49. § 1. The Babylonish Captivity.
§ 1.The Babylonish Captivity. The first point is to determine the chronological relations of this period, so important for Israel, where we must necessarily enter into a discussion of a somewhat dry nature. The duration of the period is prophetically given as seventy years by Jeremiah, in two passages: Jeremiah 25:11, “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years;” and Jeremiah 29:10. The same number of years is historically attributed to the period by those who lived after its expiration, 2 Chronicles 36:21, Ezra 1:1; compare with these Zechariah 1:12 and Daniel 9:2.
Respecting the terminating point of these seventy years there can be no doubt. The first year of Cyrus forms their natural boundary, when the Israelites, after the fall of the Chaldean supremacy, were dismissed to their home. But the point at which they began is not so clearly defined. Yet it too may be ascertained with certainty. For this object we have only to consider the first of the two passages from Jeremiah already quoted. In Jeremiah 25:1, the prophecy begins with the words: “The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon.” And when a seventy years’ servitude is threatened in the lltli verse of this prophecy, which is not without reason so accurately defined as to chronology, the terminus a quo can only be placed in that year in which the prophecy was uttered, viz. the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Moreover, the whole contents of the chapter are in harmony with this view. They show that the beginning of the threatened catastrophe was immediately impending, that the threatened misfortune was already at hand. The prophet holds a great reckoning with the nation. He reproaches them for having given no hearing to the summons to repentance which he had already given them for so many years, and declares that the divine long-suffering is now at an end, that those who would not hear must now feel, now when in the place of Josiah, the last pious king, the throne was occupied by a king after the people’s own heart. With this result obtained from the first passage of Jeremiah, the second is not at variance, as has been supposed. This prophecy, uttered already in the middle of the period, and addressed to the Jewish exiles, in which also the length of the period of the humiliation of the people of God is fixed at seventy years, does not give a new terminus a quo, to be sought in the time of the composition of the prophecy, but contains a statement, with express reference to the former well-known prophecy, that the appointed number of years must, in accordance with the unalterable divine decree, first run their course before there could be any thought of a return of the exiles; thus showing how foolish it was to listen to those false prophets, who, pointing to a great anti-Chaldaic coalition then forming under the guidance of Egypt, flattered the exiles with vain hopes of a speedy return, agitating their minds, and bringing them into external danger, but what was still worse, leading them away from the task to which they had now been set, viz. with true repentance to seek reconciliation with the Lord. In Jeremiah 29:10 we read: “For thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon (i.e.. when Babylon shall have had dominion over you for seventy years, when the Babylonian captivity will have lasted for seventy years) I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.” The expression “my good word” shows that the prophet here refers to something definite already known, the former announcement that the Babylonish captivity would last for seventy years, but only for seventy years, and that judgment would then be fulfilled on the oppressor; comp, Jeremiah 25:12-26.
We are led to the same result, to place the beginning of the seventy years in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, if we consider what is spoken of as constituting this beginning, and then, turning to the history, look at the time when it occurs. In Jeremiah 25:11 we read: “And these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” We must therefore look for the beginning of the seventy years in that period, since Judah with the surrounding nations was already subject to the Chaldees, before the time when the temple was destroyed and the whole nation carried into captivity, which did not happen until eighteen years afterwards. But the servitude of Judah and the surrounding nations began in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. In this year the Egyptians were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in the great battle at Charchemish, and, in consequence of this victory, Phenicia, Judea, and Syria came into the power of the Babylonians. Berosus tells us this explicitly in the third book of the Chaldee history in Josephus, Ant. x. 11, 1, classing the Jews among those nations from which Nebuchadnezzar carried away captives into Babylon, even naming them first. The same expedition is spoken of in 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Chronicles 36:6; and Jeremiah alludes to it in Jeremiah 25, when in this prophecy, uttered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, he considers the Babylonish servitude to be close at hand. The day of fasting and repentance, which, according to Jeremiah 36:9, was held in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, in the ninth month, was probably the anniversary of the day of the occupation by the Chaldees. Finally, it is expressly stated in Daniel 1:1, that in the third year of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar entered upon the campaign in which Jerusalem was taken. The result already obtained is also confirmed by the fact that the seventy years exactly coincide, if we take the fourth year of Jehoiakim as the starting-point,—a circumstance which serves at the same time to refute those who maintain that the number seventy in Jeremiah expresses only an indefinite time, an assumption which is already sufficiently refuted by the fact that those who lived after the restoration fix the servitude at seventy years, declaring the prophecy of Jeremiah to have been literally fulfilled. These passages we have already quoted. According to Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-three years. But this is the number of the years in which he was sole occupant of the throne; while the first year of Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in Jeremiah, coinciding with the fourth year of Jehoiakim, is the first year of his co-regency with his father, who stands in the background from an Israelitish point of view, because Israel had to do only with the son. Nebuchadnezzar only became sole monarch in the beginning of the sixth year of Jehoiakim, so that we get forty-four years for Nebuchadnezzar. To these we add two years for Nebuchadnezzar’s son Evil-mero-dach, four years for Neriglossar, nine months or one year for Laborosoarchad, seventeen years for Nabonned, and two years for Darius the Mede,—altogether exactly seventy years. From the facts given, it follows that it is not quite accurate to speak of a seventy years’ exile, although not absolutely wrong, since a deportation did take place already at this first occupation, though very inconsiderable so far as numbers were concerned. Daniel and his companions were carried away captive at that time. Accurately speaking, the exile, so far as we understand by it the removal of the whole nation from their former dwellings, did not begin until eighteen years later, seven of which belong to Jehoiakim and eleven to Zedekiah. It was not until this time that the city and temple were destroyed. Hence it is better to speak of a seventy years’ servitude to Babylon, following the example of the Scriptures themselves. Ewald’s assertion (History of Israel, iii. 2, p. 83), that in 2 Chronicles 36:21 the seventy years of Jeremiah refer to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, “as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years,” until the seventy years of the Babylonish servitude were at an end, is incorrect. This is the only explanation suited to the context. With respect to the Chaldee rulers during this period, Berosus names Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-merodach as the two first: Josephus, c. Ap 1.20. The latter, a son of Nebuchadnezzar, was slain, he says, in the second year of his reign, by Neriglossar, his sister’s husband, on account of the disgraceful graceful and wanton abuse which he made of his power,— a statement for the truth of which we have no trifling guarantee in the fact that the name of the king appears also in the Bible. It is evident that his proper name was only Merodach, and that Evil, fool, is only a later nickname. Berosus then goes on to relate that the son of Neriglossar, Laborosoarchad, only maintained the throne, to which he succeeded while still a boy, for nine months, and was slain by his friends. The conspirators then placed Nabonned, the Babylonian, one of their number, on the throne. In the seventeenth year of the reign of this king Babylon was taken by the Persians under Cyrus. Of Nebuchadnezzar Niebuhr says, in his History of Assyria and Babylon, “He was one of the most powerful princes that Asia has ever seen, and raised the kingdom of Babylon to a might and a splendour such as it had not had since the mythical ages.” The book of Daniel gives important information with respect to this king; and what it says respecting his frenzy and the royal edict published after his recovery, has been confirmed by the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, in so far as we learn from them that the great kings in Asia were accustomed to tell their own history to their subjects and to the after-world on public monuments of this kind. That Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in the latter years of his reign, in harmony with the prophecies of Jeremiah, in Jeremiah 44:30; Jeremiah 46:25 ff., and of Ezekiel, in Ezekiel 29:17-20, is shown by the statements of Abydenus in Eusebius in the Proep. Evang. 