170
PERSECUTION
PERSECUTIOK
poetic justice tliat the prophet wiia able to turn the tables on his lulversiines. It is not alwaj's easy to decide whether Elijah or Ahab is tlie persecutor, lor both believed in violence as the onlj' means to the end which thej' had in view. Hut we lind in the story of the life and work of lOlijah a relijiious conviction that is daring enou-^h to stand up to the secular authority and defy its directions. Ahab's policy niaj' seem to suj,'gest breadth of mind, whilst lilijah's attitude betokens tlieological narrowness ; but in this case the narrow way was the way of life, whilst the broad way was also the way of death.
But Elijah came into still closer grips with Aliab. lie denounced the tlirone on moral grounds. He spoke in the name of Jahweh, and therefore in the uaiue of righteousness. The prophet's predecessors identified the cult of Jahweh with patriotism. Elijah identified the worship of Jahweh with social morality. This was the new note which prophecy struck, and it occurs as a refrain in the teaching of all his successors. Elijah had the courage to denounce Ahab for his treatment of Naboth, and the prophet did .so, not as a statesman or economist, but as a theologian. The religion of Jahweh issues in social righteou.sne.s.s. Ahab might worship Baal and steal his .subject's private property. As a worshipper of Jahweh he could only 'do justly.' Jahweh's will was everlasting right. The problem raised by the king's seizure of Naboth's estate was not social or economical, but religious, for it fell within the scope of the religion of Jahweh. Ahab's conduct was not larceny, but sacrilege. It was not the violation of a social law as sucli that roused the anger of the prophet, but his defiance of the will of God. For Jahweh requires of His worshippers that they do justly (Mic 6'*). When the prophet condemned the king's effort to legiti- mize the worship of the Tyrian Baal, or his unsocial conduct, he spoke in the name of God, and in the interest of religion. He was prepared to employ force himself, as he was ready to endure persecu- tion rather than cease from condemning what he believed to be wrong or false, i.e. contrary to the Divine will, or from advocating what he believed to be right and true. We shall search in vain for a parallel fact in the whole Semitic world. In other lands the prophets were otiliging courtiers and fell in with the royal wishes. We should traverse the Semitic world in vain for an attitude like tluat of Micaiah-ben-Imlah — ' what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak' (1 K •2-2''') — wnen the king had given peremptory orders that he should fall in with his fellow-prophets. The latter received their reward in royal bounties, but Micaiali's message secured for him the bread- and-water diet of the jail (22'-'').
Elijah was the Wyclirt'e of Hebrew prophetism ; the principles which emerge in connexion with the story of his life were clearly grasped by Amos and his successors, and fearlessly applied to the criti- cism of the religious and social situation of Israel and Judah. The prophets loved their nation and titeir country. There never were truer patriots than Hosea and .Jeremiah. But they were not patriots of the common type. They would not preach smooth things. That was the privilege of the court-prophets whose message was inspired from the throne. The false prophet was concerned with the question 'What does the king want?' The true prophet was concerned with the question ' What does .Jahweh your God require ? ' The latter was sure of his ground and of the Divine approval as the former was of his reward and of the royal favour. The prophets thus came into collision with current theology, for they declared that Jahweh was not simply the God of Israel, but the God of right- eousness, and they came up against popular religion.
for they i<lcntified religion with the practice of social justice. Their patriotism was sincere and unmistakable, but they placed social righteousness above the mere continuity or safety of the realm or the mere practice of ceremonial religion. Their theology played havoc with the current belief that Jahweh was sijnply the God of Israel, as well as with the prevalent view that religion was ritual. If Jahweh was a moral governor, and if, further, the national life was totally at variance with the requirements of ethical religion, the expected 'day of Jahweh' would be ilar/cness and not liijht — • disaster, not deliverance (Am 5"). The power that worked for righteousness in national and inter- national all'airs would wreck any society which ignored or violated the fundamental principle of moral government, for the will of Jahweh must prevail. Their theology made the prophets preachers of judgment and destruction. The doom which they announced might be staved oH" by national repentance and reform, but Jeremiah, who had witnessed a religious reformation carried out by the throne, was forced to the conclusion that repentance of the true kind was beyond the reach of Judah. The nation's illness was incurable (Jer SO'^'"). It was inevitable that the prophet should come into collision with the State. The pro- phet would not be cajoled, threatened, or silenced; his consciousness of the urgency of his message was such that silence, or even any modification of the truth as he perceived it, would be moral treachery. The prophet is necessarily insistent, uncomjiromis- ing, intolerant, exclusive. To him the line of demarcation between the true and false — the right and wrong — is clear, and it must be recognized and enforced. The retort of the nation's official leaders to this fearless exposition of the demands of true religion was persecution.