The Books of the Early Prophets.

1. Amos. The message with which the prophet Amos was charged, was a terrific denunciation of the immoralities then prevalent in Israel, Judah and the surrounding peoples. As we have seen in reviewing the arguments of the adverse critics, he also very severely denounced the sacrifices and offerings which Israel presented at the altars of Bethel, Gilgal, Dan and Beer-sheba, under the hypocritical pretense that these covered the multitude of the people's sins. But further than this it could hardly be expected that such a message would deal with questions of ritual. Yet the book is not without positive evidence that both the prophet, and the people of the ten tribes whom he addressed, were acquainted with the law of Moses Avhich the latter were so grossly violating.  

(1) In the opening cry of the prophet, he exclaims: "Jehovah shall roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem" (i. 2). This shows that Jerusalem was the recognized center of Jehovah's presence and his worship. It was so in opposition to the centers for calf-worship which had been established in Israel; for, with direct reference to this cry, the prophet says in v. 4-6: "For thus saith Jehovah to the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live: but seek not Beth-el, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beer-sheba: for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Beth-el shall come to nought. Seek ye Johovah, and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and it devour and there be none to quench it in Beth-el." Here it is made unmistakable that those who would seek Jehovah were to turn away from Beth-el, Gilgal and Beer-sheba, and find Jehovah in Jerusalem, whence his voice was roaring through the mouth of Amos. What plainer evidence could one wish that the Deuteronomic law was, contrary to the voice of all destructive critics, already known, and that Jerusalem was the only appointed place where Jehovah could be found to accept the sacrifices of his people? This was a century and a half before the date assigned by these critics. to Deuteronomy.  

(2) With one voice these critics insist that "the law'' in the lips of the early prophets never 'means the law of Moses, but the teaching (Hebrew, torah) of the prophets. Wellhausen says:  

By the law of Jehovah which the people of Judah have despised, it Is impossible that Amos could have understood anything in the remotest degree resembling a ritual legislation (Prol., 56).

The passage to which he here has allusion furnishes a complete test of the truth of this reckless assertion. It is this: "For three transgressions of Judah, yea, for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have rejected the law of Jehovah, and have not kept his statutes, and their lies have caused them to err, after the which their fathers did walk" (ii. 4). Now, Amos was himself the first of the writing prophets, and he was preceded only by Elijah and Elisha, who wrote no law, gave no statutes, and who spoke to Israel and not to Judah. Where, then, is the law of Jehovah which Judah had rejected, the statutes of Jehovah which they had not kept, and. which their fathers had dealt with in the same way? They vanish into thin air with the theory which would thus falsify the meaning of words. The words of Amos imply of necessity that there was a law of Jehovah, statutes of Jehovah, which had preceded the prophets, and which had been disregarded by the people of Judah for generations past. How completely blinded by a preconception must Wellhausen have been not to have seen that he was using this passage to teach the opposite of what it implies! And how completely he has pulled the wool over the eyes of such men as Robertson Smith, Driver, Cheyne, and others, that they should not have seen the trap into which he has led them. But "critical views" have become traditional.  

(3) There are several allusions in Amos which show that he was acquainted with the strictly ritual or Levitical law as well as with that of Deuteronomy. He shows an acquaintance with the sixth chapter of Numbers by saving: "I raised up of your sons for prophets, and of your young men for Nazirites. . . . But ye gave the Nazirites wine to drink" (ii. 11, 12). The word "Nazirite" is not found in any writing which these critics ascribe to a date earlier than Amos, except in the story of Samson (Judg. xiii. 5, 7; xvi. 17); and in this story there is not a hint that it was wrong for a Nazirite to drink wine. Moreover, this story, according to the critics, was first written about the time of Amos by J, and it could not have had the force of a law. But both Amos and the people of Israel knew full well that it was unlawful for a Nazirite to drink wine, or for another to give him wine to drink, and there is no source from which they could have obtained such information except this passage in Numbers.  

