spectacle of aliens who had been brought into the territory of Northern Israel from other parts of the Semitic world, whose mishpat (like that of the Amorites) was contrary to the ancient usages of the Yahweh cult (II Kings 17:24-41). History was always doing something to open the eyes of the prophets; and this object-lesson could not fail to be impressive and enlightening.' The Deuteronomic attitude toward the Amorites had a marked influence on the prophet Ezekiel, who wrote in Babylonia during the Captivity: "Cause Jerusalem to know her abominations." "Thine origin and thy nativity is of the land of the Canaanite. The Amorite was thy father" (16:2-3,45). Israel did not do after the mishpat of Yahweh, but after that of the nations round about (11:12); and because they did not execute the mishpat of Yahweh, he gave the people mishpat wherein they could not live (20:24, 25). Continuing our quest for the Deuteronomic idea, we turn from Ezekiel to the "Code of Holiness" which composes the central part of the Book of Leviticus (chaps. 17-26). Here we find the same tone: Israel shall not do after the doings of the land of Canaan. They shall not walk in the statutes (ḥukkoth) of the former inhabitants. Yahweh (Lev. 18:3-5). But they shall do the mishpat of go far back into the nomadic era, and picture Yahweh telling 'Exception may be taken to this example on the ground that mishpat in this passage refers only to ritual usages. But the notice explicitly states that the imported aliens continued to worship other gods along with Yahweh (vss. 29, 30), and that they did not keep the ḥukkim (masculine plural of hok, usually ḥukkoth), the mishpatim, the torah, and the miswah of Yahweh (vs. 37). Even on the surface, then, this case embodies vastly more than a mere contrast in ritual usages; and we should be entitled to infer as much in the very nature of the situation. 2 The "abominations" of the Amorites cannot be viewed as restricted to sexual impurity by the biblical writers, although this form of sin is included with the rest, as one which develops with excessive wealth. The Book of Leviticus itself, which puts the mishpat of Yahweh over against that of the Amorites in such a broad and general way, is careful to show that the law of Yahweh includes all that the pre-exilic prophets had in view (Lev. 19:13-15; 25:35-41). In order to avoid overloading the text, we have omitted the sex problem from the argument. the patriarch Abraham that his posterity shall inherit the land of Canaan when the iniquity of the Amorite is full (Gen. 15:16). In due time, Yahweh redeems his promise; and the Amorites are said to have been utterly swept away (Josh. 10:40-42; 11:16-19, 23; 21:43, 44). Thus the conception at length emerged into view that the struggle which convulsed the Hebrew nation throughout its entire history was a dramatic warfare conducted by Yahweh himself against the law and morals identified with the former inhabitants of Canaan. The editorial point of departure in the making of the Old Testament is condemnation of the Hebrews for walking after "the iniquity of the Amorite."-In our study of the making of the Old Testament, we learned in the first place, that the Hebrew Bible was arranged by writers and editors who were not contemporary with the events described, and who made use of many earlier documents which they inherited from their forefathers. In the second place, we saw that their object, or purpose, in all this literary activity was a moral one. The writers of the Bible were sitting in judgment on history, and uttering moral verdicts on the past. We are now prepared to see that the men who gave us the Old Testament did not state their moral views primarily in a general, or abstract, way. Their ideas were formed on the basis of the actual experience through which the Hebrews had slowly passed in the long course of their social-religious development. The editorial point of departure in the making of Scripture is condemnation of the Hebrews for adopting Amorite law and morals.' The priestly documents, which are still later than the Deuteronomic parts of the Old Testament, are preoccupied with matters of ritual and cognate questions. Hence they do not discuss the Amorites, who are sufficiently treated of by their predecessors. Yet the Deuteronomic attitude toward the former inhabitants (like the law of the central sanctuary) is implied in the priestly documents as part of the foundation upon which they build. The priestly ritual is ordained for the protection and conservation of the prophetic work. CHAPTER XX RELIGIOUS EFFECT OF THE EXILE The Babylonian Exile completed the destruction of Hebrew nationality. The ruin of Jerusalem was the climax of Hebrew misfortune. The prostration of the Southern Kingdom brought into awful relief the fact of Hebrew annihilation; for the kingdom of Ephraim had been already swept away. The maelstrom of world-history had swallowed the north Israelites; and now, far away in Babylonia, the exiles from Judah beheld with amazement the manners and customs of a strange land. The modern reader can best picture to himself the effect of these