
 wood for the sacrifices; and the law concerning 
 tithes. 
 
 One section of the Levitical code deserves es¬ 
 pecial consideration. This is the collection of 
 laws found in the seventeenth to the twenty-sixth 
 chapters of Leviticus. From the emphasis that 
 these laws put upon the holiness of Jehovah, and 
 upon the need for a corresponding holiness on the 
 part of those who worship Him, the collection is 
 now generally referred to as the “ Holiness Code.” 
 The most probable date assigned for its composi¬ 
 tion is the decade between the first and second 
 captivity (597 — 586 B. C.). The author was 
 evidently a priest; and, because he was a priest, a 
 ritualist, who saw in the desecrated temple and 
 
 so Neh. 10:34. 
 
 6i Neh. 10:35-37. 
 
 62 Neh. 10:38. 
 
 63 Neh. 10:39. 
 
118 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 the scattered worshippers a divine punishment for 
 national sin. His aim, therefore, was to produce 
 a code that should, by making the restored temple 
 the center of national life, emphasize the authority 
 and holiness of God. 
 
 Though the regulations of the Holiness Code 
 cover much of the same ground as those of the 
 earlier Deuteronomic legislation, they differ in 
 their scope, dealing more with the ceremonial than 
 with the civil side of life. Minute directions re¬ 
 garding the observance of “ holy convocations,” 64 
 the lamps in the Tabernacle, 65 and the shew- 
 bread, 66 appear at a casual reading of the Holi¬ 
 ness Code to have usurped the place of the broadly 
 ethical principles set forth in the earlier codes 
 under prophetic influence. Yet the superficial ap¬ 
 pearance of narrow sacerdotalism in the Holiness 
 Code is highly misleading. Like the earlier leg¬ 
 islation, it is based upon universal and enduring 
 principles. So filled was the author with the long¬ 
 ing for social justice that Ezekiel found the Code 
 adapted with slight modifications, to become the 
 guide of the civil and religious life of the sancti¬ 
 fied citizenship of his ideal commonwealth — the 
 holy city. 67 
 
 For becoming the legal manual of an ideal com¬ 
 munity whose members sin only inadvertently, this 
 law of holiness, das Heilig'keitgesetzf 8 was emi- 
 
 Lev. 23. 66 Lev. 24:5-9. 
 
 65 Lev. 24:1-4. 67 Ezek. 40-48. 
 
 68 It was so called by Klostermann in 1877. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 119 
 
 nently fitted. The whole spirit of its enactments 
 is ideal and wholly alien to that of any other an¬ 
 cient code outside of Israel. The basic idea of 
 Roman Law, as expressed in its earliest code — 
 that of the twelve tables,— is the equality of 
 rights of Roman citizens —“ omnibus, summis in- 
 finisque, iura aequare.” 69 The fundamental con¬ 
 ception of Hebrew law was not one of rights, but 
 of duty. Members of the commonwealth of Israel 
 were not, in the eyes of the law, citizens with 
 rights to be conserved, but members of a family 
 with mutual obligations to fulfill. The obliga¬ 
 tion that included all the others was that of mu¬ 
 tual forbearance and love. It is well stated in 
 Leviticus 19:17-18. “ Thou shalt not hate thy 
 
 brother in thy heart. . . . Thou shalt not take 
 vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the chil¬ 
 dren of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neigh¬ 
 bor as thyself: I am Jehovah.” That this was 
 regarded by later leaders of Israelitish thought 
 as an adequate summary of the teachings of the 
 law is clearly shown by certain passages in the 
 New Testament. Perhaps the most significant of 
 these is Jesus’s answer to the lawyer of the Phari¬ 
 sees who asked what was the great commandment 
 of the law. In his reply 70 Jesus quoted the latter 
 
 69 So the fundamental conception of feudal law was the 
 maintenance of the power of the feudal superior. In Eng¬ 
 lish law it is the liberty of the subject. See Keeble, So¬ 
 cial Teaching of the Bible, p. 76. 
 
 70 Matt. 22:34-39; Matt. 5:43; 7:12; 19:16-19. 
 
120 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 part of this passage, with the comment that upon 
 this, together with the command in Deuteron¬ 
 omy 71 to love the Lord whole-heartedly “the 
 whole law hangeth, and the prophets ”; that is, 
 these two commands are at the basis of all pro¬ 
 phetic and priestly teaching. 
 
 The extent to which equity and forbearance 
 underlie the regulations of the Holiness Code is 
 especially apparent in the provisions, supplemen¬ 
 tary to those of the earlier codes, for the consid¬ 
 erate treatment of the bondman and the slave. 
 By no other system of legislation were the personal 
 rights even of the slave safeguarded to the same 
 extent. The humane quality of this legislation 
 can be best appreciated upon a brief comparison 
 of the condition of the slave under the Roman and 
 the Hebrew law; for, though both the Romans 
 and the Hebrews tolerated slavery, the lot of the 
 slave was quite different under the two systems. 72 
 Under the Roman civil law, the slave was a thing 
 and not a person. He had absolutely no rights. 
 He could own no property; even his life was en¬ 
 tirely in the hands of his master, who could kill 
 or torture him at will. As the number of slaves 
 
 71 Deut. 6:5. 
 
 72 The Romans defended slavery by basing the institution 
 upon an imaginary agreement between the victor and his 
 vanquished foe, according to which the vanquished bar¬ 
 gained, in return for his life that he had legitimately for¬ 
 feited, to serve his conqueror. Such a theory, though ob¬ 
 viously unsound, influenced the legal status of the Roman 
 slave. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 121 
 
 increased, 73 it was found necessary to protect 
 them by legislation. By a law in force some time 
 before 79 A. D., masters were forbidden to deliver 
 their slaves to the beasts without a magistrate’s 
 order.' 4 In the reign of Hadrian, the consent 
 of a magistrate was required before a master could 
 kill a slave. The only way in which the condition 
 of a Roman slave differed from that of the dog 
 or horse, protected, as in modern times, by laws 
 requiring that he be treated humanely, was in the 
 capacity the slave possessed of becoming, through 
 certain legal formalities, a free man. There was 
 always before the eyes of the Roman slave the 
 hope of becoming free. Pie might by a generous 
 master be manumitted. The wholesale manumis¬ 
 sion of slaves by the will of the owner ( Manumis- 
 sio testamento ), in order to secure their presence 
 at his funeral as living witnesses to his kindness, 
 became so common a practice under the Empire 
 that in 8 A. D. a law was made 70 providing that 
 the owner of slaves might at his death free only 
 a fixed proportion of his slaves, and that in no 
 case should the number freed exceed one hundred. 
 That cruel punishments were not unusually in¬ 
 flicted upon Roman slaves there is abundant testi¬ 
 mony. They were sometimes compelled to work 
 
 73 In the time of Horace, it was not unusual for an or¬ 
 dinary citizen to own two hundred slaves. 
 
 74 Leage, Roman Private Law, p. 48. 
 
 75 This law was repealed under Justinian. 
 
122 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 in chains or fetters. 76 Runaway slaves, who were 
 recaptured, were branded in the forehead, and 
 were called “ notati ” or “ inscripti.” 77 Slaves 
 were sometimes suspended by the hands, while 
 heavy weights were attached to the feet. 78 The 
 cruelty of Roman women to their female slaves 
 seems to have been notorious. 79 When slaves 
 died, they were thrown into a pit with dead ani¬ 
 mals, unless, as Cato advised, 80 they had been pre¬ 
 viously traded off for old oxen or cows. Old and 
 sick slaves were disposed of, either by being killed 
 outright, or by being exposed on an island in 
 the Tiber. 81 Truly the lot of the Roman slave 
 was such as to justify the Hebrew assertion that 
 the tender mercies of the heathen are cruel. 
 
 While there were in ancient Israel, no restric¬ 
 tions in law or sentiment against the ownership 
 of slaves, the duty of treating them humanely was 
 insisted upon to a degree that would have seemed 
 to the Greeks a stumbling block, and to the Ro¬ 
 mans foolishness. 
 
 Slaves 82 in Israel were of two classes — Hebrew 
 
 Plautus, Most 1. 1, 18; Terence, Phormio 2. 1, 20. 
 
 77 Martial, 7:75; 8:7 5; Cic. De Off., 2. 7. 
 
 78 Plautus, Asin. 2. 2, 31. 
 
 79 Juvenal, Sat., VI. 173-175, 177, 498; Ovid, Am. I. 14, 
 15; Martial, 2. 66. 
 
 80 De Re Rust. II. 
 
 si Uhlhorn Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, I., 
 
 II., 5. 
 
 82 The Hebrew word “ ebed ” generally means “ slave,” 
 but when used figuratively, as in Is. 20:3 and Jer. 37 :2 of the 
 subjects of God, or of a king, it is always rendered “ser- 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 123 
 
 and non-Hebrew. A Hebrew might become a 
 slave in one of two ways, either voluntarily, be¬ 
 cause of poverty, 83 or involuntarily when the 
 court sold him into slavery as a punishment for 
 theft. 84 Even in the latter case, the sale had to 
 be a private one. A Hebrew could not be sold 
 into bondage from an auction block, nor even 
 from the sidewalk where other slaves were sold. 85 
 The service of a Hebrew bondman could not be 
 made severe, “ Thou shalt not rule over him with 
 rigor,” said the Law, “ but shalt fear thy God.” SG 
 His master could not impose upon him any humili¬ 
 ating task. 87 Moreover, his time of service was 
 limited — in the case of the man sold involuntar¬ 
 ily — to six years, in that of the man who sold 
 himself, to a longer time, generally to ten or twenty 
 years. In either instance the Hebrew slave might 
 become free at any time by the payment of a sum 
 of money proportionate to the time of his unex¬ 
 pired service. If he became ill during the time 
 of his servitude and was unable to work, the time 
 lost was not counted against him, provided it did 
 not exceed four years. Only if it exceeded four 
 years, was he required to make up the time lost. 
 
 vant.” When the word is used of Hebrew slaves it is gen¬ 
 erally translated “ servant ” or “ bondman,” as in Lev. 25 :49. 
 
 83 Lev. 25 :39. 
 
 84 Ex. 22:2 , 3. 
 
 85 Maimonides, quoted in Jewish Encyclopaedia, article 
 “ Slavery.” 
 
 86 Lev. 25 :43. 
 
 87 Lev. 25:39, 40. 
 
124 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 In any event, he was to be freed in the Sabbatical 
 year, ss unless he preferred to remain in service. 89 
 Even if he elected to remain in service, the Hebrew 
 slave never forfeited his rights as a man. If he 
 suffered personal injury at the hands of his mas¬ 
 ter, so that he lost an eye or a tooth, he could 
 sue his master, and recover damages. When 
 freed, the slave was entitled to a parting gift. 90 
 The gift could not be made in money, but must be 
 from the flock, the threshing floor, and the wine¬ 
 press, and must, according to the rabbis, be of the 
 value of thirty shekels (about twenty dollars). 
 
 Over non-Hebrew slaves, also, the power of the 
 master was strictly limited. Bodily injury at the 
 hands of the owner that caused the loss of an eye 
 or a tooth entitled the slave to immediate manu¬ 
 mission. 91 An injury to a slave causing death 
 the same day was treated as murder. 92 If a slave 
 escaped, the law forbade those with whom he had 
 taken refuge to return him to his master. 93 Upon* 
 this point, the law was quite explicit: “Thou 
 shalt not deliver unto his master a servant that is 
 
 88 Ex. 21:2-6; Jer. 34:8 if seems to indicate that this law 
 was not always enforced. 
 
 89 The year of Jubilee, also, was a year of general emanci¬ 
 pation of the slaves, as well as of returning mortgaged 
 property to its hereditary owners. II Chron. 36:21; Jer. 
 34:8, 14, 15, 17; Ezek. 46:17; Is. 61:1, 2; 63:4. 
 
 90 Deut. 15:12-15. 
 
 si Ex. 21:26, 27. 
 
 92 Ex. 21:20, 21. Cf. Lev. 24:17, 22. 
 
 93 Deut. 23:15, 16. But the owner might go in pursuit of 
 a runaway slave, I Kings 2:39, 40. Among the Romans, the 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 125 
 
 escaped from his master unto thee, he shall dwell 
 with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which 
 he shall choose within one of thy gates, where it 
 pleaseth him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” 
 
 The Law provided, not only for the humane 
 treatment of non-Hebrew slaves, but for their ad¬ 
 mittance under certain conditions, to a share in 
 the religious privileges of true Israelites. They 
 were not allowed, any more than the Hebrews 
 themselves, to work on the Sabbath, 94 the main 
 reason assigned in the law for the institution of 
 the Sabbath as a day of rest is 44 that thine ox 
 and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thy 
 handmaid (the slave), and the sojourner may be 
 refreshed.” 95 Again, in Deuteronomy, the reason 
 for the strict observance of the Sabbath is given 
 44 that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may 
 rest as well as thou. And thou shalt remember 
 that thou wast a servant in the land of 
 Egypt . . .” 96 The non-Hebrew slave might 
 even join in the Passover feast provided he first 
 become circumcised. 97 This does not mean that 
 he was required to become a proselyte, for there 
 is no mention of baptism or sacrifice, which, with 
 
 law strictly forbade the harboring of runaway slaves. A 
 special class of persons known as fugitivarii made the pur¬ 
 suit and recapture of runaway slaves a regular business. 
 Floras, III. 19. 
 
 94 Ex. 20:10. 
 
 95 Ex. 23:12. 
 
 96 Deut. 5:14, 15. 
 
 »7 Ex. 12:44; Deut. 16:11, 14. 
 
126 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 circumcision, were necessary preliminaries in the 
 case of proselytes before they could become 44 chil¬ 
 dren of the covenant.” It is deeply significant of 
 the spirit of tolerance that underlay Hebrew law 
 that in the command to observe the joyous festi¬ 
 vals of Israel, the slaves are expressly mentioned 
 as included in the invitation to 44 rejoice before 
 Jehovah,” with 44 the Levite that is within thy 
 gates, forasmuch as he hath no portion, nor in¬ 
 heritance with you.” 9S 
 
 But the bondmen and the slaves were not the 
 only unfortunates whose welfare was an object of 
 solicitude to the legalists who framed the pro¬ 
 visions of the Holiness Code. They provided for 
 the continued freedom and independence of even 
 the poorest citizens through the regulation of 
 land tenure. Of the sacred soil of Palestine, each 
 citizen had according to the provisions of the Leviti- 
 cal code, at least theoretically, a right to an equal 
 share; 99 and this patrimony was inalienable. 
 Upon this point the Holiness Code was quite ex¬ 
 plicit. 44 The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; 
 for the land is mine: for ye are strangers and 
 sojourners with me. And in all the land of your 
 possession ye shall grant a redemption for the 
 land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and sell 
 some of his possession, then shall his kinsman that 
 is next unto him come, and shall redeem that 
 which his brother hath sold. And if a man have 
 no one to redeem it, and he be waxen rich and find 
 
 99 Num. 33:54. 
 
 98 Deut. 12:12. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 m 
 
 sufficient to redeem it; then let him count the 
 years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus 
 unto the man to whom he sold it; and he shall 
 return unto his possession. But if he be not able 
 to get it back for himself, then that which he hath 
 sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath 
 bought it unto the year of jubilee : and in the jubilee 
 it shall go out, and he shall return unto his pos¬ 
 session.” 100 Now in the permanent ownership of 
 the land by those who lived upon it, the citizens 
 possessed the surest guarantee of their liberty, 
 for history shows nothing more clearly than that 
 those who own the territories of a state will ex¬ 
 ercise the strongest influence over the state’s pub¬ 
 lic affairs. It is possible for the land to be in 
 the possession of one, of the few, or of the many. 
 If the ruler owns the land, then those who culti¬ 
 vate the soil will be wholly subject to his will;* 
 and the government will be an unlimited monarchy. 
 If the ownership of the land is vested in the few, 
 the real power of government will be in the hands 
 of an aristocracy, while those who till the soil will 
 be mere vassals. If the land be the inalienable 
 possession of the citizens, the true power and au¬ 
 thority of government of the state will be in its 
 citizens; and the state will be a true democracy. 
 Since the latter was the case in ancient Israel, 
 the sovereignty resided in the whole body of the 
 people. 101 
 
 100 Lev. 25:23-28. 
 
 101 Wines, Commentary on the Laws of the Ancient He- 
 
128 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 That the citizenship of Israel did actually, in 
 many instances, control public policy, there can 
 be no question. In this connection, the method 
 of electing rulers attributed to Moses by the 
 Deuteronomist is highly significant: “ Take you 
 wise men, and understanding, and known, accord¬ 
 ing to your tribes, and I will make them heads 
 over you.” 102 Josfiua, also, is represented 103 
 as directing that an election be held to select three 
 men from each tribe to inspect the promised land. 
 For the office of “ judge,” Jephthah seems to have 
 been elected by a popular vote. 104 These and 
 similar instances that might be cited, indicate 
 clearly enough that the polity of ancient Israel 
 embodied the principle of representative govern¬ 
 ment, and that it was, therefore, especially adapted 
 to exert the strong influence that it undoubtedly 
 has exerted in modern times upon the development 
 of popular liberty. 105 
 
 To the extent of this influence there is abundant 
 testimony. “ It is not without significance,” wrote 
 Edward Caird, “ that the great struggle for politi- 
 
 brews, pp. 401 If and Bacon, History of Henry VII., p. 72. 
 