9: 41, and of Syncellus, who relates that the Chaldees only left Egypt from fear of an earthquake. Not one of the three last-named Chaldean kings appears in Scripture under this name. Neriglossar and Laborosoarchad are nowhere mentioned in it, but Nabonned is undoubtedly the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel. Niebuhr has made it probable that the name Belshazzar was not the proper name, but a mere honorary title, “such,” he says, “as was given to Daniel also, with a slight difference in form.” In vain some have sought in ancient times to identify Belshazzar with Darius the Mede; while in modern times Havernick and others have asserted his identity with Evil-merodach. One single argument suffices to overthrow all such attempts, and to establish the identity of Belshazzar and Nabonned, viz. this, that the death of Belshazzar and the division of his kingdom among the Medes and Persians are immediately connected in Daniel 5:28 ff., which can only be explained on the assumption that Belshazzar, like Nabonned, was the last Chaldee monarch. Evil-merodach’s death was in no way connected with the division of the kingdom. The arguments which have been brought against the identity of Belshazzar and Nabonned have but little weight. When it is asserted that, according to the book of Daniel, Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar (i.e.. his descendant; he was his grandson by Evil-merodach), and that, on the other hand, according to Berosus, Nabonned was not of the royal family at all, Berosus is made to say what in fact his narrative does not contain. True, he does not say that Nabonned was of royal blood, but neither does he say the contrary. If he did so, we should have a strong reason for rejecting his narrative. The passages, Jeremiah 27:7, where Israel is made subject to Nebuchadnezzar, to his son, and his son’s son, and 2 Chronicles 36:20, “They were servants to him and his sons, until the reign of the kingdom of
Persia,” necessarily demand that during the exile there should have been another direct descendant of Nebuchadnezzar on the throne besides Evil-merodach. But Neriglossar was Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law, and Laborosoarchad was the son of Neriglossar. Hence the reference can only be to Nabonned, which is the more probable, since it is presupposed that the Chaldean supremacy came to an end under a son of Nebuchadnezzar. Nor must we leave out of consideration the fact that Herodotus also represents the last king of Babylon, whom he calls Labynet, as a son of Nebuchadnezzar. Again, it is a priori most natural and probable that Nabonned took possession of the throne as the representative of the rights of the male succession, in opposition to the female. It is neither probable, nor does it correspond to the historical relations in the ancient Asiatic kingdoms, that, as one in the midst of the nation, he should have put forth his hand to the throne with success. The condition of the Israelites in exile was from an external point of view quite tolerable. The Judaites were by no means slaves of the Chaldees, as appears from the fact that they were set at liberty by Cyrus with so little hesitation. Certain districts were made over to them, from which they probably paid a moderate tribute. Compulsory service, such as their ancestors had performed in Egypt, was not required of them. They stood in exactly the same position as the heathen colonists whom Asarhaddon had planted in the kingdom of the ten tribes. Evil-merodach did not treat the Jews with his usual severity and cruelty. Immediately on his accession to the throne, he released King Jehoiachin or Jeconiah from his bonds, and gave him the first place among all the subordinate kings, together with a liberal maintenance; comp. 2 Kings 25:27 ff., Jeremiah 52:31 ff. In Psalms 106:46, the Lord is extolled because He made Israel to be pitied of those who had carried them away captive; and Psalms 137 : also leads us to infer that the former bitter hatred against Judah was replaced by a better feeling after they had been led away into captivity. We are not even justified in supposing that the civil independence of the Judaites was quite destroyed. The elders of the people— their chiefs and judges—are mentioned in many passages of Ezekiel; and the ease with which the people are organized, when Cyrus grants them permission to return, is only explicable on the assumption that the foundations of an organization still remained, even during the exile. This was the case even in Egypt, where the Israelites had lived in very different and much harder relations. It is certain that many individuals attained to considerable prosperity. Opportunities of becoming rich were probably more numerous than in Palestine.
Nevertheless we cannot maintain, as some have recently done, “that the position of the Israelites during their exile was not so oppressive as is generally supposed,” if by the Israelites we understand not those who were merely accidentally and externally allied to this race, those of whom the Apocalypse says, in Revelation 2:9,
If we consider the internal condition of the exiles, it is impossible not to see that there was a great difference between them and those who had remained behind in Jerusalem, as well as those who had fled to Egypt, who, according to Jeremiah 44, gave themselves up to idolatry with almost frantic zeal, and instead of attributing their misfortune to ungodliness, attributed it to the neglect of idolatry. Jeremiah, in Jeremiah 24, speaks of them as the seminary, the hope of the kingdom of God. This difference is not due solely to the wholesome influence exercised on them by the exile,—no sorrow contains in itself any improving power, but is just as likely to make a man worse as to make him better, as we see from the example of those Egyptian exiles; we may apply to sorrow the proverb, “To him that hath shall be given; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath,”—but its first ground, to which the other passage of Jeremiah gives a clue, lies deeper, in the fact that it was exactly the better part of the nation that was carried away into captivity, while the worse remained in the country, and were either destroyed there by the judgments of the Lord, or escaped to Egypt, and were there overtaken by them. At the first glance, it seems quite incomprehensible that there should have been such a difference, but on nearer consideration we can discover the reason of its origin. First, it is not improbable that the ungodly, who mocked the prophets and their threats respecting the total destruction of the state and the city, and expected speedy help from Egypt, sacrificed everything for permission to remain in their fatherland; while those who feared God, knowing, especially from the constantly-repeated announcements of Jeremiah, that the destruction of the town was inevitable, and formed the indispensable condition of restoration, voluntarily obeyed the first summons, and joyfully entered on the death which was the sole gate to life,—just as the Christians fled from Jerusalem to Pella before the destruction by Rome. But the main thing is, that the victors recognised in the theocratic principle the Israelitish nationality, and therefore made it their special object to carry away the representatives of this principle, well knowing that their removal would necessarily lead to the dissolution of the nation, and that those who remained would no longer be dangerous to them; for in fact, throughout the whole history of the Jews, we find no other courage than that which had a theocratic basis. Those who were inwardly infected with the spirit of heathenism would necessarily be unable to offer any effectual external resistance to this spirit. They had no longer any sanctuary for which to strive; they contended only for accidents. It is not mere conjecture that the conquerors were led by this principle in their choice of captives, but we can prove it by definite facts. From Jeremiah 29:1 it appears that already, in the first great deportation under Jehoiakim, principally priests and prophets were led away. Among those who returned from exile, the proportion of priests to people is such, that in a total of 42,360 there were not less than 4289 priests, the priests making a tenth part of the whole. This proportion cannot be explained from the fact that a comparatively far greater number of the priests returned than of the others. The proportion of those who returned to those who were led away does not allow the assumption inseparable from such an explanation, viz. that a considerable remnant remained behind in the lands of exile. The preponderance of priests can be explained solely on the assumption that the Chaldees carried away mainly the priests; and since the only reason of this can be that the priests were regarded as the principal representatives of the theocratic principle, it is impossible not to believe that the Chaldees were well acquainted with the inner relations of the Jews, as their considerate treatment of Jeremiah shows, and were at other times influenced in the choice of their captives by regard to the theocratic tendency.
