2

Whithersoever you look they are thunderbolts."1 By turns he is vehement, strong, and tender; he glows with manly indignation, launches sarcasms terrific in their sudden power, yet as suddenly melts into tears. He speaks often in bold and startling metaphor; the figure of the Christian life as a death and resurrection especially pervades his writings. His very words are ofttimes instinct with the same vividness and energy. He abounds in characteristic phrases: "What shall we say then?” “I would not have you to be ignorant;' "Do you not know ?" "God forbid!"3 He is fond of antithesis, of climax, even of paronomasia. He continually argues à fortiori. "The frequently recurring 'not only so, but much more' is like the swelling of successive waves." 4 Nor does he hesitate to coin new combinations of words, many of which are found only in his writings. Especially does he employ compounds of irép-over or above. His phrase kao vπeрßоλn eis ὑπερβολὴν, ‚5 “far more exceedingly," shows the intensity and elevation of his thought in the contemplation of eternal realities. He has enriched Christian terminology by many words either absolutely new, or with a new meaning enstamped upon them. The Pauline use of terms like justification, adoption, reconciliation, the old and new man; the contrast between law and faith, law and grace, letter and spirit, flesh and spirit, with many similar turns of phrase, expressively mark the great transition period from the old to the new, from the shadowy promises of the covenant made with Israel to the full revelation of a world-wide Gospel.

8. It has been well said that "Judaism was the cradle of Christianity, and Judaism very nearly became its grave. . From this peril one man saved Christianity, and this at a time when the words and acts of Christ had been recorded in no written Gospel. The career of no man has ever produced such lasting effects in the world's history as that of St. Paul." It must, however, not be forgotten-for it is the key to much in the Apostle's character and writings-that he

Jerome, Apologia. "Quem quotiescunque lego, videor mihi non verba audire sed tonitrua, Quocunque respexeris fulmina sunt."

2 See 2 Cor. v. 15 (not "they were all dead," but "they all died "-i.e., in the death of Christ); Rom. vi. 2-4; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. ii. 1, 5; Col. iii. 1-3, &c.

It would be hard to find a better equivalent for the Apostle's μη γένοιτο. 'Assuredly not," "By no means," "Let it not be," Never!" are all poor equivalents (Rom. iii. 4, 6; vi. 2, 15; vii. 7, 13; ix. 14; xi. 1, 11; 1 Cor. vi. 15; Gal. ii. 17; iii. 21).

4

Tholuck, Life and Character of St. Paul. Eng. Trans. (Biblical Cabinet), p. 31.

$2 Cor. iv. 17.

Paul of Tarsus. By a Graduate. Macmillan, 1872.

was, in intellectual habit, as well as in nationality and training, a true son of Israel. It was because he so profoundly understood the Law that he became chief teacher of the Gospel. His choicest lore was that of the Old Testament, which he quotes incessantly; his logic was acquired, not in the school of Aristotle, but in the school of Hillel; and the philosophers of Athens, when he stood among them, recognised in his manner of speech nothing kindred with their own.7 Too much, perhaps, has been made of the Apostle's Hellenic training. His casual quotations from Greek poets 8 scarcely prove an extended acquaintance with Greek literature, of familiarity with which there are no other signs. His style, like his thought, is essentially Hebraic, with only the Hellenistic form and tone common to the Jews of "the Dispersion." His Bible seems to be by turns the Hebrew original and the Septuagint, as may best suit his argument or occur to his remembrance. The Gentile world had done for him little besides giving him a birthplace, with a heritage of political freedom that often assured him protection in his travels through the far-reaching Roman Empire. Even his noble universality was the result rather of deep insight into law and prophecy, than of sympathies awakened amid the early associations of his home at Tarsus. We are too apt to attribute to the Apostle the thoughts and emotions with which educated moderns might pass through classic scenes. It may indeed be too much to say, on the contrary, that "in the vicinity of Salamis and Marathon, he would probably read the past no more than a Brahmin would in travelling over Edge Hill or Marston Moor; " but we may at least be sure that his prevailing mood, even amidst the proudest memorials of heathendom, would be the "stirring of spirit" with which he would behold the tokens of a foul idolatry. To him, the helmed virgin goddess of the Parthenon would be only the symbol of a "demon" 10 who had perverted the minds of men by false reasonings to a vain philosophy. The beauty and greatness of "the world" were nothing to him, in comparison with its deep moral degradation. To him there was no loveliness but in the Truth, no power but in the Cross of Christ.

7 Acts xvii. 18, 19. The words express not only contempt, but absolute bewilderment.

8 Acts xvii. 28, from Aratus, a native of Tarsus, B. c. 270 (or Cleanthes of Troas, B.c. 300); 1 Cor. xv. 33, from Menander, Athenian comic poet, B.C. 320; Titus i. 12, from Epimenides of Crete, B. C. 300.

