« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
been sometimes represented, that no offerings were brought because they were providentially hindered from doing so, since the temple was destroyed, its services were suspended, and the people were in exile. This would not prevent them from calling upon God, which they are here reproved for not doing. Nor could they have been censured for not bringing sacrifices, when it was out of their power to do it.
Again, in lxvi. 1-3, sentence is passed on those who place their dependence upon the material temple and the outward ceremonial. “ The heaven is My throne and earth is My footstool; what manner of house will ye build unto Me? and what place shall be My rest? .... He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man ; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as he that breaketh a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as he that offereth swine's blood; he that burneth frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol.” The prophet is not here combating a hypothetical case or dealing with the general truth of the worthlessness of sacrifices at a time when it was impossible to offer them, but is denouncing an actual class of transgressors, whose punishment still lies in the future, as is shown by what immediately follows: “ Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations; I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them.”
The existence of the temple is not only presupposed in the passages already cited, but in others as well. Thus, in lxvi. 6, a retribution inflicted by the Lord dwelling in Jerusalem and in the temple is thus described : “A voice of tumult from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of Jehovah that rendereth recompense to His enemies." And the regular observance of the temple ritual is implied in lxvi. 20: “They shall bring all your brethren out of all the nations for an offering unto Jehovah ... to My holy mountain Jerusalem as the children of Israel bring” (the verb is a frequentative future, habitually bring) “ their offerings in a clean vessel into the house of Jehovah.”
So again, lxv. 11: "Ye that forsake Jehovah, that forget My holy mountain, that prepare a table for Fortune, and that fill up mingled wine unto Destiny; I will destine you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter.” Here the people are reproached for forsaking the worship of the temple, and the penalty for their transgression lies in the future. The temple was, therefore, standing, and the Exile had not yet begun.
The people are still further charged with seeking the aid of foreign monarchs, instead of putting their trust in God alone; the very charge which Isaiah brought against Ahaz, and which he again brought against the people in the time of Hezekiah, when they were bent upon concluding an alliance with Egypt. Hosea describes like embassies from the Ten Tribes in similar terms (xii. 1). Such negotiations necessarily imply the continued existence of the kingdom of Judah, and would be impossible in the Exile. And that it was still the period of God's forbearance, and His judgment had not yet come upon them, is implied in the words that immediately follow the passage cited (lvii. 11): "Have not I held My peace even of long time, and thou fearest Me not?”
That the judgment had not yet been inflicted, but was impending and future, is also implied (lvi. 9—lvii. 2) in the summons to their foreign foes under the emblem of wild beasts to devour the helpless flock, whose watchmen are blind, whose watchdogs are dumb and cannot bark, and whose senseless shepherds are intent only upon gain and pleasure, while the righteous perish and merciful men are taken away, entering into peace and resting in their beds, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.
The repeated mention of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (xl. 2, 9), and the
glad announcements made to them, seem more naturally to suggest the cities themselves than their ruined walls or their inhabitants in exile. That Lebanon should be chosen by way of illustration when a mountain is spoken of (xl. 16), seems to point to a writer in Palestine ; and Hephzi-bah, the name of Hezekiah's queen (2 Kings xxi. 1), applied to Jerusalem (Isa. Ixii. 4), seems to point to a writer of the time of Isaiah. These evident points of connection with Palestine and pre-Exilic times led Ewald to suppose that certain paragraphs written before the Exile had been interpolated in these chapters.
Dr. Driver argues that “the unity of the prophet's work requires it to be accommodated"
" " to the situation of the exiles.” The sins here charged "might form to Isaiah, as they formed to Jeremiah, the ground for an announcement of impending exile; they can in themselves have no bearing on the future of the exiles more than a century afterwards." In opposition to this it must be said—(1) That this prophecy was not designed exclusively for the benefit of the exiles to the disregard of the prophet's contemporaries. (2) That, so far as we know, it had not been revealed to Isaiah, and he had no reason to expect, that the Exile would not take place for more than a century. Assurance had been given that the judgment would not be sent during the life of Hezekiah (xxxix. 8), to whom fifteen additional years were promised after his sickness. This leaves no great chasm, in the prophet's mind, between the men of his own generation and the exiles.
The only way to unify this great prophecy, without putting force upon any of its constituents, is to admit that the prophet, while chiefly immersed in the thought of the fearful calamity which impended over Judah and Jerusalem and in that of the coming deliverance, nevertheless betrays from time to time the state of things existing around him. He never depicts in any detail the situation or surroundings of the exiles. He mentions no locality or incident which associates him personally with the Exile. But every now and then occur expressions which betray a Palestinian and preExilic environment, and show what the actual position of the writer was.
4. There is another important series of passages which lead to the same conclusion. In numerous paragraphs, some of them of considerable length, the prophet combats the folly and absurdity of idolatry, showing the absolute impotence of idols which are manufactured of ordinary materials and by common workmen, and cannot so much as stand or move without assistance, and cannot help or protect themselves, much less their worshippers (xl. 18-20; xli. 6, 7, 23, 24; xlii. 8, 17; xliv. 9-20; xlv. 16, 20; xlvi. 1, 2, 5-7).