One sign of the good disposition of the exiles is to be found in the reverence with which the elders of the community gather about Ezekiel in order to hear his prophecies; comp. Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 11:25; Ezekiel 14:1; Ezekiel 33:31 ff. On the last passage adduced Vitringa remarks: “Supponit deus in tota hac oratione sua ad prophetam, populum solitum esse statis vicibus ad Ezechielem venire, coram ipso considere, ipsius coargutiones recipere cum reverentia, et ab ipso solenniter instrui cognitione viarum dei.” These passages are quite sufficient to refute the theory advanced by Hitzig and Ewald, that Ezekiel was condemned by the circumstances of the time to lead the life of a private student, “a dim, quiet life in the law and in recollection.” Everywhere we find Ezekiel surrounded by a corona of zealous hearers. He is a public orator just as much as any of the earlier prophets. Another circumstance which speaks in favour of the exiles is, that in the time succeeding the exile the state of religion is far more in conformity with the divine law than it had been before,— that idolatry and the tendency to heathenism seem to have disappeared all at once, and only regained their ascendency among a portion of the people some centuries later, in the times when Syria was subject to Greek rulers, and then only with a small minority, so that the nation must have energetically put away this tendency as anti-national.
Since it is plain that the first foundation for this remarkable change was laid already in our period, we shall here enter somewhat more closely into its causes. Many have occupied themselves with the examination of these. This has been most fully done in two treatises which have appeared in Holland: Suringar, de causis mutati Hebraeorum ingenii post reditum e captivitate Babylonica, Leyden, 1820; and Gerritzen, comm, de quaestione, cur Hebraei ante exilium se ad idolorum cultum valde propensos, postea autem vehementer alienos ostenderint, Utrecht. The change has frequently been attributed to false causes. Joh. Dav. Michaelis, Mos. Recht, 1: § 32, and others lay great emphasis on the opinion that the Israelites during the time of exile entered into closer relations with the enlightened Persians. Not the smallest proof, however, can be adduced that the Persian religion exercised any such influence on the Israelites. The prophets at least were far from giving it a preference over other heathen religions. Ezekiel speaks with horror of its practices, Ezekiel 8:16. It becomes more and more evident that the idea of the Persian religion, which lies at the basis of this assumption, is an incorrect one. Stuhr, in his Religious Systems of the East, has tried to prove that the Persian religion, as represented in the writings still extant, is a late composition of very heterogeneous elements; that it was originally the pure worship of nature; and that the ethical elements, loosely laid over the physical, which still decidedly preponderated in the later form, are borrowed from the Jews, and, in the latest books, even from Christianity. At the same time, the assertion that the Jews were led by foreign influence to the more determined maintenance of their national religious principle is at variance with all analogy and probability. In all other cases the Israelites are led to apostasy from without; the reaction against it, all reformation, invariably proceeds from within. The relation which, according to Daniel 6, Daniel holds towards Darius the Mede, is also unfavourable to this view. Here, as formerly in relation to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, Daniel is not the recipient, but the donor. He, the worthy representative of exiled Judaism, stands firm and immoveable in faith on Jehovah, and by this faith so influences the Medish king, that he makes a proclamation commanding that the God of Daniel shall be feared and shunned throughout the whole extent of his kingdom. Herodotus says with respect to the Persians, that they betray unusual willingness to accept strange customs, B. .: chap. 135. Spiegel, in his Elaboration of the Avesta, 1: p. 11, remarks, “In this historical time the Persians certainly borrowed much from their more civilised Semitic neighbours;” and in p. 270 lays down the canon: “If a Persian idea have a foreign sound, we may in most cases assume that it is borrowed.” The true fundamental reason is contained in that which we have already proved, viz. that it was the
We must also take into consideration the position occupied by the priesthood in the time subsequent to the return from captivity, which was essentially different from their former one. Their very number must have given the priests considerable influence in the new colony, and still more the circumstance that the civil government was in the hands of heathen oppressors. The priesthood was now the sole remaining truly national dignity, and it was quite natural that the eyes of the nation should be directed towards them as to the centre of national consciousness. We see the very same thing among the Greeks before the emancipation. Under the Turkish supremacy, the hierarchy there acquired influence, even in civil affairs, such as they had not formerly possessed. Among the Israelites, until the time of the exile, there had been a theocracy without a hierarchy. Even before the establishment of royalty, the priests had, properly speaking, no political position. The political influence which they exercised here and there was invariably free, and even this disappeared with the establishment of the kingship. After the exile, on the other hand, theocracy gradually developed into hierarchy. The influence of the priesthood extended into every sphere of civil life, and was great in proportion as the heathen oppressors did not endeavour to put everything into the hands of their officials. It is easy to see the importance of this change. The priesthood, now so influential, was bound by all its interests to the Mosaic constitution. Its revenues, its influence—in short, its whole existence—depended on its adhering to this, and endeavouring to keep it in respect with the nation. At the same time, a better spirit had at all times subsisted in this body. Even at the time of the greatest degeneracy of the nation, which would naturally have some influence on them, this spirit was not quite dead. The priesthood had never quite ceased to be the salt of the nation. Prophetic denunciations of their crimes, which at first seem to testify to the contrary, as, for example, Malachi 2:5 ff., when looked at more closely, confirm our statement. They could not have demanded so much from the priests, nor have been so indignant respecting their errors, if the institution had been quite degenerate,—had it not contained a beautiful fund of the true fear of God. Owing to the increased influence of the priests, the better spirit which had animated them now passed over to the masses. The higher position of the priests and their increased influence had indeed its dark side also. If it formed a powerful antidote to the tendency to idolatry, yet, on the other hand, it gave an impulse to the spirit of externality, to justification by works, and to Pharisaism, which were the forms of sickness peculiar to the priestly nature. We find that these appeared in the new colony in proportion as the tendency to idolatry disappeared; they are the principal enemies combated in Malachi and in Ecclesiastes.