9 National Review, 1855, art. "St. Paul," p. 440. 10 1 Cor. x. 20.

CHAPTER XI.

THE LAST ASMONEANS. THE VICTORIES OF

POMPEIUS.

HE widow of Jannæus, a woman of acuteness and determination, carried out his last instructions in all their integrity. Proceeding with his body from Ragaba to Jerusalem, she convened the most eminent of the Pharisees, and entrusted to them the entire management of affairs. Upon this their whole demeanour was changed. They decreed their late foe a magnificent burial, and pronounced on him an elaborate funeral panegyric. The queen Alexandra had two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. The former, an indolent and weak-minded man, was made high priest,' the latter remained in private life.

Thus she reigned for nine years, B.C. 79-70, with considerable prosperity, maintaining the conquests won by Jannæus, and establishing friendly relations with neighbouring princes. But the turbulence of the Pharisaic faction caused her no little trouble and anxiety. Not only did they insist on recalling those of their partisans who had been banished during the last reign, but they carried on a systematic persecution of the adherents of Jannæus. These in their turn gathered round Aristobulus, a man of ardent and impetuous temper, who chafed at the private station in which he had been left, and was anxiously seeking an opportunity of usurping the kingdom.

He was not left long to lament his degradation. Importuned to relax the rigour of the persecution directed against them, the queen at length consented to allow the leaders of the Sadducaic party to occupy the frontier fortresses of the kingdom, and thus they commanded the castles of Hyrcania, Alexandrium, and Machærus, indeed all the chief forts except Jerusalem.

Aristobulus himself, returning from an expedition against Damascus, took up his abode in the capital. Hence, when his mother fell ill, he hurried to the fortress of Gabatha,2 in Galilee, south of Nazareth, and having won over all the castles of the north, found himself at the queen's death in command of a large army ready to do his will. As soon as the queen expired, the Pharisees placed Hyrcanus II. on the throne. This was regarded by Aristobulus as the signal for active measures, and he marched towards Jerusalem at the head of his adherents, while his brother took refuge in the fortifications of the Temple. After a while provisions failed Hyrcanus, and he was compelled to yield to his more energetic and determined rival, and to retire into private life, after a brief reign of

three months.3

1 Jos. B. J. i. 5, § 1.

2 See Ewald, v. 394.

3 Jos. Ant. xv. 6, § 4; xx. 10, § 4.

But now appeared upon the scene a very different actor, who was fated to prove a far more formidable enemy to the Asmonean dynasty, and whose house for upwards of a century moulded the destinies of the Jewish kingdom. During the reign of Alexander Jannæus, an Idumean named Antipater had been appointed governor of that country. His son, who was called by the same name, had been brought up at the court of the Asmonean prince and of his wife Alexandra. A man of great courage, activity, and persuasiveness, he had acquired a complete mastery over the feeble Hyrcanus, and repeatedly urged him to attempt the recovery of his throne. At length he represented to him that his life was in danger, and induced him to flee by night from Jerusalem to the Arabian king Aretas, at Petra, whom he induced to espouse his cause.

Aretas marched into Judæa & head of fifty thousand men, and defeating Aristobulus in battle, forced him to take refuge in the Temple fortress at Jerusalem. The capital was now besieged by a mingled force of Arabs and Jews, and such was the fury of the rivals for supreme power that the besiegers would not allow the besieged to have the sacrificial victims for the Feast of the Passover, which even heathen generals had been wont to concede.

At this time, B.C. 65, the great Republic of the West was busily engaged in those wars which ultimately laid the old Asiatic monarchies prostrate at her feet. Pompeius was carrying on his campaign against Mithridates and Tigranes, and his general Scaurus occupied Damascus, which had just been taken by Lollius and Metellus.

News of the presence of a Roman force in Damascus reached the contending brothers at Jerusalem, and emissaries from both soon appeared in the Syrian capital to gain the support of this victorious power. Scaurus decided to espouse the cause of Aristobulus, and forced Hyrcanus and Antipater to raise the siege. Thereupon the Arabian army reluctantly withdrew, and Aristobulus sallying forth attacked and defeated them with considerable loss.

The Roman

But in the following year, B.C. 64, Pompeius himself arrived at Damascus, and both the brothers appeared before him in person to plead their cause. conqueror listened with attention to the arguments of each, and then declared his resolve to settle the matter at Jerusalem itself. Forecasting a decision adverse to his own interests, Aristobulus retired from Damascus and shut himself up in the fortress of Alexandrium. north-west of Jerusalem. Pompeius advanced against him through Peræa and Scythopolis, forced him to surrender the fortress, and then pursued him through Jericho to Jerusalem.

