THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. CHAPTER VI. THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. TOWARDS the end of the 8th century before our era, Hezekiah had attempted to effect a complete revolution in the religious practices of his subjects. From the very brief account by the author of 2 Kings*-which is enlarged and embellished, but not really supplemented, by the Chroniclert-we should scarcely infer that his measures had so wide an aim. Yet we do not go too far when we say “a complete revolution." We already know that the "high places" which Hezekiah abolished had existed for centuries all over the kingdom, and that the use of pillars, asheras and images of Jahveh, according to Isaiah and Micah,‡ was general. It is very improbable, therefore, that the king met with no opposition of any sort and gained his end entirely and at once. The historian, it is true, makes no mention of the obstacles which were put in his way, but this fact could possess value as evidence only if he had shown himself to be accurately informed and had entered into details. Nevertheless the possibility remains, that Hezekiah was powerful enough to deter his subjects from any attempt at resistance, or to nip their opposition in the bud. But no one can well think it likely that he altogether changed the persuasions and ideas of his people during his reign of thirty years. The means which he employed-the removing," "cutting down" and "breaking to pieces”—however * 2 Kings xviii. 4, comp. 22. + 2 Chr. xxix,-xxxi. Vol. I. pp. 79 sqq. suitable they may have been for altering the outward appearance of things in a short time, did not reach the root of the evil. In a word, but little penetration was required to foresee that these violent measures would necessarily be followed by an equally violent reaction. And this is what actually occurred. In the year 696 B.C. Hezekiah died. His son Manasseh, a boy of twelve, became king in his stead; his reign lasted 55 years, until 641 B.C. Amon his son and successor trod in his father's footsteps until 639 B. C. For 57 years, then, the kingdom was governed in one spirit, in the spirit of the party whose tenderest feelings had been wounded by Hezekiah's reformation. We should indeed remember that Manasseh and Amon, just as much as their predecessor, represented a conviction. In reading the accounts concerning them,* our first impression is that they were crowned miscreants, and Manasseh especially. The author can find no words strong enough to express the abhorrence with which Manasseh's deeds inspire him. He twice compares him to Ahab.† One of his atrocities, the placing of the Ashera-pillar in the temple, is a desecration of that building, and is diametrically opposed to Jahveh's promises and commands to David and Solomon. It is with evident approbation that the author mentions the prediction of Manasseh's contemporaries among the prophets, that, on account of his transgressions and of the readiness of the people to take part in them, Jerusalem shall be laid waste and its inhabitants scattered among the nations.§ Over and above all this, he accuses him of having "shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem with it from one end to the other." The painful impression made by these accusations would certainly be considerably lessened, if we might assume, with the Chronicler,¶ that Manasseh subsequently repented of his sins, and, after his return from a temporary captivity in Assyria, hastened to repair as much as * 2 Kings xxi.; 2 Chr. xxxiii. 2 Kings xxi. 7, 8. 2 Kings xxi. 16. + 2 Kings xxi. 3, 13. possible the evil he had done. But for various reasons this account is unworthy of credit. So long, therefore, as we continue to occupy the standpoint of the Israelitish historians, we shall judge most unfavourably of Manasseh-and of Amon. But it is precisely this standpoint which we must attack. It is that of Manasseh's antagonists, who afterwards regained and kept the upper hand. They judge him by the standard of their own ideas, which he, however, did not embrace, or, rather, would have condemned as revolutionary and dangerous. Of course, this makes it none the less necessary to give the verdict of the Israelitish historian its share of our attention, if we wish to form a true idea of Manasseh's character and designs. This we do the more readily, now it appears that it is the echo of the warnings uttered by the king's contemporaries respecting the punishment which was to come.* We remember, too, that Jeremiah also attributes the fall of the kingdom to that which Manasseh the son of Hezekiah did at Jerusalem. What, then, had he done? In the first place, Manasseh restored the worship of Jahveh as it had been before Hezekiah's reformation. He built up again -we are told‡—that is, he allowed to be built up again, the high places which his father had destroyed. He also worshipped other gods besides Jahveh, and he placed in the temple at Jerusalem the symbol of Ashera, the tree-stem stripped of its branches, which was frequently erected next to the altars of Jahveh.