Jehoiakim “did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done.” From him the kingdom passed to his son Jehoiachin, who at the end of three months was vanquished by the King of Babylon and carried captive with the princes, officers, and most of the people, and the treasures of the temple. The kingdom was thus broken up. Nebuchadnezzar, however, left Zedekiah as his vassal in charge of Jerusalem. Under him, notwithstanding the impending destruction of the city and temple, “the chief of the priests and the remaining people transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen, and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord rose against his people till there was no remedy;” and they were subdued, the temple and city burnt, and the wall of Jerusalem broken down. 2 Chron. xxxvi.
The formal abdication and abandonment of the throne of David was consummated by the seizure and captivity of Jehoiachin. “As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah [Jehoiachin] the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.” “O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous BRANCH, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.” Jer. xxiii. So, before the capture and exile of Jehoiachin, it was announced of Jehoiakim his father, “He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. And I will punish him and his seed, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judah.” Jer. xxxvi.
Thus Jehovah in the most public and formal manner forsook and withdrew from the temple, and terminated the theocracy; the procedure being attended by visible exhibitions, and verbal explanations and announcements intelligible to Ezekiel, and adapted to qualify him to vindicate it to the captives, and to forewarn them of the inflictions and desolations which were to follow. Accordingly, neither the Shekina nor any tokens of the Divine presence there afterwards appeared. When the structure was demolished by the Chaldeans, the altar and all the interior furniture was destroyed or removed, and never again recovered. In the new erection under Cyrus, when dedicated, and ever after, the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat upon it, the Shekina, the Urim and Thummim, the holy fire upon the altar, and the spirit of prophecy, were irrecoverably wanting. The construction which was substituted for the original ark had neither the tables of the law nor any of its other contents, nor any visible glory over it, nor oracles proceeding from it. The Divine presence, always before visible in a cloud over the mercy-seat, returned no more. An imitation altar was erected, but the fire which came down from heaven upon the altar in the tabernacle, and again at the dedication of the first temple, had been extinguished, and was not again restored. Jehovah, officially, as prophet, priest, and king, had withdrawn, not to reäppear till he should come, the Messenger of the Covenant, in fulfilment of Malachi’s prediction.
The new structure therefore was, at least to all but those whose worship was purely and eminently spiritual, a cold, cheerless, and dark arena of formal and wearisome rites and ceremonies; a lifeless round of irksome forms, without any visible tokens of the Divine presence, or of Divine recognition or acceptance; any oracular responses, any fire from heaven, or other vindications, confirmations, or sanctions of the doctrines or faith professed or signified by the services and offerings of the worshippers.
Hence the degeneracy, formalism, and hypocrisy which subsequently characterized the temple worship, as recorded by Malachi and his contemporaries, and in the later history of the Jews down to our Saviour’s time; their separation into discordant sects; the renunciation by the mass of them of the divine Mediator and the doctrine of Mediation, and their adoption exclusively of the doctrine of the Unity, as held by them to this day; and the necessity, in order to the maintenance among the true worshippers of the doctrines and faith of the patriarchs and prophets, of providing and perpetuating in their vulgar tongue such expositions as were furnished by the Chaldee paraphrasts.
A further confirmation to the same effect might be deduced from a consideration of the results of the scheme of reformation ascribed to Zoroaster towards the close of the Babylonish exile, whereby he hoped to unite the Jews with the Chaldeans, Persians, &c., in one sect, by purging the Magian system of worship from idolatry, restoring it to what he held to be its primitive purity, and combining with it the doctrine of one supreme creative intelligence, the doctrine of a resurrection, and other tenets of the Jews which might be incorporated in a system that neither taught nor admitted a Mediator, or any doctrine of Divine or creature mediation. This artful scheme, which was more or less successful at the time, and which, among those Jews of Babylon and the provinces who did not return to Palestine, may be traced down for centuries in the history of Oriental Gnosticism, obviously furnished a further reason for guarding the true worshippers, after the period of exile and the cessation of prophetic gifts, by such means as the Chaldee versions furnish.