4 Jos. Ant. xiv. 1, §§ 3, 4; B. J. i. 6, § 2. 5 Jos. Ant. xiv. 2, § 3; B. J. i. 6, § 3. 6 Jos. Ant. xiv. 3, §§ 3, 4; B. J. i. 6, § 5.

the Roman generals, and securing for them the aid of the Jews of Egypt, ingratiated himself still more with the representatives of the great Power of the West. In the year B.C. 54, Gabinius was recalled to Rome, and Marcus Crassus succeeded to the prefecture of Syria. Bent on undertaking his disastrous expedition to Parthia, the new prefect visited Jerusalem on his way, and plundered it not only of the money which Pompeius had spared, but also of the vast treasure accumulated during a hundred years from well-nigh every quarter of the world, and amounting to 10,000 talents, or about £2,000,000 sterling. His rapacity was aggravated by the fact that he had first received a huge ingot of gold, weighing nearly a thousand pounds, which the priest in charge of the treasure had given him, on the express condition that everything else should be spared.1

It has been observed that misfortune seemed to follow in the footsteps of every Roman general that interfered in the affairs of Judæa. Gabinius on his recall from Syria was sent into ignominious exile. Crassus perished at the disastrous battle of Carrhæ, B.C. 53. The fatal issue of the battle of Pharsalia, B.C. 48, drove Pompeius to the shores of Egypt, there to perish by the hand of an assassin.

A new actor now appeared upon the stage. Julius Cæsar, having triumphed at Pharsalia, pursued his rival to Egypt, and a few days after his death arrived at Alexandria. According to his practice of revoking the decrees of Pompeius in Asia, he had already released Aristobulus, and intended to send him with two legions to overcome Syria. But the partisans of Pompeius managed to poison him on the way, and Scipio, who held the command in Syria, publicly executed his son Alexander at Antioch.

Thus the supremacy in Judæa was left in the hands of Hyrcanus, or rather of his minister Antipater. This

1 Jos. Ant. xiv. 7, §1; B. J. i. 8, §9.

revolution of affairs might have been a death-blow to the wily Idumæan. But he was equal to the emergency. With prudent alacrity he at once changed his tactics, and did everything in his power for the cause of Cæsar. He hastened to his aid in the Egyptian war with a picked body of troops; induced the Jews in Egypt to side with the new ruler of the Republic; and received wounds in well-nigh every part of his body, while fighting in his behalf.2

Having concluded the Egyptian war, B.C. 47, Cæsar was not slow to declare his gratitude for such signal services. He bestowed upon him the privilege of Roman citizenship, and confirmed Hyrcanus in the highpriesthood. In vain Antigonus, the surviving son of Aristobulus, implored the conqueror of Pompeius to reverse his policy, and accused Antipater of cruelty and oppression. Cæsar dismissed his petition, and appointed his rival procurator of Judæa, with power to restore the ruined fortifications of Jerusalem.3 Thus while the titular power belonged to Hyrcanus, the real supremacy was in the hands of the crafty Idumæan, and he availed himself of the friendship of the great Roman to obtain for the Jews many advantages. Successive decrees released the Holy Land from all military burdens; restored Galilee, Lydda, and other places to Judæa; obtained for the Jews throughout the whole Roman dominions permission to live according to their own special laws; exempted them from military service, and secured to them other similar privileges.

By concessions such as these Antipater established the tranquillity of the country, and being in fact king, acted with hardly a pretence of regard towards his titular sovereign. He appointed his eldest son Phasael governor of Judæa, and conferred the tetrarchy of Galilee on his younger son Herod.

2 Jos. Ant. xiv. 8, § 1; B. J. i. 9, § 5. 3 Jos. B. J. i. 10, §§ 2, 3.

4 Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, §§ 1, 6, 8, 11–21. 5 Jos. Ant. xiv. 9. §2; B. J. i. 10, § 4.

explain and elucidate that taken from the Law. I need scarcely say that it was not left to the reader to choose the passage from the Prophets, but the arrangement was the authoritative work of the Great Syna

gogue.

Now it is well-nigh certain that this arrangement of the twelve prophets had reference simply to their length. In times when the parchment on which a book was written cost more than the copying itself, many expedients were used for lessening the expense. And thus, as the writings of the twelve combined do not form a volume so large as Isaiah's one book, they were all united together; and the Rabbins even speak of

the later prophets as four in number, meaning thereby Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve, Daniel being arranged by them among the "Sacred Writings." Now this had no evil effects at the time. Each volume was a distinct and separate work, and the Bible was a library, bibliotheca, and not a single book. But now that it is all printed in one volume, the minor prophets are often treated as if by minor was meant that they were of less importance, whereas it really means that their writings are of smaller bulk.