 102 Deut. 1:13. The qualifications for holding office in 
 ancient Israel were few and simple. They are given (Ex. 
 18:21) as follows: “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all 
 the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth hating 
 unjust gain.” Noble birth was not one of the requisite 
 qualifications. 
 
 103 Josh. 18:4. 
 
 i°4 Judges 11:4-6. 
 
 105 See Wines Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient 
 Hebrews, p. 337. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 129 
 
 cal freedom in this country was led by men who 
 drew much of their inspiration from the Old Tes¬ 
 tament, that sacred fountain of the spirit of na¬ 
 tionality and national religion. . . . This free 
 religious spirit is one of the main causes why 
 England outstripped all other European coun¬ 
 tries in its political development, and became their 
 teacher in the methods of free government.” 106 
 The influence of the Holiness Code 107 was 
 mostly indirect. It was never publicly ratified, 
 and remained an example of theoretical legalism. 
 Yet, because it gave expression to the national 
 longing for popular holiness, it did exert a marked 
 influence upon later codes. In them, ceremonial 
 righteousness came to be more and more insisted 
 on, both as a means of expiating past national 
 sins, and of preventing future transgressions. 
 How long the expansion of the priestly code con¬ 
 tinued, we do not precisely know. It certainly 
 did not cease with the public ratification of it in 
 the time of Nehemiah. 108 But by the middle of 
 the third century B. C. when the translation of the 
 Hebrew scriptures into Greek was made (The 
 Septuagint), the canon of the law had been def¬ 
 initely closed. 
 
 The ultimate supremacy of the priests as lead¬ 
 ers of religious thought in Israel marks the final 
 
 106 The quotation is taken from Keeble, The Social Teach¬ 
 ing of the Bible, p. 28. 
 
 107 Lev. 17-26. 
 
 los Neh. 10. 
 
130 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 stage in the development of the Jewish religion. 
 So long as the religion of Israel had been, as the 
 prophets taught, a life, it could, and did, change 
 with the developing spiritual consciousness of the 
 race; but when, after the final codification of the 
 law, it became a book-religion, its further develop¬ 
 ment was arrested. It ceased to be a life and be¬ 
 came a doctrine, something to be taught and 
 studied. Henceforth, no further progress was 
 possible; nor was any attempted. The Jewish reli¬ 
 gion has remained practically unchanged since the 
 returned exiles in the time of Nehemiah adopted 
 the law brought by Ezra from Babylon. Its teach¬ 
 ers have since occupied themselves with explaining 
 it, and applying it to changing conditions; but the 
 law itself has not changed, nor has the Jewish re¬ 
 ligion, of which it was the expression, altered in 
 any essential way through all the succeeding cen¬ 
 turies. 109 
 
 Yet for the arrested development of the Jewish 
 religion, the law has been blamed unjustly. 
 There was in the law no inherent reason why, 
 because of it, the religion of Israel should have 
 become a book-religion, no longer a life, but a 
 doctrine. On the contrary, the law, by being 
 based upon the broad principle of mutual for¬ 
 bearance and love, was fitted to escape the 
 ephemeralness characteristic of other legal sys¬ 
 tems, and to become capable of an almost infinite 
 
 109 See Marti, The Religion of the Old Testament, pp. 
 184-188. 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 131 
 
 variety of applications to changing conditions. 
 What, then, does account for the fact that the 
 final codification of the law marks the end of the 
 development of Hebrew religion? The answer is 
 that the law was not observed intelligently. 
 Because it was easier to observe strict rules than 
 to apply moral principles to life, men became more 
 concerned to fulfill the commands of the law relat¬ 
 ing to outward duty than to obey the injunctions 
 concerning the inner life. This tendency resulted 
 in a deplorable externalism. Righteousness came 
 to be synonymous with obedience to a mass of 
 precepts regarding the conduct of the outward 
 life. The teachers of the law apparently did not 
 lead the people to discriminate between the essen¬ 
 tials and the non-essentials — between insignifi¬ 
 cant details of ceremonial cleanliness and the 
 purity of heart that was essential to the kind of 
 righteousness the law was really designed to 
 promote. 110 It became just as important for a 
 man not to transgress the limits of a Sabbath 
 day’s journey, which according to the Talmud 
 must not exceed two thousand cubits from one’s 
 dwelling, as that a man should speak the truth. 
 The commentators taught that he who broke one 
 law was ipso facto guilty of having broken the 
 whole code. 111 All the precepts, consequently, 
 became equally binding and equally important. 
 
 no See Toy, Judaism and Christianity, pp. 242-243. 
 
 in “ For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet 
 offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Jas. 2:10. 
 
132 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 In the equalization of the claims of ceremonial 
 godliness, social integrity, and purity of heart, 
 we have, not only the explanation of the loss on 
 the part of the Jews of a just sense of compara¬ 
 tive ethical values, but the reason for the later 
 treatment of the law by the scribes in the Tal¬ 
 mud — the voluminous amplifications of the 
 Mishna, and the casuistical commentary of the 
 Gemara. 
 
 In this final treatment of the law, we find the 
 simple Torah of the priests expanded into a sys¬ 
 tem of complicated and burdensome ordinances. 
 Take, for example, the law regarding the obser¬ 
 vance of the Sabbath. The old law had been con¬ 
 tent to enjoin rest, and had assigned a reason for 
 observing it as a “ holy ” (separate) day. In 
 the Talmud the simple command of the older law 
 is buried beneath a mass of minute and trivial 
 regulations. In the fifth number of the tractate 
 dealing with Sabbath observance, 112 directions are 
 given regarding the dress proper to the Sabbath. 
 A man was forbidden to wear clothes that might 
 become burdensome, because to carry a burden 
 would be to break the Sabbath rest. 113 Hence 
 he could not wear any ornament that could be 
 taken off and carried in the hands, for in that 
 
 112 The Sabbath tractate comes first of the twelve 
 tractates, which together form the second of the six sections 
 into which the Mishna of the Jerusalem Talmud is divided. 
 
 113 This idea was based upon Ex. 36:6 in which the com¬ 
 mand of Moses that the people bring no more offerings for 
 the Sanctuary is arbitrarily applied to the observance of the 
 
THE PRIESTS 
 
 133 
 
 case it would become a 44 burden.” A woman 
 could not wear any ornaments, at least in the 
 street, lest her vanity might prompt her to remove 
 these ornaments, to show to her companions, and 
 by carrying them in her hands, make them a 44 bur¬ 
 den.” She might not wear false hair in the street, 
 nor a pin in her dress, nor was she allowed to look 
 in the mirror, lest seeing a white hair, she might 
 be tempted to pull it out, which would be to break 
 the Sabbath rest. A plaster might be worn to 
 prevent a wound from growing worse, but not to 
 heal it. False teeth could not be worn on the 
 Sabbath, because of their liability to fall out, in 
 w T hich case they would have to be picked up and 
 carried, and thus become a 44 burden.” If a man 
 had worn cotton in his ears through the week, he 
 might continue to wear it on the Sabbath, though 
 if the wad of cotton fell out during the 
 day, he might not replace it, for this would be 
 44 work.” 114 To such puerilities had the teaching 
 of the Torah descended, to the neglect of the 
 44 weightier matters of the law.” Surely the 
 leaders of the Israelitish thought needed to be 
 reminded that the Sabbath was really 44 made for 
 man, not man for the Sabbath.” 115 
 
 Sabbath, and, also, upon Jer. 17:21, 22 in which the carry¬ 
 ing of burdens on the Sabbath is prohibited. 
 
 ii4 These details are excerpted from a summary of the 
 fifth chapter of the tractate on the Sabbath given in Ap¬ 
 pendix XVII. of Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus 
 the Messiah, pp. 781, 782. 
 
 H5 Mark 2:27. 
 
/' ' 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE DEBT OF ISRAEL AND THE 
 WORLD TO HEBREW LAW 
 
 While it thus becomes apparent that the debt 
 of the world at large to the post-canonical develop¬ 
 ment of Jewish legalism is negligible, it is equally 
 apparent that the extent of modern Israel’s debt 
 to it is considerable. It must not be overlooked 
 that, in spite of the externalism fostered by the 
 minute study of the law, the Jewish people owe, 
 not only their characteristic definiteness of opinion 
 and decision of conduct, but even their continued 
 existence as a distinct race to their devotion to 
 the Law. The extent of this devotion is un¬ 
 paralleled. Neither active persecution, nor social 
 ostracism; neither national humiliation, nor polit¬ 
 ical annihilation; nor centuries of obloquy, has 
 been sufficient to shake the Jew’s unalterable faith 
 in the Torah as the inexorable law of righteous¬ 
 ness, the categorical imperative of duty. The say¬ 
 ing of the Talmud, “ As a fish dies out of the water, 
 so perishes a Jew, as soon as he quits the Torah,” 
 is still the belief of Israel. And the law, it must 
 be admitted, has been a powerful antiseptic. It 
 has kept the Jewish people immune from the con¬ 
 tagion of idolatry, and it has protected them from 
 
 134 
 
THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 135 
 
 moral contamination. The ethical ideals and 
 practice of the Jews throughout the dark ages 
 were higher than those of the people among whom 
 they lived. Moreover their devotion to the Law 
 has preserved their racial existence. The little 
 Jewish race would long since have disappeared, 
 absorbed by stronger races (as, indeed, the ten 
 tribes did disappear, assimilated by the oriental 
 races among whom they settled after their de¬ 
 portation) had they not been upheld by a stronger 
 racial consciousness developed during the post- 
 exilic period through the growth of legalism. 
 It was their adherence to the ideal of a “ self- 
 centered, well-balanced, intelligent, and strenuous 
 moral-religious life ” that both differentiated the 
 Jews from others with whom they might other¬ 
 wise have mingled, and at the same time protected 
 them from the effects of a compulsory conformity 
 which stronger peoples would fain have imposed 
 upon them. Nothing but the will to live could 
 have preserved the Jewish race amid oppression 
 sufficient to have destroyed a people not upheld 
 by a strong sense of its own racial individuality. 
 It was the devotion of the race to a definite ideal 
 embodied in its law that, by creating and sustain¬ 
 ing its race consciousness, supplied the will to live. 
 
 The feeling of the pious Israelite towards the 
 “ law of Jehovah ” is beautifully set forth in the 
 one hundred and nineteenth Psalm — the great 
 “ Psalm of the Law.” Here we find expressed the 
 hope of later Israel to make God’s law the govern- 
 
136 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 ing principle of conduct, to surrender all self- 
 willed thoughts and aims, to subordinate the whole* 
 life to the will of God as embodied in the Torah. 
 The poem is especially noteworthy for its 
 acknowledgment of the strength which the Law 
 gives to Israel in the midst of surrounding 
 heathenism, and to the faithful Israelite in the 
 presence of prevailing laxity of faith and morals. 
 
 Forever, O Jehovah, 
 
 Thy word is settled in heaven. 
 
 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: 
 
 Thou hast established the earth and it abideth. 
 
 They abide this day according to thine ordinances; 
 
 For all things are thy servants. 
 
 Unless thy law had been my delight, 
 
 I should have perished in mine affliction. 
 
 I will never forget thy precepts; 
 
 For with them thou hast quickened me. 
 
 I am thine, save me; 
 
 For I have sought thy precepts. 
 
 Not alone is Israel’s obligation to the Law, for 
 Christendom also owes to the legalists of Israel a 
 debt almost incalculable. This debt to the priests 
 has been hitherto immensely underestimated. 
 People have supposed that, since the priests were 
 ritualists, and because ritualists are more prone 
 
THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 137 
 
 to look backward than forward, that they were 
 interested chiefly in the traditions of the past, 
 and that they did not concern themselves with 
 the future progress of the race. It has been 
 thought that they were mostly occupied with the 
 forms of worship, and that they cared very little 
 about applying moral principles to life — that, 
 indeed, they cared not at all about moral prin¬ 
 ciples except so far as they were embodied in the 
 Law. We have ignored the fact that, though the 
 site of the Temple is now occupied by a mosque, 
 and though the Law as a legal system is as obso¬ 
 lete as the laws of the Medes and Persians, the 
 priests have bequeathed to us institutions that are 
 still vital, ideals of conduct that are still inspiring, 
 and conceptions of God and of man’s duty toward 
 him that have not been, and that never can be 
 superseded. 1 
 
 The most important of the modern institutions 
 that go back for their origion to Israel’s priests 2 
 is the church. There can be no question that the 
 church as an organization is an offspring of Old 
 Testament Judaism. Post-exilic Judaism, it will 
 be remembered, was not a kingdom, but a church. 
 The ruling power was not a monarchy, but a hier¬ 
 archy. It was natural, therefore, that the early 
 
 1 Some account of our debt to Israel’s law may be found 
 in my article in “The Biblical World” for July, 1912. 
 
 2 A suggestive list of examples of these various forms of 
 indebtedness is given in Harper’s Priestly Element in the 
 Old Testament, pp. 269, 270. From this list the following 
 instances are borrowed. 
 
138 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Christians, most of whom were Jews, should have 
 thought of themselves as continuing the old 
 organization, and that they should have tried, 
 so far as possible, to retain the distinctive charac¬ 
 teristics of the old ecclesiastical order. 3 That the 
 early church considered itself as made up of the 
 ideal representatives of the true Israel, the spirit¬ 
 ual descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, is 
 shown by the fact that the apostles, who formed 
 the nucleus of it, were twelve in number, corres¬ 
 ponding to the twelve tribes of the chosen people. 
 That such was their thought is evidenced, also, 
 by the fact that our modern church service of 
 prayer, song, and exhortation comes directly from 
 the Temple and synagogue service. 4 A Gentile 
 visiting a modern synagogue cannot fail to be 
 impressed with the similarity, so far as form is 
 concerned, of the service to that of a Christian 
 church. The explanation of the similarity lies in 
 the common origin of both. The early Christians 
 adapted the synagogue service to their uses by 
 
 3 See Pressense, Early Years of Christianity, pp. 46 ff. 
 
 4 See Weiszacker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian 
 Church, Vol. II., pp. 246, 254, 258. 
 
 “ It may with tolerable certainty be supposed that the 
 Jewish Christians, particularly the congregation at Jeru¬ 
 salem, observed the whole ceremonial law with its weekly 
 and yearly festivals, and did not renounce the cultus of the 
 Old Testament theocracy till the destruction of Jerusalem 
 in the year 70.” 
 
 Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church, p. 546. 
 
 See, also, Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, Part I., 
 Period I., Chap. I. 
 
THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 139 
 
 introducing into it certain modifications, chief 
 among which was, of course, the eucharist. Such 
 a service among the early Christians is described 
 by Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Chris¬ 
 tians , addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, 
 and written between 130 and 150 A. D.. This 
 passage seems worthy of quotation, both because 
 it shows the close connection between the syn¬ 
 agogue and the Christian church service, and 
 because of its interest as the earliest extant 
 account of a Christian religious exercise. 
 
 “ And on the day called Sunday, there is an 
 assembly in one place of all who live in cities or 
 in the country, and the memoirs of the apostles 
 or the writings of the prophets are read so long 
 as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, 
 the president gives the exhortation to the imita¬ 
 tion of these good things. Then we all stand up 
 together and offer prayer; and as we before said, 
 when our prayer is ended, bread is brought, and 
 wine and water, and the president in like manner 
 sends up prayers and thanksgivings according to 
 his ability, and the congregation assents, saying 
 the Amen. And the participation of the things 
 over which thanks have been given is to each one, 
 and to those who are absent a portion is sent by 
 the hands of the deacons. And they who are well- 
 to-do and willing give each one as he wills, 
 according to his discretion, and what is collected 
 is deposited with the president, and he himself 
 succors the orphans and the widows and those who 
 
140 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 are in want through sickness or other cause, and 
 those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are 
 sojourning; and in a word takes care of all who 
 are in need.” 
 
 It is not at all to be wondered at, considering 
 the close affinity of this service to the regular syn¬ 
 agogue exercises, that the apostle James applies 5 
 the name “ synagogue ” to the worshipping as¬ 
 semblies of the early Christians. 
 
 Another of our institutions that we owe to 
 priestly influence is that of the Lord’s day, 
 or Sunday, which is the offspring of the Jew¬ 
 ish Sabbath. The early church, as was natural, 
 in view of the fact that the most influen¬ 
 tial members of it were Jews, strictly observed the 
 law regarding the observance of the Sabbath. 
 Indeed, strict Sabbath observance continued in 
 the Eastern church, perhaps because the propor¬ 
 tion of Jews was greater in the East than in the 
 West, till the fifth century. Even now the Chris¬ 
 tians of Abyssinia persist in the practice of 
 Sabbath observance, together with certain other 
 Jewish rites taught them by Jewish Christian 
 missionaries of the Alexandrian church. Just 
 when the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was 
 transferred to Sunday, we do not precisely know. 
 Justin, the church father of the second century, 
 in his Apology for the Christians , speaks of the 
 transfer as an accomplished fact, and justifies it 
 on two grounds — first, that on Sunday God 
 s James 2:2. 
 