In other passages the idolatry prevalent among the people is more directly described, which they practised upon high and lofty mountains, and under every green tree, sacrificing children in the valleys under the clefts of the rocks (lvii. 5-7); sacrificing in gardens and burning incense upon bricks, sitting among the graves, lodging in caves, eating swine's flesh and broth of abominable things (lxv. 3, 4; lxvi. 17), perpetuating thus the iniquities of their fathers (lxv. 7). There is plain reference here to the Moloch abomination practised in the valley of Hinnom and to places frequented for idolatrous purposes in the land of Canaan, and to rites introduced from Egypt. All this, it is well known, existed before the Exile, when both historians and prophets bear testimony to the strange fascination by which Israel was perpetually inclined to borrow the practices of the pagan nations around them. But the uniform testimony of the Exilic and post-Exilic writers is that this spell was broken by the Exile. Of the continuance of these practices by the exiles there is no proof whatever.
5. Yet another series of passages, still more decisive of the pre-Exilic origin of
these chapters than any yet adduced, argues the exclusive deity of Jehovah as opposed to all idol gods from His omniscience in predicting these events, and His omnipotence in bringing them to pass. The stress which the prophet lays upon this argument is evident from the frequency and the emphasis with which he recurs to it. The nations are formally summoned to a majestic trial, in which the respective claims of Jehovah and of the idols to Godhead are to be decided (xli. 1, 21-29). The idols have been tried, and have been found wanting. Jehovah now brings forward His side in this great argument. He has raised up the Conqueror to overthrow Babylon, and to deliver His people agreeably to ancient predictions. “ I have raised up one from the north, and he is come: from the rising of the sun one that calleth upon My name : and he shall come upon rulers” (the word is especially used of Babylonish rulers) "as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay.” Now who, he asks with the confidence that there can be only one answer—who predicted this long before it took place ? “Who hath declared it from the beginning, that we may know ? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous ? " i.e., he has gained his case; the verdict must be rendered in his favour. The answer is self-evident, and no formal reply is needed any more than to the question (xl. 12), Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand ? None but Jehovah has predicted this in advance.
Here is an explicit claim of having predicted the coming and the work of Cyrus long in advance. Jehovah predicted it, and Jehovah brought it to pass in accordance with the prediction. The idol deities had not foretold it nor uttered a word on the subject. Jehovah's claim to be the one only true God is rested on this fact, while the idols are denounced as utter nothingness. Now, if the prophet by whom all this was spoken lived at the time that the critics indicate, near the close of the Exile; if he merely announced what was already obvious to sagacious observers; if he did not speak of Cyrus until Cyrus had actually made his appearance; nor of his march upon Babylon until his armies began to move in that direction; such language is altogether unaccountable. There is no escape from the conclusion that, even if the author of this prophecy lived in the Exile, he intended to make the impression that his prediction had been in existence long before, and he gave it out as an ancient prediction, such as the omniscient God, who knew the end from the beginning, alone could have uttered. It is self-contradictory to say that a writer represents these events as taking place around him, and that his historical position is to be determined accordingly, while, at the same time, he alleges the mention of them as evidence of Divine prescience.
Dr. Driver affirms that the predictions here referred to are not those contained in the prophecy itself, but previous predictions already fulfilled, which are urged as a reason why the new announcements now made of the capture of Babylon by Cyrus and the release of the Jews should be believed. Cyrus is alluded to as already stirred up when the prophecy opens. The prophet introduces Cyrus as known, and only claims foreknowledge of what he will do.
But this view is not consistent with the passage already considered, and less still with others that are yet to come before us. It is of the stirring up of Cyrus, as well as his trampling down the princes of Babylon, that the question is triumphantly asked, Who hath declared it from the beginning ? i.e., from a very ancient time (cf. xl. 21; xli. 4; xlviii. 16). The appearance of Cyrus is always spoken of in the preterite for a very obvious reason. While in his appeal to former prophecies Isaiah may include those previously delivered which had already been accomplished, his main concern is with those which he is now uttering. And he makes his confident appeal to those who shall witness their incipent fulfilment. When Cyrus had actually appeared, as here predicted, the prophecy was proved to be indeed from God, and no doubt could remain as to the fulfilment of the rest.
As represented by the prophet, it was a contest between Jehovah and the gods of Babylon, just as the miracles of the days of Moses were the signs of the contest between Jehovah and the gods of Egypt. The absolute superiority of Jehovah was to be demonstrated in the one case on the score of His omniscience, as in the other on the score of His omnipotence. The prophet's announcements are made before there were any external indications of their occurrence.
In xliii. 9-12 the prophet reverts to the same theme. He sends out once more his universal challenge to all nations. “Who among them can declare this, and shew us former things ? let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified. Ye are My witnesses, saith Jehovah. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have shewed, and there was no strange god among you. Therefore, ye are My witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.” The people knew and could testify that these predictions had been uttered under circumstances which put their Divinity beyond question.