Moreover, we must also consider that the heathen consciousness did not at first meet those who returned from exile in a very powerful form, and hence offered small temptation. The neighbouring nations, the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Phenicians, and, in the opinion of the old world, also their gods and religions, were trodden under foot by the victories of the Chaldees. The Chaldees, with their religion, received the death-blow by the victory of the Persians, who stood on a much lower step of cultivation than the Israelites. Their religion had throughout an uncertain, misty, vacillating character. Soft as wax, it yielded readily to every impression from without, never properly attaining to any finality, but remaining always in a state of transition; hence it was itself incapable of making any impression on other religions. Things assumed a very different aspect, however, when the Greeks and Romans took the place of the Asiatic oppressors. The heathen principle then again met the Israelites in a form which was really seductive. Their oppressors had the superiority in science and in culture, no less than in power. The national spirit of the conquerors had constituted itself the spirit of the world, and pronounced its curse on the little people that refused to submit to its utterances. It then became clearly evident that the external faithfulness to the Lord, which had formerly characterized the new colony, had its foundation to some extent only in the weakness of the temptations. In the time when Syria was under Greek rule, whole bands apostatized to the heathen principles; even priests served the heathen idols. And though this apostasy called forth a powerful and successful reaction, yet it was never fully set aside,—it merely assumed a more honourable garb, and appeared as Sadduceeism. The circumstance that it was obliged to assume such a garb shows, indeed, that there was still a fundamental difference between the time preceding the exile— when heathenism appeared in the most shameless way, often for long periods completely suppressing the public worship of God—and the time subsequent to the exile, in which the theocratic principle was, on the whole, absolutely predominant among the nation. The reason of this change is probably to be sought partly in the fact that heathenism, even in its more powerful forms, had already begun to bear a character of decrepitude, at least as a religion. Its seductive power lay only in its worldly wisdom and its culture, and therefore had no influence on those deeper minds for which religion was a necessity. In proof of this we have the numerous secessions to Judaism, such as had never occurred in the time before the exile. The decline of heathenism, which called forth these secessions, must have made it easier for those who were at all well-disposed among the Israelites to adhere to the religion of their fathers.
Let us now return to our observations on the internal condition of the exiles. Though we have given them a decided preference before those who had remained behind, yet this must in all cases be looked upon as merely relative. This is self-evident; but it may also be proved, by many decided passages, that even during the exile there was no lack of sin on the part of Israel, and consequent lamentation from the faithful servants of the Lord. God was obliged to make the forehead of Ezekiel as an adamant, harder than flint, that he might not fear them, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they were a rebellious house, Ezekiel 3:9. With earnest censure he comes before the people, who, though they listened to the words of the prophets, did not obey them, Ezekiel 33:30 ff. Even among the heathen, whither they went, they profaned the holy name of God, and continued to practise the abomination of murder, and to defile every one his neighbour’s wife, so that it was said of them, “Are these the people of the Lord that are gone forth out of this land?” Ezekiel 33:26; Ezekiel 36:20-21. Even the vanity of false prophecy was not confined to Jerusalem, but had spread to the exiles, which could not possibly have happened if the better spirit had held absolute sway among them. Jeremiah 29:20-22 enumerates a few of these exiled pseudo-prophets. These misleaders of the people flattered them with vain hopes of a speedy release, and by this means readily incited them to pernicious revolt, leading them away from the sole work which was incumbent on them, and formed the only means of salvation, viz. repentance. The threat expressed against them by Jeremiah in his letter addressed to the exiles, that God would deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar that he might slay them before the eyes of all, shows that even the Chaldees were well aware what a spirit of restlessness prevailed among those who had been led away captive, and that they carefully watched every manifestation of this spirit.
If we consider the many weaknesses and sins of the exiled people, who had dwelt among a nation of unclean lips, and whose love had been cooled by the spread of unrighteousness; if we remember how great were their temptations to apostasy,—cast out into the midst of the heathen world, on which the idolatrous spirit of the time was impressed with fearful power, robbed of their sanctuary and their worship, and of so many other pledges of the divine grace; if we consider that the exile, in accordance with the first threatenings of it in the law, comp. Deuteronomy 4:30; Deuteronomy 30:2 ff., though, on the one hand, intended as a punishment, was, on the other hand, destined to serve as a means of grace: we shall a priori be led to expect that proofs of the divine election of Israel will not be wanting at this period,—that the love of God will find an expression as well as His anger, for its complete absence would involve the nation in frivolity and despair, two equally dangerous enemies of salvation. Such manifestations on the part of God were the more necessary, since without them the judgment respecting the great catastrophe of the Israelitish state, even in the heathen world, would be entirely incorrect, and would tend to the decided detriment of the God of Israel, being inevitably regarded as a proof of His weakness. The series of signs of continued election for the captive community begins with the writing already mentioned, sent to them by Jeremiah,—doubtless a very weak beginning. A second sign was the continuance of sacred psalmody in Israel, to which the three psalms composed in exile, Psalms 104-106., bear testimony. These psalms could not fail to make a deep impression on the nation. The first bases confidence in the destruction of the heathen power and the deliverance of Israel, on the greatness of God’s works in nature; the second, on the greatness of God’s works in history, especially on that which God had done for the fulfilment of the promise of Canaan given to the fathers. The third, by pointing to the pardoning mercy of God, sets aside the last enemy who threatened to deprive the nation of the assistance promised to them by nature and history, and to prevent their returning to their country. A far more important fact was, that God raised up Ezekiel to be a prophet to them, who was of priestly origin and himself a priest, and had been carried away in the deportation under Jeconiah. In the fifth year of his captivity, after having completed the thirtieth year of his age,—at the same time, therefore, when, under other circumstances, he would have begun his priestly functions in