'■$ 
 
 THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 141 
 
 created the world, and the light; and secondly, 
 that on the first day of the week Christ rose from 
 the dead. This explanation appealed to the 
 religious feeling of Christendom to such a degree 
 that it has ever since been universally regarded 
 as the true reason for the change. We find it 
 in modern Christian hymnology, as in the familiar 
 hymn by Christopher Wordsworth, written in 
 1825, which contains these lines, 
 
 On thee at the Creation, 
 
 The light first had its birth; 
 
 On thee, for our salvation, 
 
 Christ rose from depths of earth; 
 
 The first law either ecclesiastical or civil, en¬ 
 joining the Sabbatical observance of Sunday was 
 the edict of Constantine in 321 A. D. This 
 famous edict prohibited all work on Sunday, 
 except that of tilling the soil. After this, the 
 tendencies toward Sabbatarianism (the identifi¬ 
 cation of the Christian with the Jewish institu¬ 
 tion) developed rapidly. In 338 the third Council 
 of Orleans recommended abstinence from agricul¬ 
 tural labor on Sunday, “ that the people might 
 have more leisure to go to church and say their 
 prayers.” Such abstinence was expressly en¬ 
 joined about the end of the ninth century by the 
 Emperor Leo, “ the Philosopher.” By the legal 
 establishment of Sunday as a Sabbath, the con¬ 
 fusion of the Christian with the Jewish institution 
 would seem to have been completed. But it was 
 
142 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 reserved for the English Puritans to carry Sab¬ 
 batarianism to its extreme limit, by adding to the 
 observance of Sunday an austerity by which 
 neither it nor the Sabbath keeping of the Jews 
 had ever hitherto been marked. The Directory of 
 Public Worship and the Confession of Faith as 
 formulated by the Westminster Assembly, and 
 approved by Parliament in 1646, not only enjoined 
 abstinence from labor, but strictly prohibited 
 recreation as a transgression of the fourth com¬ 
 mandment. 
 
 Of the religious festivals bequeathed to us by 
 the priests, the most important is Easter. The 
 origin of this festival in the Passover feast is some¬ 
 what obscured for English speaking people 6 by 
 the name, which is the Anglo-Saxon Eastre, and 
 is a survival of the old Teutonic mythology. 
 According to Bede the name is derived from Os- 
 tara, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of the spring, to 
 whom the fourth month, called “ Eostre moneth 99 
 was dedicated. A letter of Ceolfrid, 7 abbot of the 
 monastery of Peter and Paul at Darrow, to the 
 King of the Piets explains at considerable length 
 the connection between the Passover and the 
 Christian feast. 44 There are three rules in the 
 sacred writings,” he says, 44 on account of which 
 
 6 The origin of the festival is much more apparent for 
 other than English speaking peoples, for the Greek word 
 II aaxa has passed directly into most modern languages. 
 The French word is Paques; the Scotch, Pasch; the Dutch, 
 Paschen; the Danish, Paaske. 
 
 7 Bede’s Ecclesiastical History , Bk. V., Chap. 21. 
 
THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 143 
 
 it is not lawful for any human authority to change 
 the time of keeping Easter . . . ; two whereof are 
 divinely established in the law of Moses; the third 
 is added in the Gospel by means of the passion and 
 resurrection of our Lord. . . . For that same 
 night in which the people of Israel were delivered 
 out of Egypt by the blood of the lamb is the very 
 same in which all the people of God were by 
 Christ’s resurrection, delivered from eternal death. 
 Then, on the morning of the Lord’s day, they 
 should celebrate the first day of the Paschal fes¬ 
 tival; for that is the day on which our Lord, with 
 much joy of pious revelation, made known the glory 
 of his resurrection.” In identifying the Easter 
 festival as the Christian successor of the Pass- 
 over, Ceolfrid merely stated what was true accord¬ 
 ing to the common consent of Christendom all 
 through the Christian centuries preceding. In 
 the early centuries of the Christian era, all those 
 in both the eastern and the western churches who 
 believed the Christian Passover to be a commemo¬ 
 ration of Christ’s death, maintained the custom of 
 holding the Easter festival on the day prescribed 
 for the Jewish Passover, the fourteenth day of 
 the first month, that is, the lunar month of which 
 the fourteenth day either falls on, or next fol¬ 
 lows the vernal equinox. Not until the Council of 
 Nice in 325 was the date of the festival finally 
 settled for the whole church in opposition to the 
 opinion of those who persisted that the date of the 
 Jewish fixed that of the Christian festival. 
 
144 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Closely connected with the origin of Easter in 
 the Passover feast is that of the eucharist. It 
 was while eating the Passover that Jesus instituted 
 the rite which, among his followers was to super¬ 
 sede the older feast. 8 In speaking of “ my blood 
 of the covenant which is shed for many,” Jesus 
 seems to have desired to connect this new rite with 
 the old sacrificial feast in which the worshippers, 
 by partaking of the sacrificial meal, partook also 
 of the blessing which the sacrifice was to secure. 
 The Lord’s Supper is, therefore, a continuation 
 of the Jewish Paschal feast. 
 
 In the apostolic period it was celebrated daily, 
 at least in circumstances where daily worship was 
 possible. Certainly such was the custom in the 
 church at Jerusalem where the celebration of the 
 Lord’s Supper was the closing act of the daily 
 social feast. As celebrated by the early Chris¬ 
 tians, the Lord’s Supper, or “ the breaking of 
 bread,” as they more frequently designated the 
 rite, seems to have been a very simple and natural 
 observance. In the Jerusalem church it was con¬ 
 nected with the community of goods, the believers 
 considering themselves as one household of faith, 
 and was simply a part of the communal evening 
 
 8 The Passover feast is now almost entirely obsolete. 
 Since the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, when the Jews 
 were gathered there to keep this feast, it has not been ob¬ 
 served by the Hebrews, though the feast of unleavened bread 
 which was a part of the Passover is still kept. It is said, 
 however, that the colony of Samaritans still eat the Pass- 
 over on Mount Gerizim. 
 
THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 145 
 
 meal. It was not preceded by any special reli¬ 
 gious exercises. 9 We are told that “ day by day 
 (kuO 3 rjfxevav ), continuing steadfastly with one 
 accord in the Temple, and breaking bread at home, 
 they took their food with gladness and singleness 
 of heart. . . 10 
 
 Another of the church’s sacraments derived 
 directly from the priest is baptism, the solemn 
 ceremony of reception and incorporation into the 
 communion of the visible church. In spite of 
 some assertions to the contrary, 11 most scholars 
 see in Christian baptism an adaptation of the bap¬ 
 tism, which, with circumcision and sacrifice, 
 accompanied the reception of Gentiles into the 
 family of Israel. 12 
 
 When the “ stranger ” wished to become a 
 “ child of the covenant,” he had to fulfill three 
 conditions. He must be circumcised; he must be 
 baptized; he must offer a sacrifice. Of these three 
 rites, baptism seems to have been regarded as 
 most important. 13 According to the established 
 
 9 The Protestant “ preparatory lecture ” finds its author¬ 
 ization in I Cor. 11:28. 
 
 10 Acts 2:46. 
 
 11 “ Regarded from the apostolic point of view, baptism 
 cannot be connected . . . with the baptism administered to 
 proselytes to Judaism.” Pressense, Early Years of Chris¬ 
 tianity, p. 375. 
 
 12 The first scholar to recognize this was Augusti in his 
 Manual of Christian Archaelogy, II., 326. This was pub¬ 
 lished in 1836. He traced a complete parallel between 
 Christian baptism and that of Jewish proselytes. 
 
 is In the case of female proselytes only baptism and the 
 
146 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 custom in the baptism of proselytes, three of those 
 who had instructed him in the law acted as his 
 sponsors, and were called “ the fathers of the bap¬ 
 tism.” Together they conducted him to a pool. 
 While he stood naked, and up to his neck in the, 
 water, the great commandments of the law were 
 read to him. To these he promised obedience; 
 and a blessing was pronounced upon him. Then 
 he plunged beneath the surface, being careful to 
 be entirely submerged. Upon his coming out of 
 the water, he was regarded as a new man in 
 reference to his past; that, with its defilements, 
 being looked upon as buried in the waters of bap¬ 
 tism. 
 
 The link between baptism as a priestly cere¬ 
 mony and baptism as a Christian sacrament is 
 furnished by John the Baptist. In his use of 
 baptism, he was influenced in part by the customs 
 of ceremonial washings enjoined by the law, and 
 in part by the custom of baptizing proselytes. 
 The main aspect of baptism as he employed it was 
 as a preparation for the kingdom of God. It was 
 a baptism of repentance; and was intended as a 
 symbol of the desire on the part of those who 
 received it to seek purification, like aliens who had 
 lived in defilement, in order that they might obtain 
 admission among the people who awaited the 
 immediate realization of the ancient hope of Israel, 
 <— the only hope that remained since the scepter 
 
 sacrifice were obligatory; and after the destruction of the 
 Temple, the latter was wholly dispensed with. 
 
THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 147 
 
 had departed from Judah, the hope of “ the King¬ 
 dom.” 14 From the baptism of repentance which 
 enrolled the pious Israelite in the number of those 
 who expected the realization of Israel’s long 
 deferred hope, to the Christian baptism as we find 
 it on the Day of Pentecost is but a step. The 
 latter was the solemn ceremony of reception into 
 the communion of those who believed that in 
 Jesus of Nazareth the hope of Israel had been ful¬ 
 filled. 
 
 It is not institutionally, however, that we are 
 most indebted to the priests. We owe to them 
 certain conceptions of God and of what he requires 
 of men which are as potent to-day as they were 
 twenty-five hundred years ago. Chief among these 
 conceptions is that of the holiness of God, an idea 
 which is in its beginnings attributable to the 
 prophets, but which was developed and emphasized 
 by the priests. In their thought, holiness was the 
 supreme attribute of God. The root idea in the 
 word seems to be that of distance or separation; 
 and hence it suggests, in the priestly use of it as 
 an attribute of deity, the contrast between the 
 divine and the human. It is undoubtedly true 
 that in the early use of the word “ holy,” it did 
 not, when applied either to God or to men, ex¬ 
 press a moral attribute, but rather as applied to 
 God, the idea of majesty, and as applied to men 
 
 14 For a slightly different interpretation of the significance 
 of the baptism of John see Edersheim, The Life and Times 
 of Jesus, Vol. I., p. 274. 
 
148 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 or things, the idea of belonging to God, or of be¬ 
 ing dedicated to him. Yet it is equally evident 
 that the idea of holiness was progressively spirit¬ 
 ualized till it came to be thought of more and more 
 as a moral quality. Consequently, the phrase, 
 44 the Holy One,” which originally had meant the 
 lofty, the majestic one, who dwelt on high and 
 was separated in space from men, gradually came 
 to mean, the morally lofty one, separated in char¬ 
 acter from impure and sinful men. 15 Similarly, 
 the word 44 holy ” as applied to men changed its 
 meaning to correspond to an enlarged and clari¬ 
 fied conception of the character of God. Though 
 it originally meant only belonging to God, or ded¬ 
 icated to him, thus expressing not a quality, but a 
 relation, it gradually changed its meaning, as the 
 loftier idea of Jehovah’s character reacted on 
 it, till it came to mean morally pure, ethically 
 clean. 
 
 This holiness, in the sense of separation from 
 sin, is, in the priestly thought, not only an attri¬ 
 bute of God; it is also his one and constant de¬ 
 mand of his people. They, too, are to be 44 holy.” 
 This means that they are to be in a proper phys¬ 
 ical condition to come into his holy place, and so 
 like him in character as to be able to come into his 
 spiritual presence. Ceremonial cleanness and 
 purity of heart are, then, what God demands of 
 men. Again and again in the Torah is this de¬ 
 ls See Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 
 252 ff. 
 
THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 149 
 
 mand for a holiness in man to correspond to that 
 of God reiterated. 16 The injunction, “ Sanctify 
 yourselves, therefore, and be ye holy, for I am 
 holy,” meant, separate yourselves from impurity 
 — that which contaminates and degrades. This 
 included, of course, abstinence from that which 
 would cause ceremonial uncleanness, but it in¬ 
 cluded, also, such moral purity as would fit a man 
 to enter God’s holy place. 
 
 Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? 
 
 And who shall stand in his holy place? 
 
 He that hath clean hands and a pure heart; 
 
 Who hath not lifted up his soul unto falsehood, 
 And hath not sworn deceitfully. 
 
 He shall receive a blessing from Jehovah, 
 
 And righteousness from the God of his salvation. 17 
 
 Such separation from physical and moral im¬ 
 purity was to be secured by the keeping of the 
 law. 18 Nor was this reverent regard for the law 
 as a means of acquiring holiness wholly unreason¬ 
 able, considering to what extent the Levitical 
 codes dealt with the subject of moral purity. 
 Such injunctions as “ Thou shalt not hate thy 
 brother in thine heart,” 19 and “ Thou shalt not 
 take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the 
 children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy 
 
 16 Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:26. Cf., also, 20:7; 21:6-8. 
 
 1 7 Ps. 24:3-5. See, also, Ps. 15:1-5. 
 
 is In Num. 15:40 the keeping of the law is recommended 
 as a means of acquiring holiness. 
 
 is Lev. 19:17. 
 
150 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 neighbor as thyself,” 20 clearly show that the law 
 was not what it has sometimes been supposed, a 
 mass of arbitrary formalism, but that it set up a 
 standard of kindliness, and of stainless probity 
 such as no other legislator ever thought of doing. 
 
 Strange indeed have been the mis-statements 
 which have been made regarding the Hebrew law 
 by writers who have been misled by a failure to 
 recognize that the law was more than 44 a mass of 
 prescriptions ... an attempt to define all the 
 beliefs and acts of life,” 21 that as a matter of fact 
 it did attempt to 44 supply the motive of con¬ 
 duct,” 22 and that the motive it supplied in the 
 command 44 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
 self ” was lofty enough to satisfy one who an¬ 
 nounced that He came, not to destroy, but to com¬ 
 plete the law. 23 
 
 Because Hebrew law was a law of kindness; be¬ 
 cause it was based, not upon a recognition of the 
 rights of men, but of their duties; and because it 
 depended for its sanction upon the appeal that it 
 
 20 Lev. 19:18. 
 
 21 Toy, Judaism and Christianity, p. 239. In the same 
 volume, p. 227, we find this assertion, “ Of inward sins, 
 transgressions of the law of purity and love, which belong 
 to the heart, nothing is said; this was a domain which the 
 national legislation did not undertake to enter.” 
 
 22 “ The law does not in itself supply the motive of con¬ 
 duct,— tends, indeed, by emphasizing the outward standard, 
 to attract the will from that inward love and devotion which 
 is the mainspring of the moral-religious life.” Toy, Juda¬ 
 ism and Christianity, p. 240. 
 
 23 The word translated fulfill (ttX rjpuaai), Matt. 5:17, 
 really means to complete, or fill out. 
 
THE DEBT TO HEBREW LAW 151 
 
 made to the conscience of the citizen; it possessed 
 a timelessness of appeal that accounts for its in¬ 
 fluence upon the religious institutions, and in gen¬ 
 eral, upon the religious thought of our modern 
 life. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE SAGES 
 
 The arrangement of the literature in our Bi¬ 
 bles is somewhat misleading in that it does not, 
 like the arrangement made by the Hebrews them¬ 
 selves, reflect their estimate of the relative re¬ 
 ligious value of the three departments into which 
 they divided it. These three departments or 
 groups were, first, the law, including not merely 
 the Torah, or corpus juris of the race, but the 
 historical books written by the priests or under 
 priestly influence; secondly, the prophets, and in¬ 
 cluding not only the major and minor prophets, 
 but the prophetic histories as well; and, thirdly, 
 the “ writings ” (K’thubim) which included the 
 remainder of the canonical books of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment. Most sacred, as the source of the national 
 character and worship, and therefore, coming first 
 in the arrangement of the books of the Hebrew 
 canon, was the law. Second in reverential regard, 
 and, consequently, occupying the second or middle 
 place in the Hebrew scriptures, came the proph¬ 
 ets ; while the “ writings ” about the canonicity, or 
 religious value, of some of which there was pro¬ 
 longed and bitter controversy, occupied the third 
 
 152 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 153 
 
 place in the regard of the Hebrew people, 
 and likewise the third place in the sequence. 
 That such an arrangement accurately reflected 
 the popular estimate of the relative ethical worth 
 of the three groups is attested by the fact that 
 in the Jewish schools of the first century 
 A. D. the pupils in their study of the scrip¬ 
 tures proceeded from the book of Leviticus 
 to the rest of the Pentateuch, thence to the 
 Prophets, and lastly to the Hagiographa. 1 This 
 Hebrew method of classifying their literature re¬ 
 flected, not alone the popular estimate of the eth¬ 
 ical worth of the three groups, but not less accu¬ 
 rately the gradual development of a sense of the 
 value of individual life and character. 
 
 With the individual neither the priests nor the 
 prophets had been much concerned. As the re¬ 
 ligious code of the nation, the law had to do with 
 the individual chiefly as a member of a social and 
 religious organism. Though the individual was 
 regarded as an inseparable part of the community, 
 no question of individual or private right as 
 against the community could arise, for the supreme 
 duty of each citizen was to love God and his 
 brother. The law-givers of Israel, recognizing 
 the truth that righteousness exalteth a nation, but 
 
 1 See Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the 
 Days of Christ, p. 136. Further proof is afforded by Luke 
 24:44, and by the prologue to the apocryphal book of Eccle- 
 siasticus. 
 
