to find it, viz. works and faith (97 13%). As the | prearrangement.
thought already appears in Gn 15°, there is no need to ascribe the expression to the influence of St. James.
5. Free will and foreordination.—The OT clearly affirms, on the one hand, the doctrine of Divine providence and foreordination, and, on the other, the freedom of the human will. All the later Jewish writings take the same position with regard to man’s moral liberty. According to Wisdom, God is found of such as seek Him in singleness of heart (1%). Wisdom is attainable by him who loves her and will diligently pursue her (614), ‘For her true beginning is desire of discipline; and the care for discipline is love of her; and love of her is observance of her laws; and to give heed to her laws confirmeth incorruption ; and incorruption bringeth near unto God; so then desire of wisdom promoteth to a kingdom’ (61#-), Thus along the entire line of the soul’s moral development the way lies open to man. Owing to innate wickedness (51%), he cannot tread this path without Divine help (87!) ; but for this he can pray (77), and it will be given him if he shows himself worthy of it (178), and does not court death by unrighteous words and deeds (1-16), To the same effect is the teaching of Sirach. The Lord ‘showed men good and eyil’ (177), and ‘left him in the hand of his own counsel’ (154), ‘Before man is life and death ; and whichsoever he liketh, it shall be given him’ (15). It is noteworthy that, in thus affirming man’s power to distinguish between good and evil, the writer stoutly assails the contrary opinion (15). As he would never have controverted an unknown theory, the doctrine of predestination must have had its exponents in Jewish circles. Free will in man, it was held, could not consist with God’s government of the world. Providence meant predestination, and man is but a passive agent in the hand of God. This is the point of view against which Ben Sira directs his polemic ; and, although we cannot tell with what Pal. school he was specially identified, it is evident that during this pee theological questions were keenly de- bated. In view of the full recognition of human freedom, and in opposition to Sadducean rational- ism, special stress was laid in some quarters upon the heavenly ordering of earthly things. his thought gradually came to be expressed under the figure of a heavenly book or heavenly tables, in which was set down the whole course of events as these would unfold themselves in actual history. The idea of a book of life is not foreign to the OT (Ex 32, Ps 69%), but it was more freely employed in the later literature; cf. e.g. Enoch 104! 108? 47% In the Book of Jubilees sins are said to be written in the eternal books which are before the Lord (39%); while Abraham and Levi are written down as just in the tables of heaven (19° 30”). The same idea occurs in Dn 10%. It corresponds to the Platonic world of Ideas or Divine world-plan, and seems to have been the Jewish expedient for retaining the old doctrine of Divine providence in the face of Hellenism. Philo finds the distinctive nature of man and the most direct consequence of his likeness to God in the faculty of self-determination. The moral liberty belonging to the rational element in man is the very condition of virtue. By a spontaneous act of will man can choose to practise good or evil, and go arrive at honour or condemnation. His destiny is thus in his own hands. According to Josephus, the chief difference between the three leading Jewish sects was connected with the question of human freedom; but, except as adherents of one or other of these, men seem to haye troubled themselves little about the relation to each other of the two factors of human liberty and Divine The peculiar use of civappévy for @eés affords an example of Josephus’ liking for Hellenistic terms as a medium for the expression
ee
294 DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
of Jewish ideas (Ant¢. XIII. y. 9, XVUL i. 3; BJ u. iii. 1). :
6. Ethics.—In the sphere of morals the vital question must ever be, What is sin, and what is virtue? According to OT ideas, sin consists in deviation from the law of God, and virtue in the observance of that law. But for the most part the OT is content with laying down general prin- ciples, leaving men to apply these to their own special circumstances in accordance with their individual judgment. In post-exilic Judaism we meet with two marked developments differing on opposite sides from the OT position. The one is that of Pharisaism, according to which the main element in morality is the literal observance of positive precepts ; the other is that identified with the Alexandrian school, according to which the principal importance is attached, not to the out- ward act itself but to the sentiment inspiring it.
(1) Palestinian Jews based their ethical system on the Mosaic law, which is not a philosophy but a revelation. It does not deal with the general conditions of moral existence as such, but with the particular conditions that obtained in Israel. Naturally, therefore, the scribes were not philo- sophers ; they were interpreters of the sacred Law. For Ezra and his coadjutors this formed the unique standard, not only of religion and morals but also of economics and politics. Every department of life was regulated by it. No distinction was made between the ceremonial and the moral; Sabbath observance and rules about food were enjoined by the same law that commanded the love of God and just dealing towards men. National law and not conscience was the recognized norm of morality, which thus became synonymous with jurispru- dence. In point of fact, the practice of well-doing was often dictated by the love of good for its own sake (To 47, Sir 475 ete.), but in theory morality was simply a matter of mechanical obedience to legalistic prescriptions. This conception of ethics led to the Law being developed in quite a wrong direction. Every biblical commandment was sur- rounded by a network of petty regulations. No allowance was made for changing circumstances ; full obedience to the Law in all its particulars was inexorably demanded of every Jew. To the pre- cepts of the Written Law were added those of the Halakha or Traditional Law, which was handed down as a sacred trust from generation to genera- tion, and ultimately embodied in the Talmud. It took centuries for the Oral Law to reach its com- pleted form, but its birth dates from the restora- tion of Israel under Ezra and Nehemiah. An attempt was thus made to bring every conceivable case within the scope of the Law, and with merci- less logic to regulate the whole of human conduct by strict rule of thumb. Legal details were multi- plied until religion became a trade, and life an intolerable burden. Men were reduced to moral automatons. The voice of conscience was stifled ; the living power of the Divine word was neutral. ized and smothered beneath a mass of external rules. Hence our Lord’s accusation against the Pharisees, that by their traditions they made void the Law. Not that in Palestinian ethics the inner motive was absolutely disregarded. The litera- ture of the period recommends the practice of the Law out of respect to God who gave it (To 1! 458. etc.); and, from the efforts made in the 2nd cen- tury A.D. to crush out the modified spiritualism represented by Sirach and the school of Gamaliel and Hillel, we may reasonably infer that the Pharisaic affirmation of the merit of works met with considerable opposition at an earlier date. Liberalism disappeared only when the observance of the Ceremonial Law became the one safeguard of Israel’s nationality. Yet there is no doubt that