We scarcely realise that five of these prophets were the predecessors of Isaiah, and that they lead up to him in a very remarkable way. We note, but perhaps only to wonder at, the fact that they are more frequently quoted by the Apostles in the Acts, when speaking to the Jews, than the greater prophets. The text of the first Christian sermon is taken by St. Peter from Joel (chap. ii. 17-21); St. Stephen gives emphasis to his argument by a quotation from Amos (chap. vii. 42, 43); and by a quotation from the same prophet St. James decides the question discussed at the first Christian council (chap. xv. 16, 17). So, too, if we look at the doctrines first revealed by their instrumentality, we shall find that they hold a very foremost place in our belief.

It is Joel who teaches us the momentous facts of a future resurrection and a general judgment, and of that outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh, without which these doctrines would be a terror to us. It is Micah who reveals to men the place of our Lord's birth, Zechariah his crucifixion, Jonah his resurrection, though veiled beneath a sign. And as they were the earliest of the prophets who left written memorials of their work, so were they the last. The Old Testament closes with the trumpet-sounds of Malachi, telling us of the near approach of the Forerunner, of the separation of the Jewish nation into those who accepted Christ and those who rejected Him, and of the coming of days when, from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, no victim should bleed upon an altar, but the meat-offering, the type of Christian worship, be offered everywhere unto Jehovah's name.

At the head of this goodly twelve stands Hosea, not because he was foremost in order of time, but because his writings are the longest of those who lived in the Assyrian period. Really the twelve prophets are arranged in three series-those of the Assyrian period, Hosca to Nahum, first; those of the Chaldæan age, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, next; and those who lived after the exile last. The chronological order of the first series is probably Jonah, Obadiah, Joel, Hosea, Amos, Nahum. Of all these, however, it was Hosea who held the prophetic office for the longest time, and this may probably have also had its weight in causing him to be placed at the head, especially as the title runs parallel with that of Isaiah, the foremost of the greater prophets. As regards the rest, Delitzsch has shown with much beauty that they are arranged with a view to the grouping of the ideas which they present in common. "Because Hosea, at the end of his prophetic writings (chap. xiv.), foretold to penitent

Israel, watered with the dew of Divine grace, a rich harvest of corn, and a fresh verdure and blossoming like the rose, the olive, and the vine; while Joel begins his prophetic writings (chap. i.) at a time when harvest and vintage had failed, and therefore calls the people to repentance-on this account the collector has joined the two prophets together. With fine taste, again, he has made Amos follow Joel, because Amos begins his predictions with the striking words found near the end of the writings of Joel (chap. iii. 16), The Lord shall rear out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem.' Upon Amos follow Obadiah, because his whole prophecy seems, as it were, an unfolding of the remarkable prediction of Amos (chap. ix. 12), that they may possess the remnant of Edom.' But why does Jonah come after Obadiah ? Because Obadiah says, 'We have heard a rumour from Jehovah, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen' (Obad. 1), and such an ambassador Jonah seemed to be. Next in this group comes Nahum, not merely because he belongs to the Assyrian period, but because he has a common interest with Jonah and Micah in that celebrated utterance of the law (Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7), that God is merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth." (Comp. Jonah iv. 2; Micah vii. 18; Nahum i. 3; and Keil's Introduction, i. 865.)

Of the person of the prophet we know nothing more than that he was the son of Beeri, of the tribe of Ephraim. Thus, he is one of the two-Jonah being the other-who alone of all the prophets certainly belonged to the ten tribes. Yet these tribes had produced Elijah and Elisha, and under the latter the schools of the prophets had flourished to an unprecedented extent. With Jonah written prophecy had also its first commencement in the northern kingdom, but it was in Judah that it attained to its full majesty and strength.

Hosea could not have been long subsequent to Jonah, for both flourished in the palmy days of Jeroboam II., Israel's last great king, who reigned forty and one years, and by whose hand God saved the people, as Jonah had foretold in a prophecy no longer extant, but referred to in 2 Kings xiv. 25. Jehu's had been a warlike line, and Jehoash, Jeroboam's father, the conqueror of Jerusalem (2 Kings xiv. 13), had probably laid the foundation of Jeroboam's conquests, which extended from Hamath, on the northern border of Syria, to the Dead Sea. This period of empire, under the strong hand of a powerful sovereign, was Israel's final opportunity for a national repentance. And before it passed away God sent the people a prophet, powerful in deed and word, to press upon them this their last hope. They refused; and Hosea lived to see Samaria's fall. In the fourth year of Hezekiah, B.C. 721, Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, took Samaria, and carried the ten tribes away captive, and placed them in scattered colonies throughout his vast realm.

It was probably, however, only towards the close of Jeroboam's reign that Hosea entered upon his office; for we read that he prophesied also during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of