154 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 that sin is a reproach to any people, were concerned 
 chiefly that Israel should become so holy a nation 
 that in the midst of it Jehovah himself might be 
 content to dwell. The individual was to find his 
 salvation in duly fulfilling his place in the civic, 
 social, and political life of his people — a people 
 that should belong wholly to Jehovah. 2 Nor did 
 prophecy, for the most part, recognize the indi¬ 
 vidual, except as a component part of the state. 
 Certainly all the prophets of the eighth century 
 were preachers, not to the individual conscience, 
 but to the nation. Jeremiah of the seventh cen¬ 
 tury was the first to consider the relations of the 
 individual man to God. Up to his time, the sense 
 of individual responsibility had not emerged; but 
 in the thirty-first chapter of Jeremiah the prophet 
 clearly shows that he looked forward to a Messi¬ 
 anic age in which Jehovah would have direct rela¬ 
 tions with every individual Israelite. 3 Even after 
 the time of Jeremiah, the sense of the responsibil¬ 
 ity of the individual developed slowly. To the 
 slowness of this development must be attributed 
 the late appearance of the hope of individual im¬ 
 mortality. It was Israel and not the Israelite 
 who was immortal, because the Israelite was ab- 
 
 2 The principle of individual responsibility, to be sure, 
 does find expression in Deuteronomy (See Deut. 24:16), 
 which was written, it is to be noted, under the influence of 
 the prophets. 
 
 3 See Montefiore, The Hihhert Lectures, 1892, pp. 221, 222. 
 The formulation of the sense of individual moral responsi¬ 
 bility is found, also, in Ezekiel (See Ezek. 18:2-4). 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 155 
 
 sorbed in the nation. 4 It is in the work of the wise 
 men that the sense of individual responsibility finds 
 full expression, for it was they who emphasized 
 the supreme importance of individual character. 
 Nothing on earth was, the sages held, worth an 
 instant’s worry except the momentous question 
 what a man is. It is not, they believed, what a 
 man has, nor even what he does, that really exalts 
 or degrades him, but only what, behind the pos¬ 
 session and beneath the overt act, the man in the 
 light of his own conscience sees himself to be. 
 The purpose underlying all the teaching of the 
 wise was the upbuilding of personal character, the 
 promotion of individual righteousness. In dis¬ 
 tinction from the priests, who were the ritualists, 
 and from the prophets, who were the idealists of 
 Israel, the sages were Israel’s moral philosophers. 
 
 That the sages, or “ the Wise,” were recog¬ 
 nized at least in later Israel, as constituting a spe¬ 
 cial class co-ordinate with the priests and the 
 prophets, and clearly differentiated from them, is 
 indicated by a passage in Jeremiah, and by a sim¬ 
 ilar one in Ezekiel. 5 In the former we read, “ for 
 the law shall not perish from the priest, nor coun¬ 
 sel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet ”; 
 and in the latter, “ Mischief shall come upon mis¬ 
 chief, and rumour shall be upon rumour; and they 
 shall seek a vision of the prophet; but the law shall 
 
 4 See Addis, Hebrew Religion, pp. 115, 116, and G. A. 
 Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old 
 Testament, pp. 291, 292. 
 
 s Jer. 18:18 and Ezek. 7:26. 
 
156 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 perish from the priest, and counsel from the an¬ 
 cients;” As a class, the sages seem to have at¬ 
 tained to influence only after the Exile, when 
 prophecy became gradually silent and finally 
 ceased. Perhaps because the prophets saw that 
 the sages were destined to supersede them, they 
 did not look upon the boasted wisdom of the wise 
 with favor. On the contrary, they charge them 
 with conceit and immorality. 44 Woe unto them 
 that are wise in their own eyes,” cries Isaiah, 
 44 and prudent in their own sight,” and again he 
 predicts that, 44 the wisdom of their wise men shall 
 perish, and the understanding of their prudent 
 men shall be hid.” 6 Jeremiah is equally denun¬ 
 ciatory. 44 The wise men,” he says, 7 44 are 
 ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they 
 have rejected the word of the Lord; and what man¬ 
 ner of wisdom is in them? ” 
 
 The dislike of the prophets for the sages 
 seems not to have been returned in kind. The 
 wise man speaks respectfully of prophecy. 
 44 Where there is no vision,” he says, s 44 the people 
 cast off restraint.” Persistently the sages reaf¬ 
 firmed at least one of the characteristic ideas of 
 prophecy — that ceremonial is a poor substitute 
 
 6 Is. 5:21, and 29:14. 
 
 7 Jer. 8:9. See, also, Jer. 4:22 and 9:23. 
 
 Yet the prophets’ manner of expression was, nevertheless, 
 obviously influenced by the style of the sages. Examples 
 are: Is. 28:23-29; 29:24; 33:11. See, also, Cheyne, Job 
 and Solomon, pp. 121 ff. 
 
 * Prov. 29:18. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 157 
 
 for righteousness of life, asserting that “ The sac¬ 
 rifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord: 
 but the prayer of the upright is his delight.” 9 
 With the idealism of the prophets, however, they 
 had little sympathy. They say nothing of a fu¬ 
 ture golden age, and seem never to have shared 
 with the prophets the hope of a kingdom of God 
 on earth. Their general attitude of suspicion 
 toward both the religious idealism and the polit¬ 
 ical radicalism of the prophets is clearly suggested 
 by the advice they give to the young man seeking 
 wisdom: “ My son, fear thou the Lord and the 
 
 king: and meddle not with them that are given to 
 change.” 10 
 
 With the priests, the sages had much more in 
 common — their political conservatism, and their 
 respect for legal precedent. Their friendly rela¬ 
 tions with the priests are to be accounted for by 
 the probability that, as a class of religious teach¬ 
 ers, the wisdom school developed from among the 
 priests, the guardians of the law. Now the law 
 had two sides — the ritual or liturgical, and the 
 civil or moral side. In post-exilic times, the 
 priests became identified with the ritual law, while 
 the study of the law on its moral side became the 
 province of the sages. Though the sages soon 
 emancipated themselves from the limitations of the 
 Hebrew law, expanding their outlook, partly un¬ 
 der Greek influence, to include universal moral 
 
 » Prov. 15:8. See, also, Prov. 21:3, 27; and 16:6. 
 
 loprov. 24:21. 
 
158 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 truth, they certainly started with the assumption 
 that the law is the way that leads to God. Prac- 
 ical ethics, consequently, became their principal 
 field. 
 
 The aim and function of the sage is clearly set 
 forth in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus. 11 
 Here we are told: “ He will seek out the wisdom 
 
 of all the ancients, and will be occupied in prophe¬ 
 cies. He will keep the discourse of the men of 
 renown, and will enter in amidst the subtleties of 
 parables. He will seek out the hidden meaning of 
 proverbs, and be conversant with the dark sayings 
 of parables. He will serve among great men, and 
 appear before him that ruleth: he will travel 
 through the land of strange nations, for he hath 
 tried good things and evil among men. He will 
 apply his heart to resort early to the Lord that 
 made him, and will make supplication before the 
 Most High, he will open his mouth in prayer, and 
 make supplication for his sins. If the great Lord 
 will, he shall be filled with the spirit of under¬ 
 standing: he shall pour forth the words of his 
 wisdom, and in prayer give thanks unto the Lord. 
 He shall direct his counsel and knowledge, and in 
 his secrets shall he meditate. He shall shew forth 
 the instruction that he hath been taught, and shall 
 glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord. 
 Many shall commend his understanding; and so 
 long as the world endureth, it shall not be blotted 
 out: his memorial shall not depart, and his name 
 
 11 Ecclus. 39:1-11. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 159 
 
 shall live from generation to generation. Na¬ 
 tions shall declare his wisdom, and the congrega¬ 
 tion shall tell out his praise. If he continue, he 
 shall leave a greater name than a thousand: and if 
 he die, he addeth thereto.” 
 
 Though we know very little about the person¬ 
 ality or methods of work of the sages, we infer 
 that they corresponded fairly well to the descrip¬ 
 tion of a scholar that Doctor Johnson put into 
 the mouth of Imlac. “ To talk in public, to 
 think in solitude, to read and to hear, to inquire 
 and to answer inquiries, is the business of a 
 scholar.” 12 There was nothing academic about 
 the Hebrew sage; he was a popular teacher of 
 practical morality. The wise seem, like the ear¬ 
 lier prophets, to have received fees for their serv¬ 
 ices. 44 Wherefore,” asks one of them , 13 44 is there 
 a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing 
 he hath no heart to it? ” The Book of Ecclesias- 
 ticus ends with an address to the student of wis¬ 
 dom that implies an investment of money as well 
 as of effort. 
 
 Put your neck under the yoke, 
 
 And let your soul receive instruction: 
 
 She is hard at hand to find. 
 
 Behold with your eyes, 
 
 How that I laboured but a little, 
 
 And found for myself much rest. 
 
 Get your instruction with a great sum of silver, 
 And gain much gold by her . 14 
 
 12 j RasselaSy Chap. 8. is Prov. 17:16. i* Ecclus. 51:26 ff. 
 
160 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Whether the sages exercised a kind of professional 
 function in Israel, giving examinations and con¬ 
 ferring degrees; whether, like the later rabbis, 
 they occupied an honored official position in the 
 educational life of the nation, we have no means 
 of knowing. That they constituted an influential 
 class, co-ordinate in popular estimation with the 
 prophets and the priests is, however, clearly evi¬ 
 dent. 15 They taught at first orally, rather than 
 through the written word. When they wrote, 
 they did so sometimes anonymously, more often 
 under a pseudonym — generally that of Solo¬ 
 mon ; 16 and always their utterances, whether oral 
 or written, were of things that, to use Bacon’s 
 phrase, “ come home to men’s business and bos¬ 
 oms.” 17 Like Bacon’s Essays, again, “ They 
 handle those things wherein both men’s lives and 
 their persons are most conversant . . . not vul¬ 
 gar, but of a nature whereof a man shall find much 
 in experience and little in books.” 18 
 
 Our English word “ wisdom ” is but an inade¬ 
 quate rendering of the Hebrew word khokmah. 
 The root meaning of this word is to fasten or hold 
 fast, and it includes much more than our word 
 
 is Jer. 18:18. 
 
 10 Solomon became identified with the wisdom literature in 
 exactly the same way as Moses did with the legal literature, 
 and as David did with the lyric poetry; so that the phrase 
 “ a proverb of Solomon ” came to mean merely “ a wise 
 proverb.” 
 
 it “ Epistle Dedicatory ” to edition of 1625. 
 
 is Bacon, “To the Prince of Wales.” 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 161 
 
 wisdom or its synonyms, prudence, sagacity, 
 knowledge, learning. The Septuagint word coc/aa 
 fairly well translates it, for this is a word of varied 
 meaning representing not only erudition, but skill 
 in matters of common life, sound judgment in 
 practical affairs, political sagacity. The Greek 
 adjective o-oc/>os (wise) was applied to a man who 
 excelled his fellows in any kind of skill, either in¬ 
 tellectual or manual. Thus the designation might 
 be applied to a philosopher or to a hedger and 
 ditcher with equal propriety, for it implied only 
 an insight into the facts of life and a mastery of 
 them. Now this was exactly what Hebrew wis¬ 
 dom, regarded as a human quality, also implied. 
 Wisdom in the Hebrew view was to understand 
 God’s works and ways, and to turn one’s knowl¬ 
 edge of them to practical account. 44 The fact 
 that practical ethics ultimately appropriated the 
 technical name of wisdom ought not to blind us,” 
 says Professor Cheyne, 19 44 to the larger connota¬ 
 tion of the same word, which throws so much light 
 on the deeply religious view of life prevalent among 
 the Israelites.” God 44 maketh wisdom abundant 
 as Pishon, and as Tigris in the days of new fruits; 
 that maketh understanding full as Euphrates, and 
 as Jordan in the days of harvest,” says Jesus Ben 
 Sirach, 20 so all-inclusive is it. Wisdom 44 is an 
 unspotted mirror of the workings of God ” and 
 44 reacheth from one end of the world to the other 
 
 I 0 Job and Solomon, p. 118. 
 
 20 Ecclus. 24:25, 26. 
 
162 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 with full strength, and ordereth all things gra¬ 
 ciously.” 21 She is the friend of the king on the 
 throne, 22 and of the workman at his bench. 23 How 
 to govern a state, or a household, 24 and how to 
 manage a farm; 25 how to behave in the presence of 
 a ruler, 26 and how to treat a fool; 27 all are mat¬ 
 ters that come within the scope of wisdom. It in¬ 
 cluded, also, what we should call natural science. 
 Of Solomon, who was regarded as the representa¬ 
 tive and embodiment of wisdom, it was said: 28 “ he 
 spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon 
 even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the 
 wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of 
 creeping things, and of fishes.” All the works of 
 the visible creation were regarded as objects of 
 reverent study as revelations of the divine wisdom. 
 “ O Lord, how manifold are thy works! ” cried the 
 Psalmist, 29 “ in wisdom hast thou made them all.” 
 By the observation of these “ works ” men were to 
 understand God’s ways, for God was in their 
 thought the source of all wisdom. In the ardent 
 panegyric upon wisdom found in Proverbs, we are 
 told: 
 
 The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; 
 
 By understanding he established the heavens. 
 By his knowledge the depths were broken up, 
 And the skies drop down the dew. 
 
 21 The Wisdom of Solomon, 7:26 
 and 8:1. 
 
 22 Prov. 8:15, 16. 
 
 23 Ex. 31:2-6; I Kings 7:13, 14. 
 
 24 Prov. 31:10 If. 
 
 25 Prov. 10:4, 5. 
 
 26 Prov. 25:6, 7. 
 
 27 Prov. 26:4, 5. 
 
 28 1 Kings 4:33. 
 2» Ps. 104:24. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 163 
 
 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes; 
 
 Keep sound wisdom and discretion: 
 
 So shall they be life unto thy soul. 
 
 And grace to thy neck. 30 
 
 By observation of even the humblest of God’s crea¬ 
 tures men might learn wisdom, 
 
 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; 
 
 Consider her ways, and be wise: 
 
 Which having no chief, 
 
 Overseer, or ruler, 
 
 Provideth her meat in the summer, 
 
 And gathereth her food in the harvest. 31 
 
 Yet, while wisdom included within its range all 
 God’s creation, the department of study that of¬ 
 fered the largest return of wisdom was human con¬ 
 duct. It was in the sphere of practical ethics 
 that the sages mostly worked. Enlightened 
 worldly wisdom, dealing with the results of an ob¬ 
 servation of human life, extended if not minute, 
 was characteristic of Hebrew wisdom. It was 
 never broadly speculative. The sage never, like 
 the modern philosopher, started with a question. 
 It never occurred to him to ask Who is God? 
 Rather, he started with an axiom — given a God 
 knowable, just and wise, then wisdom is to know 
 Him, so far as possible through observation of His 
 works and ways, and to turn that knowledge to 
 practical account in our relations with Him, and 
 with our fellow men. To these practical philoso- 
 
 30 Prov. 3:19-52. 3i Prov. 6:6-8. 
 
164 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 phers, no less than to Pope, the proper study of 
 mankind was man — and man in his social rela¬ 
 tions. Wisdom’s call was to man considered as a 
 member of a community, never to man as an iso¬ 
 lated individual. 
 
 Doth not wisdom cry, 
 
 And understanding put forth her voice? 
 
 In the top of high places by the way, 
 
 Where the paths meet, she standeth; 
 
 Beside the gates, at the entry of the city. 
 
 At the coming in at the doors, she crieth aloud: 
 Unto you, O men, I call; 
 
 And my voice is to the sons of men. 32 
 
 To harmonize human life with nature by con¬ 
 stantly connecting both with God, was the end 
 and aim of Hebrew wisdom. 33 
 
 Closely connected with this quality of inclusive¬ 
 ness in Hebrew wisdom is what one might call its 
 cosmopolitanism. Wisdom is of all Hebrew liter¬ 
 ature least distinctively Hebraic. Though be¬ 
 longing mostly to the period of legalism, when the 
 law was revered as the inerrant guide of life, there 
 is in all the wisdom books no mention of Sab¬ 
 bath, nor synagogue, nor circumcision. 34 More¬ 
 over, wisdom is the only department of Hebrew 
 thought that was recognized as having any analo- 
 
 32 Prov. 8:1-4. 
 
 33 See Horton, “ Proverbs ” (Expositor's Bible ) pp. 13, 14. 
 
 34 Sacrifice is, however, referred to Prov. 15:8; Ecclus. 
 34:18-20; Eccles. 5:1. Tithes are mentioned in Prov. 3:9; 
 vows in Eccles. 5:4. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 165 
 
 gies or connection with the world outside of Pales¬ 
 tine. Of the centers of wisdom outside Israel, 
 Egypt, 35 Edom, 36 and Tyre 37 seem to have been 
 regarded as the most important. Just how much 
 relation there was with these foreign centers of 
 wisdom we have no means of knowing. The au-> 
 thor of the apocryphal book of Baruch denies 
 that Hebrew wisdom was like that of other kindred 
 peoples, 38 but probably, as Cheyne suggests, 39 this 
 denial represents the intolerant spirit of Macca- 
 bean Judaism. Certain it is that so unlimited by 
 racial interests are some of the wisdom books, so 
 universal in their appeal, that at least one of them 
 has been thought by some not to have been written 
 by a Hebrew at all. 40 Nor is it without signifi¬ 
 cance that Job himself lived, not in Judea, nor 
 even in Palestine, but in Uz, on the border of the 
 great plains eastward of that country. Eliphaz, 
 the eldest of the three friends that came to condole 
 with Job, and their leader and spokesman, came 
 from Teman in the land of Edom. It is entirely 
 consonant with the universality generally charac¬ 
 teristic of the wisdom books that in Job and 
 Ecclesiastes the word Elohim or Eloah is usually 
 substituted for the distinctively Hebraic name 
 
 35 I Kings 4:30. 
 
 36 Ob. 8; Jer. 49:7. 
 
 37 Ezek. 28:2, 3. 
 
 38 Baruch 3:22, 23. 
 
 39 Job and Solomon, p. 118. 
 
 40 See Carlyle’s remarks on the authorship of Job in the 
 “ Hero as Prophet.” 
 
166 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Jahveh. The former are names more general in 
 their application, and might be applied to any 
 foreign deity. 
 