the outer sanctuary,—he began his office among the exiles on the river Chebar in Mesopotamia, more than six years before the final downfall of Jerusalem, so that his activity among the exiles ran parallel for a considerable time with the activity of Jeremiah among those who had remained. This circumstance tended not a little to strengthen the impression produced by their discourses. The spirit which foretold the very same thing in Babylon and in Judea appeared as something more than human. We can follow the traces of Ezekiel’s activity, whose beginning was occasioned by the formation of the anti-Chaldaic coalition, up to the twenty-seventh year of his captivity, the twenty- second of his call to the prophethood. The twenty-fifth year gave birth to that exalted vision of the second temple in Ezekiel 40-68, the figurative representation of the glorious exaltation of the people of God, by which, at a future time, their deepest humiliation was to be followed, —one of the most glorious monuments of the faith which sees the thing that is not as if it were, in its form revealing the priestly mind and character of Ezekiel, like so many other of his prophecies. In the twenty-seventh year the announcement of the great victory of Nebuchadnezzar over Egypt was made, Ezekiel 29, 30. At this time the divine mission of Ezekiel, the Godhead of Jehovah, and the election of Israel, were confirmed by the fulfilment of a number of Ezekiel’s prophecies, viz. those which referred to the final overthrow of the Jewish state, in which the minutest circumstances had been foretold; comp., for example, the prediction of the fate of Zedekiah in Ezekiel 12:12 ff., and that respecting the destruction of the city, Ezekiel 24., as well as what is said with reference to the neighbouring nations. Not long before, Nebuchadnezzar, by taking Tyre, had verified the prophecy concerning that insular city, which had already been connected with the mainland by a dam. That this did really happen has been proved in my work, De Rebus Tyriorum, Berlin, 1832, in Havernick’s Commentary on Ezekiel, and in Niebuhr’s History of Assyria and Babylon, p. 216. In these prophecies Ezekiel often states the exact time, giving year, month, and day of the divine revelation (comp., for example, Ezekiel 1:1-2; Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 20:1; Ezekiel 24:1; Ezekiel 33:21), in order to escape all suspicion of a vaticinii post eventum; by which assumption rationalistic criticism, as exemplified in Hitzig, has in vain tried to escape the embarrassment of making Ezekiel a deceiver. But not merely these special prophecies, referring in most cases to the immediate future, and passing into fulfilment before the eyes of the exiles, but also the whole mission of Ezekiel, afforded a proof that the Lord was still among His people. Truly he preached in manifestation of the Spirit and of power; he is a spiritual Samson, who with a mighty arm grasped the pillars of the idol-temple and shook it to the ground,— a gigantic nature, and by this very circumstance adapted to offer effective resistance to the Babylonian spirit of the time, which delighted in powerful, gigantic, grotesque forms. In him we have a remarkable union of Babylonish form and Israelitish nature. “If he has to contend with a people of brazen forehead and stiff neck,” says Havernick, “he, on his side is of an inflexible nature, meeting iniquity with undaunted and audacious courage, and words full of consuming fire.” Ewald’s and Hitzig’s subjectivity is nowhere more plainly to be seen than in the fact that they try to transform this very prophet into a timid, retiring student.
Daniel as well as Ezekiel, and in a still higher degree, arrests our attention. He did not, like Ezekiel, exercise a personal activity among the exiles, for which reason the book of Daniel is not ranked among the prophetic writings (we here assume the genuineness of this book to be proved in the introduction to the Old Testament); he was not a prophet by office, but stood in the service of the court. Nevertheless the eyes of the people were directed to him from the beginning, as we learn from the passages Ezekiel 28:3; Ezekiel 14:14, where it is assumed that his deep piety and his almost superhuman wisdom are universally known, though he had then only entered on years of manhood. His position at court was necessary for the fulfilment of his mission. How important this was, already appears from the circumstance that the historical portion of his book, which gives us isolated facts from his life, is in fact the only historical account that we possess relative to the period of the captivity. This period as a whole was not an object of sacred historiography, just because it is sacred, though Israel at this time was in the main rejected by God and cast out. This period bears the same character as the last thirty-eight years of the march through the wilderness. It was only necessary to record those separate events which revealed the love concealed behind the anger, the election concealed behind the rejection; and in these events Daniel had a principal part. In order to understand the historical portion of the book of Daniel, it is necessary, above all, to keep the object of it clearly in sight. All the separate narratives seem intended to show that the God of Israel, the nation that was despised and trodden in the dust, was the only true God; that He would not suffer those who despised Him, and were at enmity with His people, to go unpunished, but would help His servants in every time of need. This aim dominates not merely the narrative, but also the facts themselves. If they were subservient to it, they must necessarily abound in comfort and strength for the exiled people who were exposed to such great temptation, and deprived of so many former wholesome influences, at the same time forming an encouragement to repentance, since the isolated signs of continued election quickened the hope of its future complete manifestation. But besides this principal aim, which is far from appearing strange when we recognise the reality of the kingdom of God in Israel, but is rather what might have been expected, and seems quite natural and in order, the events which happened were also intended to make the outward lot of the Israelites tolerable, since by the high position in which they placed Daniel, they enabled him to work for his people; again, they were intended to prepare the way for the release of Israel under Cyrus, in which in all probability Daniel had a considerable share; and, finally, to awaken the heathen to a wholesome fear of the God of Israel, and to set limits to their proud contempt of Him, which had been greatly increased at that time by the weakness of His people. The prophecies of Daniel must likewise be regarded as a sign of the continued election of Israel. Their great significance already appears, from the fact that New Testament prophecy, from the prophetic revelations of the Lord to the Apocalypse, attaches so much importance to them. Their fundamental idea is the final victory of the kingdom of God, predicted with absolute confidence. Kingdoms fall, and new kingdoms rise up in their place; the people of God have much to suffer; but let them take comfort, for their God will overcome the world, and on the ruins of the kingdoms of the world the eternal kingdom shall finally be established. By these prophecies, therefore, the people of God were set as it were on a high mountain, from which they could see the confusion on the plains far below their feet.