Let it be further observed, as not unworthy of particular notice, that the Samaritans, from the very commencement of their history, and of their rivalship and hostility to the Jews, and the erection of their temple on Mount Gerizim, simultaneously with that of the restored Jews at Jerusalem, received and used no portion of the sacred writings then extant, except the books of Moses; and that they perseveringly rejected all traditions, and all glosses and comments on the original text. And yet from the saying of the Samaritan woman, “I know that Messiah cometh; (that is, the Christ, the Anointed;) when he is come, he will teach us all things,” it would seem that, down to our Saviour’s time, they understood the true doctrine concerning his person, his incarnation, and the titles by which he would be distinguished. When told that he who was then present in the form of man, and who spoke to her, was the Messiah, she manifested no surprise or doubt. Many of the Samaritans believed in him on her testimony. “And many more believed because of what they heard from himself,” and said, “We know that this is truly the Saviour of the World, the Messiah.” (Campbell.)
Now, since they held no intercourse with the Jews, and, from prejudice and hostility, would learn nothing from them; and since they received only the Pentateuch and rejected all traditions, it would seem that they must from the beginning of their history have understood the Mosaic writings to teach those doctrines, and from continual study of them as the only source of their religious knowledge, hopes and expectations, must have perpetuated the sentiments with which they originally received them.
“That the sentiments of the woman who conversed at the well with Christ were the same with those of the Samaritans in general, will not admit of a doubt; for from whence could a common person like her have obtained the information she discovers on several points relating to the Messiah, unless from popular traditions current amongst those of her own nation? These sentiments then furnish us with a strong argument in answer to those who contend that the more ancient Hebrews entertained no expectation of a Messiah, but that this hope first, sprang up amongst the Jews some short time before the coming of our Saviour. So deep and inveterate was the enmity which subsisted between the Jews and the Samaritans, that it is utterly incredible that a hope of this kind should have been communicated from either of them to the other. It necessarily follows, therefore, that as both of them were, at the time of our Saviour’s birth, looking for the appearance of a Messiah from above, they must have derived the expectation from one common source, doubtless the books of Moses and the discipline of their ancestors; and consequently that this hope was entertained long before the Babylonish captivity, and the rise of the Samaritans. I mention only the books of Moses, because it is well known that the Samaritans did not consider any of the other writings of the Old Testament as sacred or of Divine original; and it is therefore not at all likely that any information which they might possess respecting the Messiah that was to come should have been drawn from any other source. In the discourse of the Samaritan woman, we likewise discover what were the sentiments of the ancient Hebrews respecting the Messiah. The expectation of the Jews at the time of our Saviour’s coming was, as we have seen, directed towards a war-like leader, a hero, an emperor, who should recover for the oppressed posterity of Abraham their liberty and rights; but the Samaritans, as appears from the conversation of this woman, looked forward to the Messiah in the light of a spiritual teacher and guide, who should instruct them in a more perfect and acceptable way of serving God than that which they then followed. Now the Samaritans had always kept themselves entirely distinct from the Jews, and would never consent to adopt any point of doctrine or discipline from them; and the consequence was, that the ancient opinion respecting the Messiah had been retained in much greater purity by the former than by the Jews, whose arrogance and impatience under the calamities to which they were exposed, had brought them by degrees to turn their backs on the opinions entertained by their forefathers on this subject, and to cherish the expectation that, in the Messiah promised to them by God, they should have to hail an earthly prince and deliverer. Lastly, I think it particularly deserving of attention, that it is clear from what is said by this woman, that the Samaritans did not consider the Mosaic Law in the light of a permanent establishment, but expected that it would pass away, and its place be supplied by a more perfect system of discipline on the coming of the Messiah. For when she hears our Saviour predict the downfall of the Samaritan as well as the Jewish religion, instead of taking fire at his words, and taxing him, after the Jewish manner, with blasphemy against God and against Moses, (Acts vi. 13-15,) she answers with mildness and composure that she knew the Messiah would come, and was not unapprised that the religion of her ancestors would then undergo a change.” (Mosheim, Int. Com. chap. 2.)
The Jews, on the contrary, as is hereafter more particularly observed, had renounced the Divine Mediator and the entire doctrine of mediation between God and man. They did not expect the promised Messiah in the character of Mediator, but, holding no distinction of persons in the Godhead, they gloried in the doctrine of the Unity; believed the Mosaic Law and institutions would be perpetual, and trusted to their observance of them for salvation. It were easy to multiply citations to show that they still entertain those views. A single instance may suffice. In the London Jewish Chronicle for May, 1852, the chief Rabbi of the great synagogue, in a sermon on the first day of the Feast of Weeks, is quoted as saying: “A man who has a royal patron, when in distress applies first to the Minister, to know if an audience will be granted; but with respect to God, if man is in trouble he wants no Mediator, or angels, but calls to God alone, and he shall be heard. And this cheering belief in the unity of God is quieting to the mind.”