things upon the Hebrew mind by putting himself in the place of the exiles, and imagining his own feelings if his native country were called upon to go through a similar experience. "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. Upon the willows in the midst thereof we hanged up our harps. For there they that led us captive required of us words of song. . . . . .. How shall we sing Yahweh's song in a strange land?" (Ps. 137:1-4). This plaintive wail has come down to us through the ages from the distant exilic time; and while it is quite familiar, we do not often pause to think of the circumstances that inspired it and the heart throbs that are in it. The Captivity was the utter prostration of Israel. "We are clean cut off. Our transgressions and our sins are upon us; and we pine away in them. How then can we live? Our bones are dried up; and our hope is lost" (Ezek. 33:10; 37:11). No social organization remained in which Hebrew life and thought could express itself. The people were humbled in the dust. The walls of Jerusalem were broken down. The city was destroyed. The Temple of Yahweh stood in ruins. "Zion is become a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation!" exclaimed a writer in the Exile. "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire; and all our pleasant places are laid waste” (Isa. 64:10-11).1 The Exile was an important factor in the conversion of the Hebrews from polytheism to monotheism. We can hardly overestimate the importance of the Captivity in the development of Bible religion. The destruction of Hebrew nationality was a vindication of the great insurgent prophets who had agonized and suffered in the long centuries before the Exile. Baal-worship had been at length identified with all that the great prophets abhorred; and as the captives marched across the desert, the words of Jeremiah rang ever more loudly in their ears: "Baalism brings evil to Israel!" In the light of this thought the Hebrews learned to take the calamity of the Exile as a vindication of the prophets. And the same events that justified one school of prophecy discredited the opposing school. "Where now are your prophets that prophesied unto you, saying, The king of Babylon shall not come against you, nor against this land?" (Jer. 37:19). The prophets who taught the people to swear by the name of Baal, and who said, "Peace, peace; no evil shall come upon us"-these men were forever silenced by the majestic march of history. "Thy prophets have seen for thee false and foolish visions; and they have not uncovered thine iniquity to bring back thy captivity, but have seen for thee false oracles and causes of banishment" (Lam. 2:14). Thus the "regular" prophets came to be branded as "false," while Amos and his class rose to the dignity of "true" prophets. Through these heart-shattering experiences, the Baals and all other gods beside Yahweh were at last thrown aside; and the exclusive worship of the one morally "true" God gained its victorious ascendency over the Hebrew mind. 'This passage comes from the late exilic, or post-exilic, part of the Book of Isaiah (chaps. 40-66). The exiles were not carried away all at once, but in two bands, and at two different times about ten years apart. When the first band was deported, the city of Jerusalem was left as yet untouched, under a native king, Zedekiah, who reigned by appointment of the Babylonians (II Kings, chap. 24). In this first band of captives there was a man who was destined to become famous, the prophet Ezekiel. When Ezekiel began to prophesy to the captives in Babylonia, the city of Jerusalem was yet standing; and the last great calamity had not fallen on the home land. The earlier part of the Book of Ezekiel has much to say about the wickedness and the impending destruction of Jerusalem. This remarkable prophet of the Captivity condemns the same sins against which the insurgent prophets declaimed-injustice and polytheism (Ezek. 22:1-10; 8:1-17.) The capital must soon fall. The God of righteousness and purity can abide no longer in the corrupt city of Jerusalem. This thought is emphasized with startling effect in Ezekiel's awful vision of Yahweh in a terrible fiery chariot (Ezek. 1:4 ff.). The "Glory of Yahweh" is outraged by the abominations committed in its presence at the Temple of Jerusalem. The climax comes when the dreadful chariot rises grandly from the city, emitting thunders and lightnings, and forsakes the Holy Land! Ezekiel's peculiar vision enforced the moral lesson of Israel's history (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-24). Other prophets opposed him; but he warned the people against them. At last the Babylonian king laid siege to Jerusalem and ruined the city. Ezekiel was vindicated and the other prophets were silenced (II Kings, chap. 25; Ezek., chap. 13; cf. 24:1). The Captivity gave the religion of the Hebrews a worldperspective. The prophets before the Exile were so much taken up with questions close at hand that they did not spend much time upon the broader problem of Hebrew history as a whole. The question as to the meaning of Israel's experience, and the |