Keeping in view what we have said with reference to the signs of the continuing election of God during the captivity, it will easily be seen how very different this exile was from that in which the Jews are now. In the latter such signs are completely wanting; hence the foolishness of the Jews in always expecting to be delivered from it. Deliverance is only conceivable where these signs have continued even during the time of misery. Israel received such signs during the last thirty-eight years of the march through the wilderness, in the continued presence of Moses, in the pillar of cloud and of fire, etc. Where the signs are wanting, there can be no election; and where this does not exist, the hope of redemption is vain. Of this we have already a proof, in the fact that for eighteen hundred years this redemption has failed to come, while the former mere suspensions of the relation of grace lasted only for a comparatively short time. The position of orthodox Judaism becomes daily worse; and we can almost make a mathematical calculation respecting the time when its end will come. The Jews profess to be the chosen race, and during a period of eighteen centuries can point to no way in which this election has been manifested; they hope for redemption, and all the termini which they have appointed for it from century to century have passed away without the expected result. The untenableness of the position occupied by orthodox Judaism is shown also by its undeniable internal hollowness and inconsistency, nor can the Jew conceal this fact even from himself. With respect to the external worship of God, the offering of sacrifices necessarily ceased entirely during the time of exile. For, according to the law, sacrifices could only be offered in the national sanctuary, Deuteronomy 12, and this no longer existed. By later revelations from God, it was also established that Jerusalem was destined to be the seat of the sanctuary for ever (comp, for example, Psalms 78:68; Psalms 132:13-14), and therefore only the worship there offered was acceptable to God; so that there could be no idea of building a new sanctuary in the place of banishment. On the contrary, it must have been evident that it formed part of the punishment of the nation to be deprived of the opportunity of offering sacrifices. The author of the book of Baruch indeed tells how, in the fifth year after the destruction, the exiles sent the sacred vessels which had been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Jerusalem to the high priest Jehoiakim, together with money to procure sacrifices. But this is a palpable fiction, for the book does not pretend to give history, but only poetry. According to the books of the Kings, Jerusalem was completely laid waste; according to the book of Ezra, the high-priestly race was in exile; and in the same book, Ezra 1:7, we read that the sacred vessels were first given back by Cyrus; and the book of Daniel tells of their desecration by Belshazzar, the last Chaldee king. The zeal for prayer shown by the Jews in exile was very great, if we may take the example of Daniel as a criterion of all the rest, and was probably increased by the want of a sacrificial worship. Just as it was customary in prayer to turn the face towards the sanctuary of the Lord at the time when the sanctuary was still standing, comp. Psalms 5:8; Psalms 28:2; Psalms 138:2, thus indicating a turning not merely to the Deity, but to the revealed Deity, the God of Israel; so it was habitual to turn towards Jerusalem during the period of exile, Daniel 6:10. Even the places where the temple had stood, where a temple was again to be erected, remained sacred. The Jews could think of no better way to symbolize the turning of the mind to the God of Israel than by turning the face to the place where He had formerly manifested Himself as such, and would again manifest Himself, as they confidently hoped, trusting in His word. According to the same passage from the book of Daniel, it was customary to pray three times a-day,—doubtless, as in former times, morning, noon, and evening; comp. Psalms 55:18. At the principal turning-points of the day, prayer rose up to the Lord of life. Morning and evening prayer was offered up at the same hour in which daily morning and evening sacrifice had been presented in the temple as long as it stood. This sacrifice was itself an embodied, symbolic prayer; and that it was customary to associate verbal prayer with it is shown by Ezra 9:5, where Ezra begins his prayer, a spiritual sacrifice, at the time of the evening oblation. From Daniel 9:21, where Gabriel appears to Daniel when he is praying at the time of the evening sacrifice, we learn that during the exile, when verbal prayer only was possible, the time of the presentation of offerings at least was preserved. From this we see that the exiled Jews recognised the closeness of the relation of sacrifice to prayer, and must therefore have looked upon the removal of sacrificial worship as an incentive to greater earnestness in supplication. The favourite place of prayer, as appears from Daniel 6:10, was the most lonely part of the house, in the upper room, where, according to 1 Kings 17:19, Elijah also retired to pray. The manner and substance of the prayer of those who truly feared God is best seen in a petition uttered by Daniel in the name of the whole nation, given in Daniel 9 : The substance is concentrated in vers. 15 and 16, in the words, “And now, O Lord our God, . . . we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech Thee, let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem, Thy holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.” The joys and sorrows of the individual were absorbed in the great hopes and sorrows of the community. The whole Church of those who feared God prayed more at this time than at any other. Just as the cessation of sacrifice gave rise to greater zeal in prayer, on the one hand, so, on the other, it must have increased the zeal in keeping holy the Sabbath, the neglect of which Ezekiel frequently enumerates among the causes which had brought the divine judgments on Jerusalem, Ezekiel 20:12 ff; Ezekiel 22:8, etc. The keeping of the Sabbath was now the only universally visible mark by which to distinguish the worshipper of Jehovah, the only national acknowledgment of their God which the Israelites could make amid the heathen, and at the same time also the sole outward means of awakening the religious national feeling.
We have already referred to those passages which show that it was customary to gather about the prophets in order to hear their revelations. Whether there were regular religious meetings besides, representative of the sacred assemblies in the temple, we have no certain testimony. It is very probable, however: in favour of it we have a strong argument in the existence of the exile psalms of which we have already spoken, which proceed collectively out of the soul of the Church. It is almost inconceivable that a people of God should have existed for so long a period without any divine worship. Even before the exile, though the temple was the only place of sacrifice, yet assemblies for divine service were by no means confined to it. We cannot, indeed, place any reliance on the statement of the Talmud, comp. Buddeus, 2: p. 861, that the exiles built synagogues. In accordance with the universal character of such statements in the Talmud, it is a mere conjecture, and has not the weight of historical testimony. The succession of the high-priesthood was not interrupted during the exile. The last high priest before the captivity was Seraiah. His son Jehozadak, who succeeded him, was carried away captive, 1 Chronicles 6:15. The son of Jehozadak was Joshua, who returned with Zerubbabel, and was the first high priest in the new colony; comp. Ezra 2:2, Zechariah 3:1 ff. From the position which Joshua at once takes in the new colony, we are led to infer that the high priests exercised considerable influence over the nation, even during the captivity.
Another ray of hope illuminating the existence of the exiles was the continuance of the Davidic race, with which such great hopes were connected, and which could not have perished without powerfully undermining faith. The son of Jeconiah the king of Judah, whom Evil-merodach had released from captivity, was Salathiel, or Shealtiel (for many reasons supposed not to have been a true son, but a son by adoption; also, however, of Davidic origin); the son of Salathiel was Pedaiah, whose son Zerubbabel was the leader of those who returned under Cyrus; comp. 1 Chronicles 3:19. This continuance of the Davidic race formed a centre for the national consciousness of the nation, a foundation for its hopes. That the confidence in a glorious future for this race, resting on the word of God, was unbroken even during the exile, is shown by 1 Kings 11:39. These books were composed in exile, at the time of the deepest humiliation of the race of David. The same thing appears also from the Messianic prediction of Ezekiel; comp. Ezekiel 17:22-24. The hope in the future is so strong in Ezekiel, that in Ezekiel 38, 39, not satisfied with predicting the restoration of Jerusalem, which was then lying in ruins, and the fall of its present oppressor, he foretells even the glorious victory of the redeemed over those enemies of the future who were not yet at the scene of action.