 It would be strange indeed, in view of the cosmo¬ 
 politanism of Hebrew wisdom, if there were no 
 traces of foreign influence upon it. As a matter 
 of fact the influence of foreign wisdom cults is 
 quite apparent. One sees it even in Proverbs, 
 the earliest of the wisdom books. The personifi¬ 
 cation of wisdom in the eighth chapter, in which 
 the divine wisdom is represented as a separate ex¬ 
 istence outside of Jehovah, is thoroughly un-He- 
 braic, and is entirely inconsistent with the stern 
 monotheism of Israel’s creed, which had become 
 firmly established since the time of the popular 
 endorsement of the book of Deuteronomy. Such 
 an inconsistency can be explained only as a result 
 of the influence of Greek philosophy. According 
 to the Stoics, the powers of the divine essence dif¬ 
 fused throughout the world (the kolvoI ewoiai), 
 are regarded as having a separate existence of 
 their own. Only under the influence of such an 
 idea, could the personification of God’s wisdom 
 find a place in the religious thought of a people 
 whose fundamental belief was expressed in the un¬ 
 equivocal statement, 44 Hear, O Israel: the Lord 
 our God is one Lord.” 41 In the later books of 
 wisdom, the influence of Greek philosophy is still 
 more apparent. Ecclesiastes, to be sure, though 
 formerly thought to show the effect of the Stoic 
 
 4i Deut. 6:4. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 167 
 
 and Epicurean philosophy, appears now, 42 in the 
 light of recent discoveries of Babylonian inscrip¬ 
 tions, 43 to have been written under foreign Semitic 
 influence. We know that the Jewish colony in Baby¬ 
 lon called the Gouliouth was extremely influential in 
 post-Exilic times. That, through it, Babylonian 
 culture should have affected Hebrew thought seems 
 entirely possible; and, since the old Babylonian 
 philosophy contained all that was formerly con¬ 
 sidered Greek in Ecclesiastes, it seems entirely 
 probable that the foreign elements in the book are 
 in origin Semitic rather than Aryan. Not so are 
 the foreign elements in The Wisdom of Solomon. 
 Here we find a number of characteristically Greek 
 ideas, as, for example, the Stoic notion of wisdom 
 as the all-pervading power, which is thus expressed: 
 
 For she that is the artificer of all things taught me, 
 even wisdom. 
 
 For there is in her a spirit quick of understanding, 
 holy, 
 
 Alone in kind, manifold, 
 
 Subtile, freely moving, 
 
 Clear in utterance, unpolluted, 
 
 Distinct, unharmed, 
 
 Loving what is good, keen, unhindered, 
 
 42 “ The book of Ecclesiastes represents an original de¬ 
 
 velopment of Hebrew thought, thoroughly Semitic in its 
 point of view, and quite independent of Greek influences.” 
 Barton, “ Ecclesiastes ” (International Critical Commen¬ 
 
 tary ), p. 43. 
 
 43 This is a fragment of the “ Gilgamesh Epic,” written 
 about 2000 B. C. 
 
168 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Beneficent, loving toward man, 
 
 Stedfast, sure, free from care. 
 
 All-powerful, all-surveying, 
 
 And penetrating through all spirits 
 
 That are quick of understanding, pure, most subtile: 
 
 For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; 
 
 Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by rea¬ 
 son of her pureness. 44 
 
 Several of the ideas in this book are evidently 
 Platonic, as, for example, that of primitive amor¬ 
 phous matter, 
 
 For thine all-powerful hand, 
 
 That created the world out of formless matter, 45 
 
 that of the pre-existence of the soul, 
 
 Now I was a child of parts, and a good soul fell to 
 my lot; 46 
 
 and that of the four cardinal virtues, 
 
 The fruits of wisdom are virtues, 
 
 For she teacheth soberness and understanding, right¬ 
 eousness and courage. 47 
 
 In view of these relations, it appears that He¬ 
 brew wisdom was a product neither wholly of He¬ 
 brew nor even of Semitic thought, nor designed 
 solely for the Hebrew race, but that it was not lim- 
 
 44 The Wisdom of Solomon, 7:22-24. 
 
 45 The Wisdom of Solomon, 11:17. 
 
 46 The Wisdom of Solomon, 8:19. 
 
 47 The Wisdom of Solomon, 8:7. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 169 
 
 ited by nationality, nor theology, nor forms of 
 worship. 
 
 Yet, although Hebrew wisdom assimilated for¬ 
 eign influences, the sages were unquestionably jus¬ 
 tified in maintaining that their wisdom was dis¬ 
 tinctively Hebraic. The most striking assertion 
 of this truth appears in the form of a soliloquy 
 put into the mouth of Wisdom. It is found in the 
 Book of Ecclesiasticus, 48 and is as follows: 
 
 I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, 
 
 And covered the earth as a mist. 
 
 I dwelt in high places. 
 
 And my throne is in the pillar of the cloud. 
 
 Alone I compassed the circuit of heaven, 
 
 And walked in the depth of the abyss. 
 
 In the waves of the sea, and in all the earth, 
 
 And in every people and nation, I got a possession. 
 
 With all these I sought rest; 
 
 And in whose inheritance shall I lodge? 
 
 Then the Creator of all things gave me a com¬ 
 mandment ; 
 
 And he that created me made my tabernacle to 
 rest. 
 
 And said. Let thy tabernacle be in Jacob, 
 
 And thine inheritance in Israel. 
 
 He created me from the beginning before the world; 
 
 And to the end I shall not fail. 
 
 In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him; 
 
 And so was I established in Sion. 
 
 Now in what consisted the uniqueness of this 
 
 48 Ecclus. 24:3-10. 
 
170 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 wisdom that was “ established in Sion? ” How 
 did it differ from the wisdom that was established 
 in Memphis, or Babylon, or that which was estab¬ 
 lished in Athens? From all these it differed fun¬ 
 damentally, in that it was practical in its aims — 
 in that it was enlightened worldly wisdom, a kind 
 of inspired common sense. Pharaoh’s wise men 
 were interested in the occult, in the portents of 
 dreams, and in divination. The stories of Joseph, 
 who became an expert interpreter of dream ora¬ 
 cles, and who, after his marriage to the daughter 
 of the priest of On, practiced water-divination, 49 
 illustrates the Egyptian sages’ interest in the eso¬ 
 teric. No less pretentious was the boasted wis¬ 
 dom of Chaldea’s seers. They were astrologers 
 and magicians, who sought the hidden meanings of 
 things in the stars, and who would have despised 
 the wisdom that the Hebrews prized — the wis¬ 
 dom of the commonplace and the familiar. 
 
 From the modern scientific spirit, Hebrew wis¬ 
 dom differed no less essentially in that it recog¬ 
 nized invariably the divine origin of all true wis¬ 
 dom. In the mind of the Hebrew sage there could 
 be no conflict between science and religion, because 
 to him all knowledge had its source in God. Rea¬ 
 son and revelation were not to him mutually op¬ 
 posed, nor subversive one of the other. To the 
 sages, wisdom meant the well trained mind, the 
 disciplined will, the skilled hand, working together 
 for the end of living a sane and normal life. For 
 
 49 Gen. 41:45; 44:15. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 171 
 
 entering upon such a course of self-discipline, the 
 one condition was humility. 
 
 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: 
 But the foolish despise wisdom and instruction. 
 
 Such was the announcement at the very beginning 
 of the first of the wisdom books of the Old 
 Testament. 50 It strikes the key-note of all the 
 wisdom teaching. As humility is the beginning of 
 wisdom, so the end is reverence for God as the 
 source of and giver of all understanding. 51 
 Wisdom was regarded as the gift of God, be¬ 
 stowed upon only those who pleased Him. 
 “ For to the man that pleaseth him,” says the 
 author of Ecclesiastes, “ God giveth wisdom, and 
 knowledge, and joy.” 52 It was given in answer 
 to prayer, as to Solomon; 53 and never, except as a 
 reward for diligent effort. The searcher after 
 wisdom must “ apply his heart,” must “ seek her 
 as silver.” In Proverbs 54 we read: 
 
 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, 
 
 And lay up my commandments with thee; 
 
 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, 
 
 And apply thine heart to understanding; 
 
 50 Prov. 1:7; cf. Prov. 9:10; 14:27; 16:17; 24:5, and Ps. 
 111 : 10 . 
 
 51 “ This is the end of the matter; . . . fear God, and keep 
 his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” 
 Eccles. 12:13. 
 
 52 Eccles. 2:26. Cf. Prov. 2:6 and Dan. 2:21. 
 
 63 I Kings 3:9. 
 
 54 Prov. 2:1-5. 
 
172 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Yea, if thou cry after discernment, 
 
 And lift up thy voice for understanding; 
 
 If thou seek her as silver, 
 
 And search for her as for hid treasures; 
 
 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, 
 And find the knowledge of God. 
 
 The unaided search for wisdom is always unavail¬ 
 ing. She never reveals herself except to the hum¬ 
 ble and diligent seeker. He who seeks her must 
 be, she insists, 
 
 Watching daily at my gates. 
 
 Waiting at the posts of my doors . 55 
 
 By searchers less in earnest, wisdom is not “ found 
 in the land of the living.” Only 44 God under- 
 standeth the way thereof,” and reveals it to whom 
 He will. 
 
 But where shall wisdom be found? 
 
 And where is the place of understanding? 
 
 Man knoweth not the price thereof; 
 
 Neither is it found in the land of the living. 
 
 • •••••• 
 
 God understandeth the way thereof. 
 
 And he knoweth the place thereof. 
 
 • •••••• 
 
 Then did he see it, and declare it; 
 
 He established it, yea, and searched it out. 
 
 And unto man he said, 
 
 Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; 
 And to depart from evil is understanding . 56 
 
 55Prov. 8:34; cf. 8:17. 56 Job 28:12, 13, 23, 27. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 173 
 
 Yet in the quest for wisdom, man was not left 
 wholly without guidance. There was the sage, 
 who taught how to master the secrets, to fulfil the 
 duties, and meet the temptations of life. A pic¬ 
 ture of such a sage Job gives us, as he recalls what 
 he was “ When the friendship of God was upon ” 
 his “ tent.” 
 
 When I went forth to the gate unto the city, 
 
 When I prepared my seat in the broad place, 
 
 The young men saw me and hid themselves, 
 
 And the aged rose up and stood; 
 
 The princes refrained talking. 
 
 And laid their hand on their mouth; 
 
 The voice of the nobles was hushed, 
 
 And their tongue cleaved to the roof of their mouth. 
 For when the ear heard me, then it blessed me; 
 
 And when the eye saw me, it gave witness unto me: 
 
 • •••••• 
 
 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: 
 
 My justice was as a robe and a diadem. 67 
 
 Moreover, there was the law, which seems to 
 have been regarded as of the highest disciplinary 
 value. “ Whoso keepeth the law,” they said, “ is 
 a wise son.” 58 The law was apparently looked 
 upon as a kind of fingerpost to point men from 
 evil to righteousness, and from folly to under¬ 
 standing. 
 
 When wisdom changed from the oral to the 
 written form, it adopted as its characteristic liter- 
 
 67 Job 29:7-11, 14; cf. Eccles. 12:9, 10. 
 
 68 Prov. 28:7; cf. Deut. 4:6. 
 
174 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 ary mold what the Hebrews called the MashaL 
 Though the word is usually translated “ prov¬ 
 erb,” the mashal was something more than merely 
 an adage, or short, pithy saying. The root-mean¬ 
 ing of the word is a likeness, or comparison, or si¬ 
 militude. The word came to have the rather com¬ 
 prehensive meaning that it did from the fact that 
 the wisdom teachers taught so largely by analogy. 
 In its simplest form, as we find it represented in 
 the oldest part of the book of Proverbs, 59 we find 
 it to consist of a single couplet, or epigram of two 
 lines. The parallelism is prevailingly antithetic, 
 like, 
 
 A wise son maketh a glad father: 
 
 But a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother. 
 
 When we examine these epigrams, we see at once 
 that they are not the rough-hewn proverbial say¬ 
 ings of the country folk, but that they have the 
 artistic finish of the literary epigram. In their 
 polished form they remind us less of the popular 
 maxim of the man in the street than of the pointed 
 aphorisms of Pope’s glittering couplets. And as 
 Pope’s smooth couplets are built, like glazed tiles, 
 into the ordered structure of his completed poems, 
 so these isolated mashals on a single topic are 
 grouped sometimes into what most resembles the 
 
 59 Prov. 10-22:16. 
 
 The synthetic parallelism (expressive of a comparison) 
 and the synonymous (expressive of a simple iteration) are 
 also represented in this group. 
 
THE SAGES 
 
 175 
 
 Baconian essay, or the sonnet. Such expansions 
 of the couplet into something analogous to the 
 sonnet we find in what Professor Moulton calls a 
 “Folk song of good husbandry”: 
 
 Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, 
 
 And look well to thy herds: 
 
 For riches are not forever; 
 
 And doth the crown endure unto all generations? 
 The hay is carried, and the tender grass sheweth 
 itself. 
 
 And the herbs of the mountains are gathered in. 
 The lambs are for thy clothing, 
 
 And the goats are the price of the field: 
 
 And there will be goats’ milk enough for thy food, 
 For the food of thy household; 
 
 And maintenance of thy maidens. 60 
 
 From this, and from still freer expansions of 
 the proverb distich, such as the elaborately sym¬ 
 bolic description of old age in the last chapter of 
 Ecclesiastes, 01 we see that the mashal was, like 
 the Spenserian stanza in English poetry, espe¬ 
 cially suited to description. As Professor Genung 
 says, 02 “ It is an instrument of moving and trench¬ 
 ant portrayal, wherein concrete images flash and 
 glitter and burn themselves into the mind.” This 
 descriptive quality the mashal always retained. 
 Even when the sages dealt with problems which 
 would have been treated by Western philosophers 
 
 go Prov. 27:23-27. See, also, Prov. 31:10-31. 
 
 61 Eccles. 12:1-8. 
 
 62 Hebrew Literature of Wisdom, p. 82. 
 
176 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 as purely speculative, they still adhered to the 
 method of picturing concretely the materials of the 
 discussion. Even in the book of Job, for example, 
 which is a presentation of the world-old question, 
 “ Is the world governed justly? ”, the method pur¬ 
 sued by the author is wholly descriptive. The 
 book is a succession of splendid descriptions. Job 
 is first described in his prosperity; and then, after 
 the intervening description of the celestial coun¬ 
 cil, in his adversity. The friends argue wholly 
 by a series of graphic portrayals of the power and 
 gentleness of God that He cannot but do justly 
 and mercifully; and then, also by a series of pic¬ 
 tures of the fate of the wicked and of the con¬ 
 trasting prosperity of the righteous, that all suf¬ 
 fering is caused by sin. Similarly the voice of 
 God out of the whirlwind, by the portrayal of a 
 world luminous with God, in which the evil is no 
 more mysterious than the good, closes the discus¬ 
 sion. Finally, in the epilogue, Job’s restoration 
 to prosperity is described, as a fitting close to a 
 book in which an abstruse question is solved solely 
 by means of narrative description. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 OUR MODERN DEBT TO THE SAGES 
 
 An attempt to formulate with any degree of 
 exactness the extent of our modern debt to Is¬ 
 rael’s sages is extremely difficult. Their influ¬ 
 ence, unlike that of the priests, has not left its im¬ 
 press upon our institutions; and, unlike that of 
 the prophets, has not much affected our religious 
 concepts, but must be traced in those ideals of 
 temperance, chastity, industry, and duty to one’s 
 fellows which make up our current notions of 
 what constitutes manly character. 
 
 What the Hebrew ideal of manly character was 
 is clearly shown in Job’s autobiographic character 
 sketch. The setting of the picture adds to its im¬ 
 pressiveness. The long and inconclusive debate 
 has ended. The three friends have contributed to 
 the discussion their shallow argument to prove 
 that all suffering is caused by sin. And Job has 
 silenced them by bringing their argument to the 
 test of life, and showing that their contention is 
 inconsistent with the patent facts of life. Then 
 Job sums up the whole case, and answers the base¬ 
 less charges against his moral character which the 
 friends, in their attempt to account for the severity 
 
 of his sufferings, have made. No picture in an- 
 
 177 
 
178 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 cient tragedy, not even that of Prometheus chained 
 to the rock, compares in moral grandeur with this 
 of Job standing on the ash mound, robbed of his 
 wealth, bereft of his children, deserted by his wife, 
 repudiated by his friends, stricken with a disease 
 so loathsome and horrible that it was known among 
 the Hebrews as 44 the first-born of Death,” 1 and 
 cast off, as it seemed to him, by the God in whom 
 he trusted; and yet maintaining in the face of 
 poverty, and bereavement, and mortal pain, and 
 bewildered isolation, his unchanged and unalter¬ 
 able belief in the essential justice of his cause. So 
 in the solemn cadences of the ritual 44 oath of clear¬ 
 ing,” Job denies one after the other the lust of the 
 eye, the lust of the flesh, idolatry, oppression of 
 the poor, and even those more secret sins of self¬ 
 ishness and pride that are invisible to mortal 
 sight. 2 
 
 I made a covenant with mine eyes; 
 
 H ow then should I look upon a maid? 
 
 For what is the portion of God from above, 
 
 And the heritage of the Almighty from on high? 
 Is it not calamity to the unrighteous, 
 
 And disaster to the workers of iniquity? 
 