§ Like his grandfather Ahaz, he encouraged the service of Molech, and following his example, he-we do not know under what circumstances-dedicated one of his sons to this deity by fire. It is told of him further, that he "bowed down to all the host of heaven and served them (the stars)," and built altars in honour of these deified celestial bodies in the two courts of the temple at Jerusalem. Did he adopt this latter worship * 2 Kings xxi. 10—15. + Jer. xv. 4. § 2 Kings xxi. 3, 7; comp. Deut. xvi. 21. 2 Kings xxi. 3. || 2 Kings xxi. 6, comp. xvi. 3. * from abroad, from the Assyrians or the Babylonians? He saw nothing reprehensible in the service of their gods, no more than in the time-honoured worship of the Canaanitish deities. But we are not surprised that this imitation of the foreigner was a new and inexcusable grievance to those who served Jahveh alone. Manasseh's conduct was the more abominable, in their estimation, in that he established the worship of false godsboth that known of old and that introduced by him-in the place that was the very centre of the service of Jahveh. It is true that, even under his rule, the temple of Solomon did not cease to be a sanctuary of Jahveh; but besides the principal deity, many other gods were also worshipped there, each after its own fashion. This was in harmony with the heathen custom. As we remarked before, it cannot be considered absolutely antagonistic to the intentions of the founder of the temple. There is no doubt either, that Manasseh was not the first who had done this. Nay, we must even regard it as improbable that Hezekiah had succeeded in banishing all traces of the worship of the other gods from the temple. Yet Manasseh went further than any king before him. And-what cannot but have increased the dissatisfaction which he caused-his acts led, either in his reign or subsequently, to the solemnization of still other religious rites, and among them Egyptian rites, in the temple itself, or in its immediate vicinity.§ In short, it was as though he was bent upon thwarting, or was trying to introduce the opposite of, the ideal cherished by the worshippers of Jahveh, the realization of which had seemed to them so near at hand in Hezekiah's reign. Is it to be wondered at that they abhorred him as an enemy to Jahveh ? The descendants and successors of the prophets of the 8th *Vol. I. pp. 335 seq. + Comp. what is said of "the kings of Judah" in 2 Kings xxiii. 5, 11, 12. Had that been the case, in all probability Manasseh alone would have been named in the verses just quoted. § Ezek. viii.; comp. Note I. at the end of this Chapter. century B. C. must have altogether degenerated, if they could look upon all this in silence. The writer of the books of Kings relates and we have no hesitation in believing him-that Jahveh raised his voice, "by the mouth of his servants the prophets," against Manasseh's abominations. Here and there their words were echoed. Were there, perchance, some men who, inflamed by these words, offered resistance to the king's measures? The statement that he "shed very much innocent blood in Jerusalem" would lead one to suppose so. Free from all exclusivism, Manasseh cannot well have become a persecutor of his own accord. If he took this part upon him, he was driven to it by the reception accorded to his measures. In judging of his conduct, we must not forget both how intimately religion was linked to politics in Israel, and how the Jahvistic party bore themselves when they were in authority. The connection between religion and politics fully explains why the prophets and their adherents were looked upon as dangerous to the good order of the state. And when we call Hezekiah and Josiah to mind, we lack the heart to castigate Manasseh severely for his persecutions. At the same time, we should not forget that in order to form a well-grounded judgment of Manasseh and Amon, our information ought to be more precise. It is indeed to be deplored that we cannot throw light from contemporaneous records upon so remarkable a period of nearly half a century. Perhaps a few of the Psalms were composed during that time.* But nothing certain is known of their age. When we assign them to the reign of Manasseh, it is because they express what we suppose to have been the feelings of his pious contemporaries, judging from what we already know. They do not extend our knowledge. We have no alternative but to rest content with this ignorance. Fortunately it does not prevent us from comprehending the period which dawned after Amon's death. In fact, * Comp. my Hk. O. III. 294 seq. |