In xlv. 3, 4, stress is laid upon the fact that he called Cyrus by his name. What was there remarkable in Cyrus being called by his name? Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh-hophra are called by their names in prophecies by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But if Cyrus was yet unheard of and unborn, it was indeed a signal instance of prediction. Similar passages to those already cited are found in xlv. 21 ; xlvi. 9-11; xlviii. 5-7, 16, all dwelling upon the proof furnished by these remarkable predictions that Jehovah alone is God.
6. The critical inference that the chapters now under consideration belong to the period of the Exile labours under an additional difficulty. It is chargeable with the mistake of confusing the ideal with the actual present. The prophets not infrequently transport themselves into the midst of the scenes which they are describing, and speak of the future as though it were present or even past. Thus, in the burden upon Tyre, in chap. xxiii., the prophet speaks throughout as though Tyre had already been taken, and he looks forward from this ideal position over the seventy years of depression and subsequent revival that are to follow. Commonly, such passages are brief, and the prophet soon returns again to his true position. The only thing peculiar about the chapters now under consideration is that the prophet maintains his ideal position in the Exile through such long, continuous passages as he does. But there is in chap. xxiv.-xxvii. a similar example, in which the ideal position of the prophet differs from the actual throughout.
In the chapters before us the prophet does not maintain the same ideal position without change. Commonly, he speaks as if from the midst of calamity and suffering, and looks forward to the fall of Babylon and the deliverance of the exiles, But sometimes he speaks as though Babylon had already fallen and the period of full deliverance had already come. Thus, at the very outset (xl. 2) : “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.” So, in xlvi. 1, 2, the gods of Babylon are spoken of as already captured and laden as beasts of burden for transportation at the will of the conqueror. And, li. 3: “ Jehovah hath comforted Zion; He hath comforted all her waste places, and hath made her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of Jehovah.” In chap. liii. he takes his position between the humiliation and the glory of the Messiah; the former is described as past; the latter as future. And we have already seen that in other passages his true historical position betrays itself in his language.
The prophet might very well take for granted the existence of the Exile, which he had previously predicted, and which his contemporary, (Micah iv. 10) had predicted likewise. And it would be contrary to the analogy of all his previous predictions if he had announced so great a calamity as the coming Exile and foretold no deliverance from it.
It is, of course, impossible to treat exhaustively so large a subject as the genuineness of chaps. xl.-Ixvi. in the compass of a single article. We have not aimed to present it in all its aspects, nor to adduce all the arguments which can be urged. We have confined our remarks to the chief critical objection, to which all others are subordinate, viz., that these chapters throughout make the impression that they were written in the Exile.
A GERMAN CRITIC ON DR. CHEYNE'S BAMPTON LECTURE. Dr. E. KAUTZSCH (Theol. Stüd. u. Krit., 1892, Third Part).—Professor Kautzsch, who is an eminent Hebraist, occupies much the same critical position as Dr. Cheyne, and has passed through a similar development. For this reason some parts of his criticism are all the more significant. After mentioning the fame which the English professor enjoys in Germany, Dr. Kautzsch emphasizes two favourable points in his works: first, that he limits his studies to what is important and essential, not losing himself in endless details, as too many German writers do; and secondly, his positive theological beliefs, which greatly increase his influence. He then gives a very clear and succinct account, both of the preface and the several lectures. As is well known, Cheyne confidently assigns nearly all the psalms of the third and fourth books to the Maccabean period. As to the thirteen under the heading “David,” the title was merely meant to give a certain Davidic flavour to the last book, or, laying aside figure, to stamp it with the character of the two earlier books. The majority of the psalms in the second and third books are pre-Maccabean, others, however, still belonging to Maccabean times. Even the first book contains some Maccabean psalms. All that the author will concede is the existence of Davidic or Solomonic elements, though disguised and combined with others. Perhaps a Davidic element exists in Ps. xviii. and lx." Possibly the composition of psalms was influenced by another great poet, some time after David.” “Ps. ii. formed probably the preface to the • Davidic Psalter,' and arises from the pre- Maccabean Greek age; Ps. i., on the other hand, was, perhaps, the introduction to a larger pre- Maccabean Psalm-book, which embodied in itself the former smaller one.” Dr. Kautzsch then outlines the author's views of the “personification-theory," and the theology of the Psalter. After un. qualified commendation and unstinted praise, the critic makes it very clear that he can. not go the extreme length of Dr. Cheyne's conclusions. We will translate his words.
“Despite all this, an important question remains, to which greater interest attaches than seems to have been recently conceded to it. Has Cheyne succeeded in proving that-with, perhaps, the exception of single phrases and sentences and of Ps. xviii. (which with great reserve is put in Josiah's days)-all the psalms were not merely brought together in collections, but also composed first in post-Exilic days, and, if we rightly understand Cheyne, almost without exception for purposes of worship? That in fitting particular psalms into the Church's psalter the editor's