He shows a knowledge of Lev. vii. 13, by saying of the worshipers of Bethel and Gilgal that they "offer [by burning, margin] a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened" (iv. 5). What could Amos or these worshipers have known about any connection of leavened bread with the thank-offering, had not the Levitical law already forbidden the burning of leaven upon the altar (Lev. ii. 11), but permitted the presentation of leavened bread with the thank-offering because it was given to the priest and none of it was to be burned? (Lev. viu 9, 10). The passage shows that with all their aberrations from the Levitical law, these worshipers were acquainted with it; for otherwise they could not be rebuked for this violation of it. Wellhausen seeks to evade the force of this evidence by asserting that the law forbidding the burning of leaven on the altar is in conflict with the earlier usage which permitted it. But what he styles the "earlier usage," the one here relied on by Amos, is the very one which condemns the offering of leaven by fire. The effort to evade the evidence confirms it.  

Amos and his contemporaries also knew the Levitical law which required every burnt offering to be accompanied with a meal offering (Num. xv. 1-12; also chapters xxviii. and xxix.); for in his rebuke of their unacceptable service, he says to the people: "Yea, though ye offer me your burnt offerings and your meal-offerings, I will not accept them" (v. 22). While the burnt offering, if we may believe the Bible, both Old Testament and New, is as old as the time of Abel, the meal-offering had its origin in the Levitical law, and after the enactment of the law it was an invariable accompaniment of the burnt offering. This enactment preceded the time of Amos, and was well known to the apostate tribes of the northern kingdom.  

2. Hosea. All the principal evidences that this prophet knew the law of Moses have been presented in answering the arguments of the destructive critics, leaving nothing to be said in this connection. (See p. 175 ff.)  

3. Isaiah. While the critics have argued from certain passages that Isaiah knew nothing of the law of Moses, they have overlooked or ignored certain others which prove the opposite. We now call attention to the more prominent of these:  

(1) In ii. 6-8 the prophet says: "Thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be filled with customs from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they strike hands with the children of strangers. Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land also is full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots. Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made." Now here soothsaying, excessive accumulations of silver and gold, and the multiplication of chariots and horses, are classed as unlawful things in company with idols. But how did the people know that these things were at all wrong in the sight of God, and especially that they were of like unlawfulness with idols, unless they had already received some law forbidding them? Could they have learned it from Solomon's example? With that alone before them, they would have argued from the unexampled wisdom of Solomon that all these except soothsaying were praiseworthy. There is not a sentence in all that the critics admit to have been written before Isaiah's time from which they could have learned it. Only on the supposition that they had the Book of Deuteronomy can this knowledge be accounted for. In that book soothsaying, while not named, is prohibited by prohibiting the whole category of occult arts to which it belongs; and it is classified, as here, with idolatry: "There shall not be found with thee any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that useth divination, one that practiseth augury, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a consulter with a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whosoever doeth these things is an abomination to Jehovah" (xviii. 10-12). In the same book and the same chapter, as is well known to the critics, the kings of Israel are forbidden to multiply horses, or to greatly multiply silver and gold (14-17). The people, then, were acquainted with this book, and Isaiah relied upon their knowledge of it in denouncing these practices as well-known sins. Professor Cheyne, whose eyes are sharp to discover in all the Scriptures anything which he can construe in favor of the critical hypothesis, though he comments on this passage, fails to see this bearing of it.  

(2) In viii. 19, 20, the prophet says: "When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? on behalf of the living should they seek unto the dead? To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them." Here, seeking for information from familiar spirits is put in contrast with seeking it from God; and when men are advised to resort to those spirits, the prophet cries, in opposition, "To the law and to the testimony I" and he declares that there is no morning, but perpetual night, to those who do not speak "according to this word." By "this word" he clearly means the word of "the law and the testimony." In the word "law" we have again the Hebrew word torah, which means, as. the critics say, the teaching of the prophets and not the law of Moses. But where was this teaching of the prophets when Isaiah wrote? Amos and Hosea had taught, but not a word had either said about familiar spirits. Only in .Deuteronomy (xviii. 11), and in Leviticus (xix. 31; xx. 6, 27) had consulting with them been forbidden, and therefore to these and the other law-books must Isaiah have referred as the "law and the testimony." They would be thus seeking unto their God; they would thus be seeking, "on behalf of the living," to the living and not to the dead.  