 1 The form of leprosy known to modern pathology as 
 elephantiasis. 
 
 2 This picture of moral integrity should be placed side by 
 side with the corresponding portrayal in the last chapter of 
 Proverbs of “ the virtuous woman,” because together they 
 represent in the form of character sketches the masculine 
 and feminine ideals of personal righteousness embodied in 
 the teachings of “ the wise.” 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 179 
 
 Doth not he see my ways, 
 
 And number all my steps? 
 
 If I have walked with vanity, 
 
 And my foot hath hasted to deceit; 
 
 (Let me be weighed in an even balance. 
 
 That God may know mine integrity;) 
 
 If my step hath turned out of the way, 
 
 And mine heart walked after mine eyes, 
 
 And if any spot hath cleaved unto mine hands: 
 
 Then let me sow and let another eat; 
 
 Yea, let the produce of my field be rooted out 
 
 If mine heart have been enticed unto a woman, 
 And I have laid wait at my neighbor’s door: 
 Then let my wife grind unto another. 
 
 And let others bow down upon her. 
 
 For that were an heinous crime; 
 
 Yea, it were an iniquity to be punished by the 
 judges: 
 
 For it is a fire that consumeth unto Destruction, 
 And would root out all mine increase. 
 
 If I did despise the cause of my manservant, 
 
 Or of my maidservant when they contended with me: 
 What shall I do when God riseth up? 
 
 And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? 
 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? 
 And did not one fashion us in the womb? 
 
 If I have withheld the poor from their desire, 
 
 Or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail; 
 
 Or have eaten my morsel alone, 
 
 And the fatherless hath not eaten thereof; 
 
 (Nay, from my youth he grew up with me 
 as with a father 
 
 And I have been her guide from my moth¬ 
 er’s womb;) 
 
180 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 If I have seen any perish for want of clothing. 
 Or that the needy had no covering; 
 
 If his loins have not blessed me, 
 
 And if he were not warmed with the fleece of 
 my sheep; 
 
 If I have lifted up my hand against the father¬ 
 less, 
 
 Because I saw my help in the gate: 
 
 Then let my shoulder fall from the shoulder blade, 
 And mine arm be broken from the bone. 
 
 For calamity from God was a terror to me. 
 And by reason of his excellency I could do 
 nothing. 
 
 If I have made gold my hope, 
 
 And have said to the fine gold, Thou art my 
 confidence; 
 
 If I rejoiced because my wealth was great, 
 
 And because mine hand had gotten much; 
 
 If I beheld the sun when it shined, 
 
 Or the moon walking in brightness; 
 
 And mine heart hath been secretly enticed, 
 
 And my mouth hath kissed my hand: 
 
 This also were an iniquity to be punished 
 by the judges: 
 
 For I should have lied to God that is above. 
 If I rejoiced at the destruction of him that hated 
 me, 
 
 Or lifted up myself when evil found him; 
 
 (Yea, I suffered not my mouth to sin 
 By asking his life with a curse;) 
 
 If the men of my tent said not, 
 
 Who can find one that hath not been satisfied 
 with his flesh ? 
 
 The stranger did not lodge in the street; 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 181 
 
 But I opened my doors to the traveller; 
 
 If, like Adam, I covered my transgressions, 
 
 By hiding mine iniquity in my bosom; 
 
 Because I feared the great multitude. 
 
 And the contempt of families terrified me, 
 
 So that I kept silence, and went not out of the 
 door — 
 
 • •••••• 
 
 If my land cry out against me. 
 
 And the furrows thereof weep together; 
 
 If I have eaten the fruit thereof without money, 
 Or have caused the owners thereof to lose their 
 life: 
 
 Let thistles grow instead of wheat, 
 
 And cockle instead of barley! 3 
 
 To realize the uniqueness as well as the loftiness 
 of the ideal of character portrayed in the forego¬ 
 ing passage, one needs but to compare it with 
 other attempts of the ancient world to delineate 
 an ideal of human character. Of these, the oldest 
 is probably the so-called “ Negative Confession ” 
 contained in the Egyptian Booh of the Dead , the 
 chief monument of the religious literature of an¬ 
 cient Egypt. The “ Confession ” is part of the 
 older portion of the book, and dates back, it is 
 said, to the Old Empire, or to the period between 
 4500 and 8000 B. C. A copy of it was usually 
 deposited in the tomb, with the mummy; and when 
 the dead man appeared before Osiris, he was sup¬ 
 posed to recite this confession, in the two forms, 
 
 s Job 31 :l-40. 
 
182 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 as a justification of his plea for an immortal 
 life. 
 
 I have not done injury to men. 
 
 I have not oppressed those beneath me. 
 
 I have not acted perversely, instead of straight 
 forwardly. 
 
 I have not known vanity. 
 
 I have not been a doer of mischief. 
 
 • •••••• 
 
 I have not done what the gods abominate. 
 
 I have not turned the servant against his master. 
 I have not caused hunger. 
 
 I have not caused weeping. 
 
 I have not murdered. 
 
 I have not commanded murder. 
 
 I have not caused suffering to men. 
 
 I have not cut short the rations of the temples. 
 
 I have not diminished the offerings of the gods. 
 
 I have not taken the provisions of the blessed dead. 
 I have not committed fornication nor impurity in 
 what was sacred to the god of my city. 
 
 I have not added to nor diminished the measures 
 of grain. 
 
 I have not diminished the palm measure. 
 
 I have not falsified the cubit of land. 
 
 I have not added to the weights of the balance. 
 
 I have not nullified the plummet of the scales. 
 
 I have not taken milk from the mouth of babes. 
 
 I have not driven cattle from their herbage. 
 
 I have not trapped birds, the bones of the gods. 
 
 I have not caught fish by a bait of fishes’ bodies. 
 
 I have not stopped water in its season. 
 
 I have not dammed running water. 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 183 
 
 I have not quenched fire when burning. 
 
 I have not disturbed the cycle of gods when at 
 their choice meats. 
 
 I have not driven off the cattle of the sacred estate. 
 I have not stopped a god in his comings forth. 
 
 SECOND CONFESSION 
 
 I have not done injustice. 
 
 I have not robbed. 
 
 I have not coveted. 
 
 I have not stolen. 
 
 I have not slain men. 
 
 I have not diminished the corn measure. 
 
 I have not acted crookedly. 
 
 I have not stolen the property of the gods. 
 
 I have not spoken falsehood. 
 
 I have not taken food away. 
 
 I have not been lazy.(?) 
 
 I have not trespassed. 
 
 I have not slain a sacred animal. 
 
 I have not been niggardly in grain. 
 
 I have not stolen. 
 
 I have not been a pilferer. 
 
 My mouth hath not run on. 
 
 I have not been a talebearer in business not mine 
 own. 
 
 I have not committed adultery with another man’s 
 wife. 
 
 I have not been impure. 
 
 I have not made disturbance. 
 
 I have not transgressed. 
 
 My mouth hath not been hot. 
 
 I have not been deaf to the words of truth. 
 
 I have not made confusion. 
 
184 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 I have not caused weeping. 
 
 I am not given to unnatural lust. 
 
 I have not borne a grudge. 
 
 I have not quarreled. 
 
 I am not of aggressive hand. 
 
 I am not of inconstant mind. 
 
 I have not spoiled the color of him that washeth 
 the god.( ?) 
 
 My voice hath not been too voluble in my speech. 
 
 I have not deceived, nor done ill. 
 
 I have not cursed the king. 
 
 • •••••• 
 
 My voice is not loud. 
 
 I have not cursed God. 
 
 I have not made bubbles.(?) 
 
 I have not made (unjust) preferences. 
 
 I have not acted the rich man except in my own 
 things. 
 
 I have not offended the god of my city . 4 
 
 Almost equally famous is the Greek ideal of 
 character as formulated by Aristotle in the Nico- 
 machean Ethics. Between the Greek philosoph¬ 
 ical ideal and that of the Hebrew sages the differ¬ 
 ence is at once apparent. That Aristotle’s ideal 
 is a noble one, there can be no question. It is the 
 conception of a life blissfully absorbed in the vi¬ 
 sion of truth. It is a life lived, as he imagines 
 the lives of the gods to be lived, in contemplative 
 speculation. 5 Yet lofty and inspiring as the ideal 
 
 4 The translation is that of Griffith, article on Egyptian 
 literature in the Warner Library of the World’s Best Litera¬ 
 ture, pp. 5320-5322. 
 
 5 Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. X. VIII. 1178b. 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 185 
 
 is, it is described in such a way as to render its 
 realization possible only to a gifted few, and un¬ 
 der exceptional circumstances. It is unattaina¬ 
 ble by the poor, the weak, and the ignorant. 
 “ The liberal man,” he says, “ must have money 
 to do his liberal actions with, and the just man, to 
 meet his engagements . . . and the brave man 
 must have power, if he is to perform any of the 
 actions which appertain to his particular virtue, 
 and the man of perfected self-mastery must have 
 opportunity of temptation, else how shall he or 
 any of the others display his real character? ” 6 
 Again, in summing up what he has previously in¬ 
 sisted upon, he says, “ So happiness must be a 
 kind of contemplative speculation; but since it is 
 a man we are speaking of, he will need likewise ex¬ 
 ternal prosperity, because his nature is not by it¬ 
 self sufficient for speculation, but there must be 
 health of body, and nourishment, and tendence of 
 all kinds.” 7 
 
 How different from this aristocratic ideal is 
 that of the Hebrew sage with his emphasis, not 
 upon contemplative speculation, but upon prac¬ 
 tical benevolence, based on a recognition of the 
 brotherhood of man! The moral ideal, because 
 of its very richness and variety, invariably defies 
 the attempts men have made to' imprison it in a 
 definite formula, or to portray it imaginatively. 
 Yet, of all these attempts of the ancient world to 
 snap-shot this elusive phantom, one at least — 
 6 Bk. X. VIII. 1178a. 7 Bk. X. VIII. 1178b. 
 
186 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 that of the sages — has survived in the hearts of 
 men as a vital force. Age cannot wither, nor cus¬ 
 tom stale the freshness of its appeal as an ideal 
 to which even the poor, the weak, and the unlet¬ 
 tered may in some degree approach. 
 
 An attempt to formulate in more detail the 
 ethical ideas of the sages results in our distinguish¬ 
 ing seven vices which they seem to have regarded 
 as elemental. 
 
 There be six things which the Lord hateth; 
 
 Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: 
 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, 
 
 And hands that shed innocent blood; 
 
 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, 
 
 Feet that be swift in running to mischief; 
 
 A false witness that uttereth lies, 
 
 And he that soweth discord among brethren. 8 
 
 These probably suggested St. Paul’s list of 44 those 
 things which are not fitting,” characteristic of 
 those possessing 44 a reprobate mind,” who are de¬ 
 scribed as 44 being filled with all unrighteousness, 
 wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of 
 envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisper¬ 
 ers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, 
 boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to 
 parents, without understanding, covenant-break¬ 
 ers, without natural affection, unmerciful: ” 9 The 
 latter list, in turn, was the basis of the medieval 
 category of the seven mortal sins. 10 Rabanus 
 
 8 Prov. 6:16-19. 9 Rom. 1:29-31. 
 
 io The distinction between mortal and venial sins origi- 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 187 
 
 Maurus, a German abbot of the eighth century, 
 quotes this passage from St. Paul, together with 
 the similar one in Galatians, 11 as authority for 
 the Church’s classification. “ Pride,” he goes on 
 to say, “ is the mother and queen of all sins, 
 whether mortal or venial (Mater et regina om¬ 
 nium vitiorum, sive levium sive principalium).” 12 
 The emphasis upon pride as the cause of all other 
 sins is characteristic of all the teaching of the 
 medieval church. This teaching Dante, the artic¬ 
 ulate voice of medieval Catholicism, reflects in the 
 Divine Comedy; and it has not been without its 
 effect upon Protestantism, for Spenser, following 
 Dante, makes Pride the leader of the procession 
 of the seven deadly sins. 13 Such an emphasis 
 upon pride as the cause of all sin did not orig¬ 
 inate with the church fathers. It goes back for 
 its ultimate source to the teaching of Israel’s 
 sages. 
 
 The teaching of the 66 wise ” was not, however, 
 wholly, nor even mainly, inhibitory. Much of it 
 w T as a positive inculcation of virtue. The seven 
 
 nated with Tertullian, who based it upon I John 5:16, 17. 
 St. Augustine gives the list of the seven, Sermo CIV., See 
 Patrologiae Latinae (Migne), 39:1946. His list, which 
 differs from that of some of the other fathers, is as follows: 
 sacrilegium, homicidium, adulterium, falsum testimonium, 
 furtum, rapina, superbia, invidia, avaritia, iracundia, 
 ebrietas. 
 
 11 Gal. 5:19-21. 
 
 12 “ De Vitiis et Virtutibus,” Liber Tertius. Patrologiae 
 Latinae (Migne) 112:1338-1339. 
 
 13 Faerie Queene, Bk. I., Canto IV. 
 
188 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 virtues they oftenest dwelt upon are faithfulness, 
 industry, charity, temperateness, chastity, up¬ 
 rightness, and self-control in speech and act. 
 
 The first of these is that quality that St. Paul 
 places among the fruits of the spirit 14 — ttmttis, 
 which the authorized version translates 44 faith,” 
 but which the revised version more correctly ren¬ 
 ders 44 faithfulness.” It means dependability, 
 trustworthiness. How rare a virtue it is the 
 sages fully recognized. 
 
 Most men will proclaim everyone his own kindness; 
 But a faithful man who can find. 18 
 
 Yet its value, like that of gems, increases in pro¬ 
 portion to its rarity. 
 
 As the cold of snow in the time of harvest, 
 
 So is a faithful messenger to them that send him, 
 For he refresheth the soul of his masters. 16 
 
 His reticence, unlike that of the gossip, can be 
 trusted: 
 
 He that goeth about as a tale-bearer revealeth secrets; 
 But he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the mat¬ 
 ter. 17 ' 
 
 Regarding industry, the sages’ teaching is no 
 
 less positive than that of the church fathers. The 
 
 i* It is worthy of note that each one of the nine “ fruits 
 of the spirit ” mentioned Gal. 5 :22, 23, was previously 
 praised by the sages. 
 
 15 Prov. 20:6. 
 
 16 Prov. 25:13. 
 uProv. 11:13. 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 189 
 
 insistence of St. Augustine and St. Benedict, 
 founder of the monastic order of Benedictine 
 monks, upon industry as an essential part of 
 monastic discipline became proverbial, and fur¬ 
 nished Chaucer with some of his most satirically 
 ironical strictures upon the recreant clergy of his 
 day. 18 Long before the time of St. Augustine 
 and St. Benedict, however, the sages had observed 
 that, 
 
 He becometh poor that worketh with a slack hand; 
 But the hand of the diligent maketh rich. 19 
 
 and that, 
 
 The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing; 
 But the soul of the diligent shall be made fat. 20 
 
 The rewards of life, they saw, were to the in¬ 
 dustrious. 
 
 Seest thou a man diligent in his business? 
 
 He shall stand before kings; 
 
 He shall not stand before mean men. 21 
 
 The conclusion of the author of the Book of Eccle¬ 
 siastes, reached only after long contemplation of 
 the things men falsely prize as the greatest good,— 
 wealth, pleasure, power,— is that these are but a 
 “ striving after wind ”; that the work in which 
 we can rejoice is the true reward of living. 
 
 “ Wherefore I saw that there is nothing better, 
 than that a man should rejoice in his works; 
 
 is “Prologue,” 173-176 and 183-188. 
 
 19 Prov. 10:4; cf. 12:24. 
 
 20 Prov. 13:4; cf. 21:5. 
 
 21 Prov. 22:29. See, also, 27:23 ff. 
 
190 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 for that is his portion: for who shall bring him 
 back to see what shall be after him? ” 22 
 
 To those who know Carlyle, and who appreciate 
 his influence in forming the ideals of our day, 
 there is something very modern about all this. 
 “ Blessed is the man who has found his work,” 
 says Carlyle, “ let him seek no other blessedness.” 
 “ Two men he honors, and no third — the toil- 
 worn craftsman who conquers the earth,” and 
 “ him who is seen toiling for the spiritually indis¬ 
 pensable.” 23 
 
 Charity in the larger sense of the word, and 
 including not only liberality, but mercy even to¬ 
 ward enemies, is, if we are to judge by the em¬ 
 phasis the sages put upon it, one of the most im¬ 
 portant of the seven cardinal virtues. It differs 
 very little, if at all, from that which St. Paul 
 declared to be the greatest of the Christian 
 graces. 24 Indeed St. Paul quotes the sages’ pre¬ 
 scription for the treatment of one’s enemies. The 
 injunction, “ But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; 
 if he thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing thou 
 shalt heap coals of fire upon his head,” 25 is a di¬ 
 rect quotation from the sayings of u the wise,” 26 
 except that the apostle omits the concluding state¬ 
 ment, “ And Jehovah will reward thee.” What- 
 
 22 Eccles. 3:22. See, also, 5:18-20 and Genung, Hebrew 
 Literature of Wisdom, pp. 232, 233. 
 
 23 See Sartor Besartus, Bk. III.; Chap. IV. 
 
 24 I Cor. 13:13. 
 
 25 Rom. 12:20. 
 
 26 Prov. 25:21, 22. 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 191 
 
 ever Jesus had in mind when he quoted, as an an¬ 
 tithesis to his own teaching, “ Ye have heard that 
 it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and 
 hate thine enemy,” 27 the authority was evidently 
 not the teaching of “ the wise,” for their injunc¬ 
 tions are wholly consonant with his. “ The wise ” 
 had said 
 
 Be not a witness against thy neighbor without cause; 
 And deceive not with thy lips. 
 
 Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me; 
 I will render to the man according to his work. 28 
 
 The wise man does not expect perfection in other 
 people, and is tolerant of the faults even of his 
 friends: 
 
 He that covereth a transgression, seeketh love: 
 
 But he that harpeth on a matter separateth chief 
 friends. 29 
 
 The wise man is also generous, for he realizes that 
 
 There is that scattereth, and increaseth yet more; 
 And there is that withholdeth more than is meet, 
 but it tendeth only to want. 30 
 
 and he gives, not only willingly, but graciously, 
 
 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due. 
 When it is in the power of thine hand to do it. 31 
 
 27 Matt. 5:43. He certainly could not have referred to 
 the law, for that contains no such injunction as the latter. 
 See Lev. 19:18. 
 
 28 Prov. 24:28, 29. 
 
 29 Prov. 17:9. 
 
 so Prov. 11:24, 25; 31:20; Eccles, 11:1, 2. 
 
 3i Prov. 3:27, 28. 
 
192 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 Temperance, it will be remembered, is one of 
 the “ fruits of the spirit ” mentioned by St. Paul 
 in the passage in Galatians previously referred 
 to. 32 With this passage in mind, the church fa¬ 
 thers made gluttony one of the seven deadly sins; 
 and, as a result, the petition to be kept “ temper¬ 
 ate in our meats and drinks ” has a prominent 
 place in the prayers of a large branch of the 
 Christian church. 33 But the prayer-book, the 
 church fathers, and the apostle all have a prece¬ 
 dent in the teaching of “ the wise.” 34 The warn¬ 
 ings against intemperance in drink 35 are the more 
 striking because they occur in a body of teaching 
 that distinctly commends mirth, and whose atti¬ 
 tude toward the moderate use of wine is on the 
 whole tolerant. 36 
 
 In their discussion of the virtue of chastity the 
 sages were a good deal more outspoken than most 
 modern moralists have dared to be. The number 
 of passages that warn us against the “ strange 
 woman ” is so noticeable as to lead us to suspect 
 that the temptation to impurity was peculiarly 
 seductive to this ancient oriental people. 
 
 For she hath cast down many wounded: 
 
 Yea, all her slain are a mighty host. 37 
 
 32 Gal. 5 08, 23. 
 
 33 See Book of Common Prayer, “ Forms of Prayer to be 
 used in Families,” No. 5. 
 
 34 Prov. 23:1-3. 
 
 35 Prov. 23:31-35. See, also, Prov. 20:1. 
 
 36 See, for example, Prov. 31:6. 
 
 37 Prov. 7:26. 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 193 
 
 The sages’ lack of reticence in speaking of this 
 vice has been until recently at total variance with 
 modern ideas. Of late, however, a change of atti¬ 
 tude has been apparent. The advocacy of the 
 single standard of morality by such molders of 
 public opinion as Dr. Eliot; the popularizing of 
 the eugenic ideal; the formation of the American 
 Federation of Sex Hygiene; the publication of 
 pamphlets written by recognized leaders in the 
 practice of medicine under the auspices of such 
 an organization as the New York Sanitary and 
 Moral Prophylaxis Society; the report submitted 
 at the International Hygiene and Demography 
 Congress on a graded course in sex instruction; 
 and the work of the Bureau of Social Hygiene — 
 all these indicate that at last people are coming 
 to believe that the methods of the sages in dealing 
 with impurity were better than a false modesty 
 that tries to ignore one of the greatest social evils 
 of the modern, as well as of the ancient world. 
 The sages did far more than merely to point out 
 the prevalence of lust. They showed that the way 
 of sensuality is the way of death. The house of 
 the “ strange woman,” 
 
 ... is the way to the grave, 
 
 Going down to the chambers of death. 38 
 
 Never has what Milton called “ the sage and seri¬ 
 ous doctrine of virginity ” 39 been more effectively 
 
 38 Prov. 7:27. Cf. Prov. 5:5. 
 
 39 Comus, 11. 786, 787. 
 
194 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 set forth, not even in Comus, the most beautiful 
 eulogy of chastity to be found in modern litera¬ 
 ture. The “ wise ” saw the fatal effects of im¬ 
 purity both in the individual life, and in the life 
 of organized society. In the former, it inevitably 
 “ bringeth forth death 99 ; in the latter it no less 
 inevitably produces social disintegration. 40 These 
 conclusions of the sages, our ampler modern scien¬ 
 tific knowledge has simply reiterated and re-em¬ 
 phasized, till they are today coming to be recog¬ 
 nized as axiomatic. 
 
 By “ uprightness,” the sixth of the cardinal 
 virtues which the sages emphasized, they meant 
 righteousness. “ The high way of the upright,” 
 they said, 41 “ is to depart from evil.” In their 
 insistence upon righteousness as one of the cardi¬ 
 nal virtues, the “ wise ” were thoroughly in accord 
 with the prophets. They, like Micah in his sum¬ 
 mary of the teaching of the eighth century proph¬ 
 ets, 42 believed that righteousness, together with 
 mercy and humility, were the sum total of God’s 
 requirements. This righteousness, the sages, like 
 later theologians, believed was innate in our first 
 parents ; but that it was subsequently lost through 
 men’s inventive ingenuity. “ Behold this only 
 have I found, that God made man upright; but 
 they have sought out many inventions.” 43 The 
 attributing of man’s deterioration to his inventive 
 ingenuity seems strange, of course; but the sages 
 
 40 Job 31:12. 42 Micah 6:8. 
 
 41 Prov. 16:17. Cf. 13:6. 43 Eccles. 7:29. 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 195 
 
 regarded curiosity as a quality unmoral at best, 
 and often positively immoral. 44 
 
 Two theories regarding the progress of mankind 
 we owe to different races. One is that man was 
 originally created perfect, and that the whole 
 progress of what we call civilization is simply a 
 series of attempts on the part of the human race 
 to reinstate itself in the position of primitive dig¬ 
 nity from which, by reason of sin, it had fallen. 
 The other theory is that of progressive develop¬ 
 ment, according to which the race is thought of 
 as having been in its beginnings feeble and imper¬ 
 fect. From such feebleness and stupidity, civili¬ 
 zation at any given period simply represents the 
 degree of the race’s emergence. The history of 
 civilization, according to this theory, is the rec¬ 
 ord of the progress of the race from brutishness 
 toward the measure of the stature of the fulness 
 of human perfection. 
 
 Of these theories, the first was in origin 
 Hebraic; and has been, until comparatively recent 
 years, the universally accepted belief of Chris¬ 
 tendom. The other was the accepted theory of 
 the Greek and Roman world, 45 though it was 
 
 44 It will be recalled that the story of man’s fall, as told 
 in Genesis, represents man’s deterioration to have begun with 
 the eating of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. 
 The beginning of sin was, thus, closely connected with the 
 beginning of knowledge. The first step in civilization, the 
 adoption of clothing, was a direct eifect of the shame con¬ 
 sequent upon sin. See Genesis, 3:6, 7. 
 
 45 Man’s progress according to the Greek theory is de¬ 
 scribed by .ZEschylus in Prometheus Bound, 11. 450-514; 
 
196 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 often confused and contradicted by the poets, who 
 delighted to describe fancifully the glories of the 
 44 golden age 99 in the past. Though modern 
 science has shown that the Hebrew philosophy 
 of history presents an untenable theory, and has 
 proved that the Greek was far more scientific, the 
 fact remains that the religious thought of the 
 modern world has hitherto owed an incalculable 
 debt to the Hebrew theory of the original per¬ 
 fection of the race, and that this debt is in no small 
 part one of our obligations to the 44 wise.” 
 
 To some modern students, the emphasis that 
 the sages put upon the rather colorless and nega¬ 
 tive virtue of discretion seems out of proportion 
 to its real importance. To this ancient oriental 
 people, however, dignified and fitting speech, as an 
 
 and later by Diodorus Siculus, a prose writer of the 
 Augustan age, in his Bibliotheca, a history of the world in 
 forty books. In 1:8 of this work he says: “Men, as origi¬ 
 nally generated, lived in a confused and brutish condition, 
 preserving existence by feeding on herbs and fruits that grew 
 spontaneously. . . . Their speech was quite indistinct and 
 confused, but by degrees they invented articulate speech. 
 . . . They lived without any of the comforts and conveni¬ 
 ences of life, without clothing, without habitations, without 
 fire, and without cooked victuals; and not knowing to lay 
 up store for future need, great numbers of them died during 
 the winter from the effects of cold and starvation. By 
 which sad experience taught, they learned to lodge them¬ 
 selves in caves, and laid up stores there. By-and-by, they 
 discovered fire and other things pertaining to a comfortable 
 existence. The arts were then invented, and man became 
 in every respect such as a highly gifted animal might well 
 be, having hands and speech and a devising mind ever 
 present to work out his purposes.” 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 197 
 
 element of moral and intellectual culture, ap¬ 
 pealed to a degree that our modern, bustling, 
 work-a-day world seems little adapted to appre¬ 
 ciate — or to emulate. To the sages, discretion 
 of speech seemed a virtue worthy of the most ear¬ 
 nest emulation, and one deserving, therefore, 
 to occupy an important place in their list of the 
 seven virtues. Again and again they dwell upon 
 the power of discretion to preserve and dignify 
 its possessor. In Proverbs we are told, 
 
 Discretion shall preserve thee, 
 
 Understanding shall keep thee. 46 
 
 and again, 
 
 There is that pierceth like the piercing of a sword; 
 But the tongue of the wise is health. 47 
 
 We are assured that, 
 
 Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue 
 Keepeth his soul from troubles, 48 
 
 for 
 
 Death and life are in the power of the tongue. 49 
 
 The Epistle of James, Jesus’ younger brother, 
 is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the New 
 Testament books. As such it represents the clos¬ 
 est connecting link with the Old Testament. A 
 brief examination of the book reveals its kinship 
 with the older wisdom books. Like them, it is a 
 
 46 Prov. 2:11. Cf. Prov. 19:11. 48 Prov. 21:23. 
 
 47 Cf. Prov. 10:20; Prov. 15:4. 49 Prov, 18:21, 
 
198 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 manual of good sense, addressed, in this instance, 
 “ to the twelve tribes which are of the Disper¬ 
 sion.” Like the older wisdom books, the Epistle 
 of James is concerned with the upbuilding of char¬ 
 acter. It aims to set forth the character of 
 a Christian gentleman. In this attempt it, nat¬ 
 urally, connected the older wisdom teaching with 
 the new. Consequently, we are not surprised to 
 find the author selecting for especial emphasis the 
 virtue of self control in speech, which both the 
 earlier sages and Jesus after them 50 had so often 
 insisted upon. Through the apostolic populari¬ 
 zation of it this ancient ideal of self control in 
 speech became one of the ideals of Christendom. 
 But the fact that our modern ideals of reticence 
 and tactfulness in speech come to us so largely 
 through the medium of the New Testament, ought 
 not to blind us to the ultimate source of them in 
 the teaching of the sages. 51 Long before Jesus 
 affirmed that by their words men shall be justified; 
 and by their words, condemned, 52 and still longer 
 before St. James had noted that out of the same 
 mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing, 53 the 
 sages had declared, 
 
 Death and life are in the power of the tongue. 04 
 
 50 Matt. 5:22, and Matt. 12:36. 
 
 si See Prov. 4:24; 10:10, 19; 15:4; 17:20; 18:6, 7, 13; 
 Eccles. 10:12, 13. 
 
 52 Matt. 12:37. 
 
 53 James 3:10. 
 
 b 4 Prov. 18:21. 
 
OUR DEBT TO THE SAGES 199 
 
 St. James’ characterization of the new wisdom as 
 “ first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be in- 
 treated, full of mercy and good fruits, without 
 variance, without hypocrisy ” 55 is equally ap¬ 
 plicable to the old, for that, also, by its emphasis 
 upon faithfulness, industry, charity, temperate¬ 
 ness, chastity, uprightness, the control of the 
 tongue, had proved itself a “ wisdom from above.” 
 
 ss James 3:17. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE MESSAGE OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 MODERN WORLD 
 
 The crowning glory of the nineteenth century 
 was the rediscovery of the Old Testament. 
 Through this rediscovery, the message of Israel 
 to the world has been reiterated, and is gradually 
 becoming better known. We find it to be the an¬ 
 swer to three questions — Who is God ? What is 
 man? How are men to live wisely here on the 
 earth? The first question was answered by the 
 prophets. 44 The Lord our God is one Lord,” 
 they said, 1 and his attributes are justice 2 and 
 mercy. 3 The second question was answered by 
 the priests, who said, 44 God created man in his 
 own image.” 4 The third question was answered 
 by the prophets, who said man’s highest good was 
 to be attained by becoming God-like — by doing 
 justly, loving mercy, and by walking humbly with 
 God. 5 It was answered, also, by the priests, who 
 identified man’s duty with the keeping of the law, 
 
 1 Deut. 6:4. Deuteronomy, it will be remembered, was 
 written, either by a prophet, or under prophetic influence. 
 
 2 Amos. 
 
 3 Hosea. 
 
 4 Gen. 1:27. 
 
 6 Mic. 6:8. 
 
 200 
 
■ V 
 
 THE MESSAGE OF ISRAEL 201 
 
 summarized under the two precepts enjoining love 
 to God and man. 6 Again, this third question was 
 answered by the sages, who affirmed that the one 
 great concern of every man is to be right in heart 
 and life, for righteousness, they contended, is sal¬ 
 vation. 7 
 
 The message of Israel is, therefore, a three-fold 
 one, the product of the inspired thinking of three 
 classes of leaders — the prophets, the priests, and 
 the sages. These three classes of leaders were 
 unlike in their methods, and divergent in their 
 aims. The prophets were the idealists of the race. 
 Impatient of ritual, they looked upon the priests 
 with the contempt which the radical always feels 
 for the conservative, regarding them as reaction¬ 
 aries interested only in the past. Toward the fu¬ 
 ture, the prophets resolutely turned their faces, 
 looking forward to a coming golden age, when 
 righteousness and peace shall dwell in all the 
 earth. In contrast to the prophets, the priests 
 were the ritualists of Israel. To them the law was 
 an object of reverent regard, because the law was, 
 they believed, the best means of educating the 
 conscience of Israel, and of attaining social jus¬ 
 tice on the earth. To them the prophet with his 
 incorrigible idealism, seemed as sounding brass, 
 or a tinkling cymbal; for to them the prophet, 
 
 6 Deut. 10:12 and Lev. 19:17, 18. 
 
 7 See Abbott, Life and Literature of the Ancient Hebrews, 
 pp. 377-387, and Gladden, Who Wrote the Bible, pp. 360- 
 362. 
 
202 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 with his scant respect for ecclesiastical ceremony, 
 appeared to have repudiated the only means by 
 which the nation could secure the condition of 
 holiness to which both the prophet and the priest 
 desired to point the way. To the sage, both 
 prophet and priest seemed to have been misled 
 into blind alleys leading nowhither. To the sage, 
 the practical moralist, the only vital question was 
 how to live sanely and reverently in the present; 
 the only good worth seeking, the development of 
 the character of the individual. The individual 
 and not the nation was to the sage the matter of 
 chief concern. So they seem dissident — these 
 voices of prophet, priest, and sage; but the dissi- 
 dence is only apparent. In reality theirs were not 
 discordant voices; for together they constitute a 
 kind of choral harmony, which is the message of 
 Israel. 
 
 To Israel the debt of our modern world is sim¬ 
 ply beyond compute. Our obligation institution¬ 
 ally we may, indeed, calculate with some degree of 
 exactitude; but we cannot demonstrate accurately 
 the extent to- which our modern life is influenced 
 by Israel’s ideals. Our ideals of personal char¬ 
 acter are very largely those of the sages; our 
 visions of the kingdom of God on earth are those 
 of the prophets; our hopes of social justice are 
 those of the prophets and the priests. Whatever 
 there is in modern civilization that is making for 
 human fraternity; whatever religious aspiration 
 is calling men to a higher sense of duty; wherever 
 
THE MESSAGE OF ISRAEL 
 
 203 
 
 men and women are toiling to prove that humanity 
 is a great brotherhood; there we find men living, 
 acting, thinking, under the influence of these lead¬ 
 ers of Hebrew thought. 
 
 Simultaneously with a fuller and more sympa¬ 
 thetic knowledge of what these men stood for — 
 and, perhaps, in part because of it — has come 
 about a remarkable change of emphasis. That 
 the ideals of Christendom are rapidly changing is 
 an indisputable fact. That the new ideals are so¬ 
 cial, rather than individual, is equally beyond ques¬ 
 tion. 8 Whereas formerly the salvation of the in¬ 
 dividual soul for the future was the chief concern, 
 to-day the salvation of society for the present is 
 regarded as of the highest importance; and men 
 are content to leave the salvation of their individ¬ 
 ual souls to the merciful decision of 44 the Judge 
 of all the earth,” believing that He cannot but 
 44 do right.” 
 
 With such a change of emphasis, has come a 
 corresponding change of watchwords. Instead of 
 44 world-renunciation,” we hear much of 44 world- 
 consecration ” as the phrase best calculated to ex¬ 
 press the ideals of an age that is coming to believe, 
 with the Second-Isaiah, that God’s highest call is 
 the call to service. The ascetic ideal no longer 
 commands allegiance. Monastic vows, the hair 
 shirt, and flagellation no longer serve as expres¬ 
 sions of the piety of a generation that believes 
 
 s See J. H. Holmes, The Revolutionary Function of the 
 Modern Church, Chap. I. 
 
