* The second, * Tbou shalt love thy neighbour u thyself, occurs Id Lv 1918.
one that belongs by natural a.ssociation to minds lar^ly buried in liialter. The clmracleristic note of this legislation is that God takes command over life as a whole, and, while the actual condition of the people is left unaltered, the way is prepared for further progress. The fundaiuentJil ideas as to right and wrong and the proper means of conununicating with the national God are left unmodified ; but practices are condemned which degrade and materialize the life of the nation and its conceptions of God.*
It has often been obeerred that the indications of the operation of the Levitical law are rare, if not altogether non-existent, in the historical books. It is certainly true that the sui)remacy of the sanctuary at Shiloh, and then later at .Jerus., falls considerably short of the unique sanctity ascribed in the law to the central shrine of .J". Further, tliere are no records of the celebration of the legal feasts till the time of the later kings. It is plain that the worship of J" had not established its hold upon the common people; they are continually liable to defections to the gods of neighbouring races. Moreover, the unity of the people is hardly attained ; there are obviously differences of opinion and interest between various tribes. These facts and others like them have been quoted, reasonably enough, as bearing on the literary history of the books of the law. They do not affect what has been said above as to the archaic character of many of the legal enactments. And we may say even more than this. The records contained in the historical books are the records of a people emerging from the tribal state into that of national life. The assumptions of such a state of thing's underlie the action of Jael : they are displayed in the wars of extermination which form a somewhat repellent feature (to modem eyes) in the history of the invasion of Canaan, and in Samuel's de- nunciation of the Amalekites ; they appear in the attitude of the Jews towards the gods of the neighbouring tribes, stUI more noticeably in such a story as that of the Levite and his concubine (Jg 19. 20), or that of Micali the Ephraimite {ib. 17. 18).
The means by which the change is eflected is, to a large extent, the institution of the Kingship. It is this that prevents the separate action of the separate tribes, and develops the idea of a justice which is due to an individual, as opjiosed to the tribal notion according to which the tribe, not the individual, is the unit. At the same time it is clear that J" is regarded as the protector of moral rights. David, for instance, commends Abigail for preserving him from the sin against the Lord that reckless vengeance implies (1 S 20""-). The eating of blood is a sin against J" (1 S 14") ; there is, to use a modem phra.se, a taboo upon the shew- bread oit'ered to J" ; t and otlier cases might be
?uoted showing that, though evidence is lacking or a complete ecclesiastical organization. rucIi as is described in the Pent., much of tne legislation embodied therein (and therefore the morality implied by it) dates from a time in which these social ideas prevailed.
{B) The Prophetical Literature. — We must now turn to the prophets and endeavour to estimate the importance ot their work in the ethical develop- ment of Israel. They are rightly identified with the higher moral progress of the people ; but it is neces.sary in dealing with them, more even than with any of the otlier UT authors, to remember that tluir writings are occasional and not sj-stem- atic. They deal with the comlition of the people as it appears to them, they comment on the vices which arrest their attention, and they give special weight to the ellcct of these lines of conduct on the field of politics.
• Of. Lv IS" 20' «, Dt 12" etc
t It is not accurate to say, with Wellhausen {Prolftj. p. ISl, Eng. tr), that there is no dislinctioo between boly and unholy ia the matter of the shew-brcad.
780
ETHICS
ETHICS
The cycle of ideas in which tlie prophets move is much the same in outline, though of course Bome speak more precisely and fully than others.
(a) The most conspicuous feature in their moral doctrine is their sense of the union of tlie nation with God, and the interest of God in the moral development of men. Condemnations of idolatry and of all forms of defection from the proper allegiance to God are frequent in the prophetic books. The nation is described under tlie figure of a bride, bound by the marriage-tie to J", and continually breaking it. This appears in Is, Jer, Ezk, Hos ; it will not be necessary to quote passages in illustration of so familiar a phrase. The practices most frequently condemned are unrigliteous judgment, oppression of the poor, and various forms of luxury and extravagance, especi- ally drunkenness. These do not take us much beyond the ideas which appear in the earliest legislation. The development is to be found rather in the application of the ideas which have already prevailed, and in the appearance of some of the problems which necessarily belong to moral life. Thus the theory of evil receives some considera- tion. We have seen that the ceremonial legis- lation referred largely to ceremonial pollutions. It may possibly have teen due to this association that the presence of evil was treated as a taint which aflected others besides the actual sinner. On the other hand, holiness or righteousness was also regarded as a state which was efl'ectual as a preservation against judgment. Thus in Abraham's colloquy with God (Gn 18) the presence of righteous persons is admitted as a reason for suspending the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is, of course, a real moral difficulty con- tained in this doctrine. It must be remembered that eWl is inseparably connected by the Jews with acts of rebellion, i.e. with Individual self-will and disobedience. If, therefore, others who have not taken part in the sin are involved in its con- sequences, it is obrious that a serious question must be raised as to the definition of responsibility, and the relation of responsibility to guilt. We find in Is a sense of the polluting etiect of the presence of evil. Thus in the account of his call to the prophetic work (6') he says : ' Woe is me, for I am undone ; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell among a people of unclean lips.' Isaiah expresses the general etiect of evil in the people, and acknowledges its influence upon him- self. It is, further, a general doctrine of the OT that the guilt of sin extends to those who are con- nected with the sinner, as is expressed in the second commandment. These ideas give rise to several lines of moral speculation. In the first p'^^i^e. the sense of individual responsibility is gieutly strengthened, so that we find in Ezk a definite restriction or correction of the principle laid down in the Decalogue. Thus (ch. 18"), ' 'Tlie soul that sinneth, it shall die : the son shall not bear the ininuity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son ; the righteous- ness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.' This position is carried out on the side of virtue also; the presence even of the three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, shall not avail to suspend judgment upon a sinful city (Ezk U"-^'), nor shall righteousness at one time prevent judgment if a soul relapse into wickedness (Ezk SS'""- ). Responsi- bility belongs to the individual soul for actual things done, and for nothing else.