Professor Cheyne identifies "the law and the testimony" here with Isaiah's own previous teaching of which, at verse 16, he was commanded: "Bind thou up the admonition and seal the timony upon my disciples" (Com., in loco); but in this previous teaching there is not a word about familiar spirits, and consequently this attempt at evasion is a failure  

(3) In chap. xxiv. 5, 6, it is said: "The earth is polluted under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." This shows that laws had been given by God, one or more ordinances had been appointed, and an everlasting covenant had been made. What laws, ordinances and covenant can these be? Professor Cheyne says the reference is to the covenant with Noah. But no covenant was made with Noah which Noah's descendants could break. That covenant was simply a promise on God's part that "the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh" (Gen. ix. 16). There was no condition attached to it for men to comply with, and men, therefore, could not break it. The reference is to a covenant which men could break, and which men had broken. It was not the covenant of circumcision; for that had not been broken. The only reference which the words and the facts will admit is the covenant made with Israel when they came out of Egypt, by which, on the condition of their keeping his commandments and statutes which he would give them, God promised that they should be a peculiar treasure to him above all nations (Ex. xix. 3-8). This covenant Israel had broken in a most flagrant manner, and Judah was breaking it in the reign of Ahaz, when this passage was probably written. It was a covenant, too, with which laws and ordinances were connected; and this is true only of the covenant made at Sinai. It is true that the chapter of which this passage forms a part, appears to be a woe pronounced on the whole earth; but this does not change the reference; for although this covenant was made formally with Israel alone, the principles involved in it, and the main body of the laws connected with it, are those by which God governs and holds accountable to himself the whole world.  

(4) In two passages (xvii. 7, 8; xxvii. 9) Isaiah shows knowledge of the restricted worship enjoined in Deuteronomy, and enforced by Hezekiah. In the former he says: "In that day shall a man look unto his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall he have respect to that which his fingers have made, either the Asherim, or the sun-images." By "the altars, the work of his hands," are meant those which the worshiper had made, in distinction from that which Moses had made, and which stood in the temple. He was to look neither to these altars, nor to the Asherim, nor the sun-images which some had erected; that is, he was to look neither to the worship of idols, nor to the worship of Jehovah on the altars which he had made, and the reference must be to the altars on the high places. In contrast with this he was to look to his Maker, and have respect to the holy One of Israel; and this could be done by worshiping only at the appointed sanctuary.  

In the latter passage the purging of Israel's iniquity, or the taking away her sin, is conditioned on the destruction of these altars, and of all idolatrous images: "Therefore by this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit of taking away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalk that are beaten in sunder, so that the Asherim and the sun-images shall rise no more."  

These passages clearly show that the worship in high places, the places in which the altars referred to were undoubtedly erected, instead of being considered legitimate, as the critics contend, until the reign of Josiah, was already condemned by the prophet while they were being suppressed by the king. Hezekiah was supported in the suppression of them not only by the law of God, as we have seen (p. 249), but by the contemporary teaching of the prophet.  

Cheyne evades the force of this evidence by representing xvii. 7, 8 as a gloss by a late editor of Isaiah, and by ascribing xxvii. 9 to his fifth Isaiah, and fixing its date in 332 B. C. (Polychrome Isaiah, in loco). But this is falsified by the historical fact that Israel did not resort to unauthorized altars, Asherim and sun-images after the Babylonian exile. Here history corrects the historical critic In his earlier work (Commentary on Isaiah) he shows conscious misgiving on this point, by saying:  

The mention of the symbols of Asherah Is not what we should expect from a writer living during the Babylonian exile. The phenomenon is, of course, not decisive of the critical question at issue, but ought to have its due weight (Com., xxvii. 9).  

But if it is not what we should expect from a writer of the exile, when the evil practice had ceased, much less is it what we should expect from a writer who lived two hundred years after the exile. Evidently, then, he should have given the benefit of his doubt in favor of Isaiah himself as the author, instead of ascribing the passage to his imaginary fifth Isaiah.  