204 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 social justice in the present to be a more desira¬ 
 ble, as well as a more attainable goal to strive for 
 than future sainthood. In other words, the goal 
 toward which modern Christendom is striving is 
 not the saved individual, not even the church, but 
 a saved world. 
 
 Such an ideal finds expression in the longing 
 of the working class for industrial democracy. 
 In a paper read at the Baptist World Congress 
 at Philadelphia in the autumn of 1912 Professor 
 Walter Rauschenbusch of Rochester Theolog¬ 
 ical Seminary summed up the situation thus: 
 “ The great industrial working class, swiftly grow¬ 
 ing in numbers, strong in education and intelli¬ 
 gence, with the breath of democracy and self- 
 respect in its nostrils, knit together by organi¬ 
 zation, is confronting its older brother, the 
 business class, with a demand for a fairer share 
 in the proceeds of the common toil, in the manage¬ 
 ment of the common affairs, and in the enjoyment 
 of the light and vastness of modern knowledge and 
 culture. . . . Our age has outgrown our older 
 order. It is aching in its old organization and 
 straining for a new. . . . Several centuries ago, 
 society began to pass from the partiarchal, feudal, 
 despotic age into the new age of political democ¬ 
 racy and economic capitalism. It w T as a crisis 
 accomplished with untold suffering and immense 
 achievements of good. To-day we are once more 
 passing from capitalism to collectivism, from an 
 economic order based on special privilege and in- 
 
THE MESSAGE OF ISRAEL 205 
 
 dustrial autocracy to one based on equality of op¬ 
 portunity and industrial democracy. It will come 
 with travail and bloody sweat, but once more it 
 is the tread of destiny and it brings rich promise.” 
 Such an utterance as this of Professor Rausch- 
 enbusch is representative of the social temper of 
 our modern age — an age that is coming to believe 
 in a religion that does not merely look forward, 
 but that looks around and looks up, that no longer 
 distinguishes between this world as the domain of 
 Satan, and the next as the realm of God, but that 
 believes in the uniting of the present and the fu¬ 
 ture as component parts of the kingdom of God. 
 
 This attitude of mind is a return to the social 
 outlook of the prophets, priests, and sages of Is¬ 
 rael. Renan called the Jews the first socialists 
 of the world, and the designation is entirely just. 
 Every social movement of our day — every move¬ 
 ment of which the moving force is the demand for 
 social justice — is a return to the old plea of Isra¬ 
 el’s inspired leaders. “ Let judgment (justice) 
 roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty 
 stream! ” cried Amos in the eighth century B. C.; 9 
 and that demand finds a response in the heart of 
 every worker for the betterment of human society 
 — in the heart of the worker in the slums, of 
 those who, as members of the consumers’ league, 
 are trying to do away with the sweatshop, and to 
 prevent the employment of children in factories, 
 and of those who are trying to secure for the 
 9 Amos 5 &4>. 
 
206 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 great inarticulate army of the employed a living 
 wage — in short of all those who realize that no 
 man liveth to himself, and that no man dieth to 
 himself, and who- believe that the individual at¬ 
 tains the loftiest reach of human character w T hen 
 his life becomes a telling force in the upward striv¬ 
 ing of the society to which he belongs. 
 
 Little by little the ideals of ancient Israel are 
 becoming the ideals of the modern w r orld. Grad¬ 
 ually social justice and personal righteousness are 
 becoming, to a degree hitherto unknown, the ideals 
 of common men. When they do become, as 
 they seem destined to, the dominant spiritual pos¬ 
 session of our race, their transforming power will 
 inevitably bring about a realization more or less 
 complete of some of the hopes of ancient Israel. 
 That such a transformation will actually occur, 
 and that comparatively soon, is not a mere fancy. 
 Already the signs of a great moral awakening are 
 apparent. Within the last decade, America, at 
 least, has been swept, as the forests of the North 
 are annually swept with autumnal fires, by the 
 flame of a new zeal for righteousness. Never be¬ 
 fore in our national history has there been such a 
 longing for personal, municipal, and national 
 righteousness as that which has burned in men’s 
 hearts in recent years; and yet we see only the 
 beginning of a movement that will have as its cul¬ 
 mination at least a partial realization of the hope 
 of Israel for a time when “ righteousness shall 
 cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea.” An- 
 
THE MESSAGE OF ISRAEL 207 
 
 other result of this movement will be an ultimate 
 realization of the prophetic hope of universal 
 peace. That such a consummation is not to be 
 deferred to some far-off millennial time, but that 
 it is nearer than we have been accustomed to think, 
 there are significant indications. The growing 
 revolt against the brutality and waste of war — 
 a revolt that finds expression in the formation of 
 such societies as that of International Concilia¬ 
 tion, is, as Carlyle used to say, “ significant of 
 much.” It signifies that the time is not far dis¬ 
 tant when 44 they shall beat their swords into plow 
 shares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and 
 when the nations shall not learn war any more.” 
 
 Finally, this movement will result in a partial 
 realization of the dreams of Israel’s leaders of 
 the establishment of a better social order. The 
 amelioration of present evils will probably not be 
 brought about by the organization of new co¬ 
 operative commonwealths. Idealists who have at¬ 
 tempted through the planning of such utopias to 
 show what can be done with modern means of 
 production, have invariably been disillusioned, and 
 have accomplished nothing lasting. Nor will the 
 future improvement of the social order come 
 through compulsory co-operation in the form of 
 state socialism. Though it is possible for a peo¬ 
 ple, by electing administrative officers with power 
 to compel obedience, to force individuals to do 
 things that they would not voluntarily do, it is 
 unlikely that our social and economic problems 
 
208 OUR MODERN DEBT TO ISRAEL 
 
 will ever be solved in this way. Such a method 
 of self-coercion, involving, as it does, a kind of 
 self-imposed servitude is destined to become more 
 and more repellent to people who believe in the 
 spirit of modern democratic freedom. An im¬ 
 provement of the social order will come rather 
 through the popularization of the ideals of Israel, 
 till the principles of respect for life, and of a 
 sense of the brotherhood of man, of which the 
 work of prophet, priest, and sage was the expres¬ 
 sion, become the ruling motives in the lives of com¬ 
 mon men. Then, and not till then, shall we have 
 a long deferred realization of the ancient hope of 
 Israel of a “ holy ” people. 
 
 It is an attainable ideal. The exuberance of 
 the oriental imagery, with which the Hebrew poets 
 decked their thought, should not blind us to 
 fact that they did not look, any more than sens¬ 
 ible men do today, for the total disappearance 
 from the world of poverty, disease, and sin. The 
 poor we shall have always with us, as a result 
 of individual sloth and improvidence. The most 
 optimistic of modern scientists do not predict the 
 elimination of more than ninety per cent of exist¬ 
 ing disease. And few social reformers have much 
 faith in Herbert Spencer’s prediction that the 
 time will come when the voice of conscience will 
 no longer speak in men’s hearts, because the prac¬ 
 tice of virtue will become automatic. 10 They 
 
 10 Cited by J. H. Holmes, Revolutionary Function of the 
 
THE MESSAGE OF ISRAEL 209 
 
 would be more inclined to believe with the Hebrew 
 prophet 11 that the voice of conscience will, in 
 the future golden age, be more audible and more 
 effective. Sin, there will be, so long as human 
 nature remains what it is; but, though poverty, 
 disease, and sin will not wholly disappear, they 
 will at least be less clamorous problems than they 
 are today. Their measurable solution can be 
 secured only by one method — the religious 
 method advocated by Israel’s leaders — that of 
 social righteousness. 
 
 Modern Church, p. 255. See the concluding chapter of this 
 book. 
 
 n Isaiah 30:21. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 A SELECTED LIST OF BOOKS DEALING 
 WITH THE SUBJECT TREATED, AND 
 REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING 
 
 PAGES 
 
 Abbott, Lyman: Life and Literature of the Ancient 
 Hebrews. Boston, 1901. 
 
 Adam, James: The Vitality of Platonism. Cam¬ 
 bridge, 1911. 
 
 Addis, W. E.: Hebrew Religion. N. Y., 1906. 
 
 Adeney, W. F.: Song of Solomon and Lamentations. 
 N. Y., 1895. 
 
 Barker, Ernest: Political Thought of Plato and 
 Aristotle. N. Y., 1906. 
 
 Barton, G. A.: Ecclesiastes. (International Critical 
 Commentary.) N. Y., 1908. 
 
 Batten, L. W.: Hebrew Prophet. N. Y., 1905. 
 
 Beda, Venerabilis. Ecclesiastical History of Eng¬ 
 land. London, 1894. 
 
 Cambridge Companion to the Bible. Cambridge, 
 
 1899. 
 
 Cambridge History of English Literature. N. Y. & 
 London, 1910. 
 
 Catholic Encyclopaedia. N. Y., 1907-1912. 
 
 Chamberlin, Georgia L.: Hebrew Prophets. Chi¬ 
 cago, 1911. 
 
 213 
 
214 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Cheyne, T. K.: Hosea. London, 1899. 
 
 Jewish Religious Life after the Exile. London, 
 1901. 
 
 Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment. N. Y., 1887. 
 
 Micah. London, 1902. 
 
 Chotzner, J.: Hebrew Humour and other Essays. 
 London, 1905. 
 
 Conway, Moncure D.: Solomon and Solomonic Litera¬ 
 ture. Chicago, 1899. 
 
 Cornill, C. H.: Prophets of Israel. Chicago, 1901. 
 
 Davidson, A. B.: Ezekiel. London, 1906. 
 
 Old Testament Prophecy. Edinburgh, 1903. 
 
 Theology of the Old Testament. Edinburgh, 1904. 
 
 Job. London, 1899. 
 
 Davison, W. T.: Wisdom Literature of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment. London. 
 
 Day, Edward: Social Life of the Hebrews. N. Y., 
 1901. 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible: (James Hastings, Ed.). 
 N. Y., 1902-1907. 
 
 Driver, S. R.: Daniel. London, 1905. 
 
 Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment. N. Y., 1900. 
 
 Edersheim, Alfred: Life and Times of Jesus the 
 Messiah. 8th Ed. N. Y., 1905. 
 
 Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of 
 Christ. London. 
 
 Encyclopaedia Biblica (T. K. Cheyne, Ed.). Lon¬ 
 don, 1902. 
 
 Encyclopaedia of Religious Ethics (James Hastings, 
 Ed.). N. Y., 1908—. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 £15 
 
 Fairweather, W.: Pre-Exilic Prophets. London. 
 Farrar, F. W.: The Minor Prophets. N. Y. 
 
 Fisher, George P.: The Beginnings of Christianity. 
 N. Y., 1887. 
 
 History of Christian Doctrine. N. Y., 1904. 
 Fiske, A. K.: The Great Epic of Israel. N. Y., 1911. 
 Fowler, H. T.: History of the Literature of Ancient 
 Israel from the Earliest Times to 135 B. C. 
 Boston, 1912. 
 
 Gardiner, J. H.: The Bible as English Literature. 
 N. Y., 1907. 
 
 Garnett, Richard (editor): Republic of Plato in Ten 
 Books, translated from the Greek by H. Spens, 
 D. D. N. Y. 
 
 Genung, J. F.: The Epic of the Inner Life. Bos¬ 
 ton, 1891. 
 
 Hebrew Literature of Wisdom. Boston, 1906. 
 Gifford, E. H.: Voices of the Prophets. Edinburgh, 
 1874. 
 
 Gigot, E. E.: General Introduction to the Study of 
 the Scriptures. London, 1900. 
 
 Gladden, Washington: The Prophets as Statesmen 
 and Preachers. N. Y., 1904. 
 
 Seven Puzzling Bible Books. Boston, 1897- 
 Green, J. R.: Short History of the English People. 
 N. Y., 1887. 
 
 Harper, J. W.: Post-Exilic Prophets. London. 
 Harper, W. R.: Amos and Hosea (International Crit¬ 
 ical Commentary). N. Y., 1905. 
 
 Constructive Studies in the Prophetic Element in 
 the Old Testament. Chicago, 1905. 
 
216 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Priestly Element in the Old Testament. Chicago, 
 
 1905. 
 
 Holmes, J. H.: Revolutionary Function of the Mod¬ 
 ern Church. N. Y., 1912. 
 
 Horton, R. F.: Book of Proverbs (Expositor’s Bible 
 Series). N. Y., 1902. 
 
 Jewish Encyclopaedia (Cyrus Adler, Ed.). Phila¬ 
 delphia, 1901. 
 
 Josephus, Flavius: Works. London, 1737. 
 
 Keeble, Samuel E.: Social Teaching of the Bible. 
 N. Y., 1909. 
 
 Kent, C. F.: Origin and Permanent Value of the Old 
 Testament. N. Y., 1906. 
 
 Kirkpatrick, A. F.: Doctrine of the Prophets. N. Y., 
 
 1906. 
 
 Leage, R.: Roman Private Law. London, 1906. 
 Lowth, Robert.: De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelec- 
 tiones Academicae. London, 1753. 
 
 Maine, Henry J.: Ancient Law. London, 1906. 
 Marti, Karl: Religion of the Old Testament. 
 N. Y., 1907. 
 
 McCurdy, J. F.: History, Prophecy and the Monu¬ 
 ments. New York, 1898. 
 
 Milman, H. H.: History of the Jews, two vols. Lon¬ 
 don, 1829. 
 
 Montefiore, C. G.: Hibbert Lectures. 1892. Lon¬ 
 don, 1897. 
 
 Moore, G. F.: Literature of the Old Testament. 
 New York, 1913. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 217 
 
 Moulton, R. G.: Literary Study of the Bible. Bos¬ 
 ton, 1908. 
 
 Modern Reader’s Bible. N. Y., 1907. 
 
 Short Introduction to the Literature of the Old 
 Testament. Boston, 1901. 
 
 Nettleship, Rich. Lewis: Lectures on the Republic of 
 Plato. London, 1901. 
 
 Orelli, C. von: Old Testament Prophecy. Edin¬ 
 burgh, 1885. 
 
 Pater, Walter: Plato and Platonism. London, 1910. 
 
 Perowne, T. T.: Proverbs (Cambridge Bible Series). 
 London, 1899. 
 
 Petavel, J. W.: The Coming Triumph of Christian 
 Civilization. London, 1911. 
 
 Plumptre, E. H.: Ecclesiastes (Cambridge Bible Se¬ 
 ries). London, 1898. 
 
 Pohlman, Robert: Geschichte des Antiken Kommun- 
 ismus und Sozialismus. Munich, 1901. 
 
 Pressense, Edmond: Early Years of Christianity. 
 N. Y., 1870. 
 
 Rauschenbusch, Walter: Christianity and the Social 
 Crisis. N. Y., 1908. 
 
 Renan, Ernest: Book of Job. London, 1889. 
 
 Robertson, James: Early Religion of Israel (Baird 
 Lectures, 1889). Edinburgh, 1892. 
 
 Sanders, F. K.: Messages of the Earlier Prophets. 
 
 Kent, C. F.: N. Y., 1907. 
 
 Messages of Israel’s Lawgivers. N. Y., 1907. 
 
 Historical and Critical Contributions to Biblical 
 Science. N. Y., 1902. 
 
218 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 SchafF, Philip: History of the Apostolic Church. 
 N. Y., 1867. 
 
 Schaff-Herzog: Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowl¬ 
 edge. N. Y., 1908-1912. 
 
 Schlaraffia Politica. Leipzig, 1832. 
 
 Schlechter, S.: Studies in Judaism. London, 1896. 
 
 Sime, James: Samuel and the Schools of the Proph¬ 
 ets. London. 
 
 Skinner, J.: Isaiah I-XXXIX (Cambridge Bible Se¬ 
 ries). London, 1909. 
 
 Isaiah XL-LXVI (Cambridge Bible Series). Lon¬ 
 don, 1910. 
 
 Smith, G. A.: Book of the Twelve Prophets (Ex¬ 
 positor’s Bible Series). N. Y., 1906. 
 
 Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old 
 Testament. N. Y., 1902. 
 
 Smith, J. M.: Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habak- 
 
 Ward, W. H.: kuk, Obadiah & Joel (Interna- 
 
 Brewer, J. A.: tional Critical Commentary). 
 
 N. Y., 1911. 
 
 Smith, S. G.: Religion in the Making. N. Y., 1910. 
 
 Smith, W. R.: Prophets of Israel. London, 1902. 
 
 Religion of the Semites. London, 1901. 
 
 Spencer, F. E.: A Short Introduction to the Old 
 Testament. London, 1912. 
 
 Todd, J. C.: Politics and Religion in Ancient Israel. 
 N. Y., 1904. 
 
 Toy, Crawford H.: Judaism and Christianity. Bos¬ 
 ton, 1892. 
 
 Proverbs (International Critical Commentary). 
 N. Y., 1899. 
 
 Trumbull, H. C.: The Blood Covenant. Philadel¬ 
 phia, 1893. (Ed. 2.) 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 219 
 
 Uhlhorn, J. G. W„: Conflict of Christianity with 
 Heathenism. N. Y., 1906. 
 
 Voyages Imaginaires, Songes, Visions, et Romans 
 Cabalistiques. 37 Vols. Paris, 1727. 
 
 Wines, E. C.: Commentaries on the Laws of the An¬ 
 cient Hebrews. Philadelphia, 1853. 
 
y