We shall now consider the way in which the condition of the Israelites, which has hitherto occupied our attention, came to an end. The deliverance of the Israelites did not quite coincide with the fall of the Chaldee power. The latter took place already at the close of the sixty-eighth year of the Babylonish captivity. The king of the Medes, who was the next ruler of the Babylonian monarchy, did nothing to bring the prophecies respecting the deliverance of Israel nearer to their fulfilment. In the Scriptures (Daniel 6) he bears the name Darius of Media; in profane history (in the Cyropedia of Xenophon) he is called Cyaxares,—a difference which may be explained from the fact that the names of the Medish and Persian kings were mostly only titles, and were therefore many and variable. On this subject Niebuhr has made exhaustive researches, p. 29. He thus gives the result of his examination:—“The same king may appear under several different names—(a) under his original personal name, (b) under the name taken as king on ascending the throne, (c) under one or several surnames, (d) under the universal title of the king of his country.” In recent times many have questioned the existence of a Medish king of Babylon; but the completely independent agreement of two important testimonies is a sufficient guarantee, all the more since the only argument to the contrary is drawn from the silence of Herodotus and Ctesias, which proves nothing. A full discussion of this question may be found in the
Beitrage, vol. 1:, Havernick, Commentary on Daniel, and his later Examination of the Book of Daniel, Hamburg, 1838, p. 74 ff., Auberlen, Daniel and the Apocalypse, and last of all, Pusey in his copious work on Daniel. When Niebuhr, p. 61, speaks of Cyaxares, the mythical hero of Xenophon, he forgets that the proof lies not in the historical credibility of the Cyropedia in itself, but in its remarkable agreement with Daniel. His assertion that, apart from Daniel, our only knowledge of a Medish king of Babylon is derived from the legendary Cyropedia, is incorrect. AEschylus, in The Persians, also speaks of such a one; and Abydenus even designates him by the same name as he bears in the book of Daniel. In Daniel 9 : we have a vivid representation of the mind of the exiles (of the
Darius was already aged when he began to rule over Babylon; and when he died, after a reign of two years, the kingdom passed over to Cyrus the Persian. In many respects this king stands alone in the whole history of the old world. He is the only conqueror who shines equally in sacred and in profane history. Profane history represent? him as a monarch characterized by great mildness and love of justice, a helper of the oppressed. So Xenophon in the Cyropedia, whose ideal description has an historical basis throughout, and Herodotus in Book iii. chap. 89. In prophecy (in the second part of Isaiah, to which he probably owes the name by which he is familiar to us) he is characterized in a way which almostplaces him in the rank of theocratic rulers, as the anointed of the Lord, who will not merely accomplish His will on Babylon, but will also redeem His captive people, and that as a servant who knows the will of his lord. In sacred historyhe appears as one who had acquired a deeper knowledge of the God of Israel, a know ledge essentially distinct from that which had impressed a Nebuchadnezzar, a Belshazzar, or a Darius Medus, without having a deeper root in the mind. While the heathen monarchs had hitherto served only as instruments for the humiliation and punishment of Israel, he serves God in the realization of His thoughts of peace towards His people. In the God of Israel he recognises the author of his victories, and proves his gratitude by the benefits which he confers upon His people. His position in this respect has a symbolic- prophetic character. It awakens in us a presentiment that the hostile position which the power of the world had hitherto occupied with respect to the community of God would be altered, that the prophecy of Isaiah would at a future time be fulfilled in a wide sense, according to which kings would be their nursing-fathers and nursing-mothers. He is a foreshadowing, and therefore a prefiguration, of the future removal of the former rude contrast between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. At this period we are met everywhere by manifold indications that the time foretold by the prophets of “the gathering of the heathen” is at hand. The most remarkable preparation for this is to be found in the relation of the Jews in the mother country to the Jews in the
Many hypotheses have been laid down respecting the motives by which Cyrus was influenced in his treatment of the Jews. We are led into the right track by a consideration of the contents of the decree which he issued respecting them. This is given to us in Ezra 1:1-4; and that the account is a faithful one appears from Ezra 6:1-5, according to which, a document was found in the time of Darius, in the archives at Ecbatana, which fully agreed with the import of this edict. In this edict Cyrus acknowledges Jehovah, the God of Israel, as the universal Lord of heaven and earth, confesses that this Jehovah has given him all the kingdoms which he has conquered, and states that He has commanded him to build Him a temple at Jerusalem in Judah. In the two latter points there is an unmistakeable reference to the second part of Isaiah; comp., for example, Isaiah 45:13 : “I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts;” Isaiah 41:2-4; Isaiah 41:25; Isaiah 44:24-28; Isaiah 45:1-6; Isaiah 46:11; Isaiah 48:13-15. The reference of the edict to these passages in Isaiah is sometimes verbally exact; comp, the proof given in Kleinert, The Authenticity of the Prophecies of Isaiah, p. 142 ff. It is the less to be regarded as an interpolation on the part of the author of the book of Ezra, since he does not expressly indicate that the prophecies exercised an influence of this kind on Cyrus. To the fact that Josephus, Ant. xi. chap. i. § 1, 2, explicitly states that Cyrus was influenced to the publication of this edict by those prophecies, we attach little weight. Only on the edict itself do we found our assumption that this was really the case, that the wonderful agreement of the prophecies with the past dispensations of his life called forth in Cyrus the determination to do the will of this great, almighty God, who had taken so great an interest in him even before he knew Him, and in gratitude to give glory to His name (Isaiah 45:4-5).
If in this way we have discovered with certainty the immediate cause for the determination of Cyrus, we can at least find probable reasons for a more remote cause. The fact that the prophecies made such an impression on Cyrus, presupposes that he had already attained to a certain knowledge of the true God, and that he had received these prophecies from a credible source. Here everything points to Daniel, formerly one of the most illustrious servants of the Chaldee state, and now of the Medo-Persian. He had already influenced the Chaldee rulers to acknowledge the
God of Israel to be the Lord of all lords, and the God of all gods; Darius the Mede, who had raised him to the highest dignity, had been led by him to express his recognition of the God of Israel in a public edict. What is more natural than to assume that he, with his ardent longing for the deliverance of his people, should likewise have influenced Cyrus to the promulgation of his edict, partly by virtue of the great respect in which he was held by him on account of all that had happened under the previous reigns, and partly because he laid before him the prophecies in question, which were confirmed by his authority?