(5) In chap. xxix. 13 Isaiah shows knowledge of a law of God regulating worship, by saying: "And the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me, and with their mouth and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which hath been taught them: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder." To the sin of drawing near to God according to a "commandment of men," is traced the further sin of drawing near with the mouth and the lips when the heart is far away. But the former sin could not exist without a law of God for which the commandment of men had been substituted. There was, then, a law of God by which to draw near to him, and this had been set aside by the people that they might follow some commandment of men. The passage is quoted by our Lord in rebuking those in his day who forsook the commandment of God in observing the tradition of the elders (Matt. xv. 1-9). Cheyne feels the force of this evidence, and evades it by appending to the words "a commandment of men," the remark "alluding to pre-canonical collections of laws, which, we may infer from Hos. viii. 12; Jer. viii. 8, were current in some circles in the time of the pre-exilic prophets" (Com., in loco). But how could pre-canonical commandments be thus condemned before the canonical laws had yet been given? The fact that drawing near to God by the commandment of men is condemned at all, implies of necessity that the commandment of God on the same subject had been already given, and of this no successful evasion is possible. God had then given laws by which the people were to draw near to him, and, like the Pharisees of a later age, the people had accepted in place of these some commandments of men.  

(6) In exalting the power of God and his knowledge, the prophet exclaims: "Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering" (xl. 16). He means that the magnificent cedar groves of Lebanon would not furnish enough wood to burn an offering worthy of Jehovah, nor would all the beasts to be found on those mountains make an adequate offering. What words could express a warmer approval of burnt offerings in praise of Jehovah?  

(7) In rebuking Israel for the blindness and deafness which caused them to be led captive, he says: "It pleased Jehovah, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify the law, and make it honourable" (xlii. 21). He did this by giving them to their enemies for despising his law. He demands, "Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?" and he answers, "He against whom they sinned, in whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient to his law" (24). The law of God and disobedience to it are here regarded precisely as in the account given by the author of Kings, of the causes which led to Israel's captivity.  

(8) Israel is again rebuked for neglect of the law in these terms: "Yet thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices. I have not made thee to serve with offerings, nor wearied thee with frankincense. Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities" (xliii. 22-24). The contrast presented in the latter part of this rebuke adds greatly to the sting of it. While God's requirement of offerings had not made them "to serve," that is, as slaves, and the frankincense which he had required had not "wearied" them by its quantity or its frequency, they have made him to "serve" with their sins, and wearied him with their iniquities. Neglect of offerings of animals and of incense had brought their calamities upon them; but this could not have been, if, as the critics affirm, the Levitical law had not yet been given.  

(9) In depicting the blessedness of Israel at some future day, beginning with the exultant strain, "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah is risen upon thee," the prophet says: "All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory" (Ix. 7). Thus the glorification of God's house was to reach its consummation by the acceptable offering of flocks and rams upon his altar. Notice, that the single altar required by the law of Deuteronomy, and the abundant sacrifices of the Levitical law, are both distinctly recognized, thus proving that both were already known and held in honor by Israel.  

(10) Finally, the offering of sacrifices by men who have "chosen their own ways," and whose souls are "delighting in their abominations," is held up for the abhorrence of the people, as in the last chapter of the book. The prophet says: "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 burnetii frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol: yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations" (Ixvi. 3).  

It is claimed by our critics, one and all, that the last four of the passages just cited were not written by Isaiah. The more conservative among them hold that the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah were written by an unknown prophet who lived in the last ten years of the Babylonian exile. But even-on this hypothesis, though this writer would have known the Book of Deuteronomy, he would not have known, as we see that he certainly did, the Levitical law of sacrifices which was written later. But the more radical, and certainly the shrewder set, deny some of these chapters to even the "second Isaiah," and, to prevent being caught in the trap just pointed out, they claim that portions of these chapters were written at various intervals down to the time of Alexander the Great, A. D. 332. Thus. Cheyne credits only chapters xl.-xlviii. to the "second Isaiah," just one-third of the whole number; and he distributes the others between third, fourth and fifth Isaiahs. He does this in order to prevent the real Isaiah, or even the "second Isaiah," from knowing the Levitical law, a knowledge of which by them would shatter the critical theory. When learned and critical scholars are thus compelled to run their theories like chased foxes into the ground, a man of common sense wants no better evidence that the theories are indefensible,  

4. Jeremiah. As in the case of Hosea, we have presented both sides of the evidence from the Book of Jeremiah while answering the arguments of the critics. (See Part First, §8, 6).