All other solutions of the problem have either no historical guarantee, or else they are insufficient to explain the facts. This was formerly the case even when the mere release of the Israelites was in question; but here there is more at stake, and therefore more than ordinary motives are required. It is necessary to explain how Cyrus came to the consciousness that Jehovah had given him all the kingdoms of the earth, and had commanded him to build Him a temple; how it was that he not merely generously gave up the numerous and valuable vessels of the temple, but also laid a tax in behalf of the building of the temple on his heathen subjects, from whose midst the Israelites had gone forth, and encouraged them to give voluntary contributions to it. We must also explain how it was that the result was so directly and without any interposition attributed to Jehovah the God of Israel, whose co-operation must therefore have been evident; comp. Psalms 126:1. The edict of Cyrus has reference not merely to Judah, but to the whole nation, and was made known, according to Ezra 1:1, in the whole kingdom, and not merely in the provinces in which the Judaites dwelt. Nor are proofs wanting that the new colony on the Jordan consisted not merely of Judaites, but also of members of the ten tribes, although in the first great expedition the Judaites no doubt made by far the greater number; which is easily explained from the circumstance that they were the more God-fearing portion of the nation, and also from the fact that the ten tribes, during their much longer abode in the lands of exile, had struck far deeper roots. The very fact that there are twelve leaders of the first expedition of the exiles, ten besides Zerubbabel and Joshua,—in Ezra 2:2 only nine, but the tenth is added in Nehemiah 8:7,—plainly referring to the twelve tribes, shows us that the consciousness of the unity of the whole nation was again present; and this presupposes that the wide distinction between Israel and Judah had ceased during the time of exile. We are also led to the same result, by the fact that on the consecration of the new temple a sin-offering of twelve bulls was presented for all Israel. It is evident that at the time of Christ the inhabitants of Canaan were by no means Judaites alone, but rather belonged to all the twelve tribes, from the designation given to the nation in Acts 26:7,
Another argument in favour of the correctness of this view is, that the great number of Jews whom we afterwards find in Judea, and no less in the diaspora—a great many millions—can scarcely be explained if we assume that they were all descendants of the Jewish exiles. So also the passage 2 Chronicles 34:9, which shows that after the fall of the Israelitish state, the remnant of the Israelites who had remained in the land were driven back into religious fellowship with Judah. All that can be said of those who remained behind is equally applicable to the exiles also. Again, we have the passage Jeremiah 41:5-8, where we are told that, after the destruction of Jerusalem, eighty men from Sichem, Shiloh, and Samaria, from the centres of the former kingdom of the ten tribes, journeyed to the place of the former temple, there to lament over the destruction, and to present their offerings.
If our idea be established, it is evident that the many researches which have been made, even to recent times, respecting the abode of the ten tribes, who have always been looked for as a separate nationality, are quite in vain. Grant, an American, whose work appeared in a German translation at Basle, 1842, thought he had discovered the ten tribes in the independent Nestorians in the mountains of Kurdistan, and for a long time it was a favourite idea to look upon the Indians in North America as their descendants. Many identify them with the Afghans, who, having been subject to Jewish influences, regard themselves as descendants of the ten tribes. All these, however, are mere fancies. The remnant of the ten tribes, subsequent to the dispersion, assumed a Jewish character, and afterwards became amalgamated with the Jews who had gone out into the heathen world from the time of Alexander, and especially after the destruction of Rome. The complete fruitlessness of all attempts hitherto made,—in every case where an apparent discovery of the ten tribes has been made, either a Jewish element has subsequently appeared, or it has become manifest that nothing Israelitish existed,—which was to be expected a priori, forms another argument in favour of our view, which is of no little importance with respect to many questions. Josephus has already led the way to that error regarding the ten tribes, remarking, Ant. xi. 5. 2, that even in his time they dwelt in countless multitudes beyond the Euphrates. So also the author of the fourth book of Ezra, who, according to Ezra 13, imagined the Israelites to be peacefully living in a far-distant land, situated to the north-east. The fact that such opinions could arise, may be explained from the circumstance that the amalgamation of the Israelites with the Judaites took place very gradually and imperceptibly.
Cyrus appointed Zerubbabel to be the leader of those who were returning, and governor of the new colony. In Ezra 1:8 he appears under the Persian name Sheshbazzar; the name Zerubbabel, scattered to Babylon, he bore as the native representative of the nation that had been carried away into captivity. There is no doubt respecting the identity of the two. Cyrus confirmed in his dignity the man who was the native ruler of the Jews, and enjoyed the greatest respect among them. Already he was prince of Judah, and now he became Persian governor,
It is plain that Cyrus intended to confer a benefit on the Jews by giving them a leader out of their midst; but it certainly proved less effective than the Jews expected. They thought that their redemption was inseparably connected with the re-establishment of the race of David, although they had received no special grounds for this idea from the predictions of the prophets, in which nothing is ever said of kings of David’s race after the exile, but at this time prominence is invariably given to the kingdom of the Messiah. Doubtless they thought that Zerubbabel would at least have the title of king. But in God’s plan it was otherwise ordained. Even the dignity of governor did not remain in the family of David. Zerubbabel was the first and the last who held this position. Persian policy did not suffer it to be otherwise. We see that it was only necessary to give an indication respecting the family of David at the beginning of the new development, with reference to the later grand position which they were to occupy in it; it was not yet intended to raise them to this position. First, they were to sink lower and lower, in order that the exaltation might plainly appear as the work of God. This course of events had also been foretold by the prophets. The burden of their teaching throughout is, that the Messiah should proceed from the family of David at a time when it had sunk into complete obscurity. Comp., for example, Isaiah 11:1, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots,” where the cut stem of Jesse denotes the Davidic race robbed of their kingly dignity, and involved in complete obscurity, now no longer remembering their regal, but only their rustic ancestor;—and again, Isaiah 53:2, “For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground,”—in which passage, it is true, only the humiliation of the servant of God is directly spoken of, but this presupposes the humiliation of his race;—also Ezekiel 17:22-24, where the Messiah appears as a small, thin branch, which the Lord has taken from a high cedar and planted upon a high mountain, and which grows into a proud tree, under which all the birds of the air find a dwelling-place. In Jeremiah and Zechariah (Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12) the Messiah is called The Branch, with reference to the image of a cut stem of the branch of David employed by Isaiah.
All the silver and golden vessels of the temple, which had been kept in the temple of Belus at Babylon since the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and whose number was very great, according to Ezra 1:11, were unhesitatingly given up to Zerubbabel. Just as Zerubbabel stood at the head of civil affairs, so Joshua the high priest stood at the head of religious matters. Among those who returned there must have been comparatively many with means. We see this from the great number of men-servants and maid-servants, from the rich contributions to the building of the temple, and from passages such as Haggai 1:4, according to which many built themselves ceiled houses at the very beginning. The attempt made by some to represent those who returned as a pauper nation is therefore quite unhistorical. It is a complete misapprehension of the power of the religious principle, and is an insult to the human race, to suppose that only those went forth who neither possessed nor could hope to gain anything in exile. It is remarkable that, according to Ezra 1:4; Ezra 1:6, the heathen in whose midst the Jews dwelt responded to the demand of Cyrus by bringing rich presents for the building of the sanctuary, and for those who were returning. This shows us that at that time there was a powerful movement among the heathen in favour of Judah, of the God of Judah and His sanctuaries, and is a prefiguration of the future complete change in the position of the heathen world with respect to the kingdom of God predicted by the prophets, of the time when kings and queens should be the nursing-fathers and nursing-motliers of the kingdom of God; comp. Isaiah 49:22 ff., Isaiah 60:8-10; Isaiah 61:5-11. This movement culminated in many transitions.