_THE GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE LEVITIC RITUAL._
1 KINGS viii. 1-66.
"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice."--1 SAM. xv. 22.
Before we enter on the subject of the Temple worship, it is necessary
to emphasise a fact which will meet us again and again in many forms
as we consider the history of the Chosen People: it is the amazing
ignorance which seems to have prevailed among them for centuries as
to the most central and decisive elements of nearly the whole of the
Mosaic law as we now read it in the Pentateuch.
1. Take, for instance, the law of a central sanctuary. It is strongly
laid down, and incessantly insisted on, throughout the Book of
Deuteronomy.[307] Yet that law does not seem to have been so much
as noticed by any of the earlier prophets or judges, or by Saul, or
by David. The judges and early kings offer sacrifices at any place
which they regard as sacred--Bochim, Ophrah, Mizpeh, Gilgal, Bethel,
Bethlehem, etc.[308] The rule of one place for sacrifice was not
regarded for a moment by the kings of the Northern Kingdom. The
transgression of it was not made a subject of complaint by Elijah,
Elisha, or any of the earlier prophets. Not one of the kings, even
of the most pious kings--Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah,
Jotham--rigidly enforced it until the reign of Josiah. The law seems
to have remained an absolutely dead letter for hundreds of years. Now
this would be amply accounted for if the Deuteronomic and Levitic
Codes only belonged in reality to the days of Josiah and of the
Exile; for in "the Book of the Covenant" (Exod. xxiv. 7), which is
the most ancient part of these codes, and comprises Exod. xx.-xxviii.
33, and is briefly repeated in Exod. xxxiv. 10-28, there is not only
no insistence on a central shrine, but many of the regulations would
have been rendered impossible had such a shrine existed (_e.g._,
Exod. xxi. 6, xxii. 7, 8, where "the judges" should be "God," as in
the R.V.). Indeed, so far from insistence on one Temple, we expressly
read (Exod. xx. 24), "An altar of earth shalt thou make Me, and shalt
sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy
sheep and thine oxen, _in all places where I record My name_, and I
will come unto thee and bless thee."
2. Again, the Book of Leviticus lays down a singularly developed
code of ritual, "extending to the minutest details of worship and of
life." Yet there is scarcely the shadow of a trace of the observance
of even its most reiterated and important provisions during centuries
of Israelitish history. It is emphatically a priestly book; yet from
the days of David down to those of Josiah, the priests, with few
exceptions, are almost ignored in the national records. They took the
colour of their opinions from the reigning kings, even in matters
which were contrary to the whole extent and spirit of the Mosaic Code.
Samuel, who was not a priest, nor even a Levite, performed every
function of a priest, and of a high priest, all his life long.
3. Again, as we have seen, in spite of the positive distinctness of the
Second Commandment, not only is the "calf-worship" established, with
scarcely a protest, throughout the Northern Kingdom; but Solomon even
ventures, without question or reproof, to place twelve oxen under his
brazen sea, and to adorn the steps of his throne with golden lions.
4. Again, no ceremony was more awful, or more strikingly symbolical,
in the later religion of Israel, than that of the Great Day of
Atonement. It was the _only_ appointed fast in the Jewish year,[309]
a day so sacred that it acquired the name of _Yoma_, "the Day." Yet
the Day of Atonement, with its arresting ceremonies and intense
significance, is not so much as once mentioned outside the Levitical
Code by a single prophet, or priest, or king. It is not even
mentioned--which is exceedingly strange--in the post-exilic Books of
Chronicles. Between the Book of Leviticus (with its supposed date
of 1491 B.C.), down to the days of Philo, Josephus, and the New
Testament, there is not so much as a hint of the observance of this
central ceremony of the whole Levitic law! What is more perplexing
is, that, in the ideal legislation of Ezekiel, where alone anything
distantly resembling the Day of Atonement is alluded to (Ezek.
xlv. 18-20), the time, manner, and circumstances are as absolutely
different as if Ezekiel had never read the Levitic law at all. How
would any prophet have dared to ignore or alter, without a word
of reference or apology, a rite of Divine origin and immemorial
sanctity, if he had been aware of its existence?
5. Nor is this only the case with the Day of Atonement. It seems
certain that at Jerusalem there was not for centuries anything
distantly resembling the due Levitic observance of the three great
yearly feasts. Nehemiah, for instance, tells us in so many words that
since the days of Joshua the son of Nun down to B.C. 445--perhaps for
a thousand years--the Feast of Tabernacles had never been observed in
the most characteristic of all its appointed rites--the dwelling in
booths.[310]
6. Again, although there are slight allusions in some of the Prophets
to "laws" and "statutes" and "commandments," their silence about, if
not their absolute ignorance of, anything which resembles the Levitic
legislation as a whole is a startling problem. Thus, even a late
prophet like Jeremiah alludes, without a word of reprobation, to men
cutting and making themselves bald for the dead (Jer. xvi. 6; comp.
xli. 5) in a way which the Levitic law (Lev. xix. 28; Deut. xiv. 1)
strenuously forbids.
7. Again, as is well known, there is a fundamental difference between
the three codes as to the relative position of the priests and
Levites. (i) In Exod. xix. 6 all Israel is regarded as "a kingdom of
priests and an holy nation," and in Exod. xxiv. 5 the young men of
the children of Israel "offer burnt offerings and sacrifice peace
offerings." (ii) In Numb. iii. 44-51 the Levites are set aside
for the service of the Tabernacle in place of the firstborn. But
neither in "the Book of the Covenant" nor in Deuteronomy is there any
_distinction_ between the services of the priests and the Levites.
(iii) In Deut. x. 8 every Levite may become a priest. All priestly
functions are open to the Levites, and the arrangements for the
Levites are wholly different from those of Numbers. (iv) But in the
Priestly Code only the sons of Aaron are to be priests (Numb. vi.
22-27, xviii. 1-7; Lev. i. 5, 8). The Levites are to minister to them
in more or less menial functions, and are permitted a share in the
tithes, but not (as in Deut. xviii. 1) in the firstfruits. We have
first identity of priests and Levites, then partial, then absolute
separation.[311] The earliest trace of this degradation of the
Levites is propounded as something quite new in Ezek. xliv. 10-16,
which distinctly implies (see verse 13) that up to that time the
Levites had enjoyed full priestly rites.
It must be admitted that these facts are not capable of easy
explanation, nor is it strange that they have led the way to
unexpected conclusions. We have to face the certainty that, for
ages together, the Levitic law was not only a dead letter among the
people for whom it was intended, but that its very existence does
not seem to have been known. "For long periods," says Professor
Robertson, "the people of Israel seem to have been as ignorant of
their own religion as the people of Europe were of theirs in the Dark
Ages."[312] But the problem, were we to pursue it into its details,
is far more perplexing than can be accounted for by the very partial
and misleading parallel which Professor Robertson adduces. The
parallel would be nearer if, throughout the Dark Ages for a thousand
years together, scarcely a single trace were to be found, even under
the best popes and the most pious kings, and even in theologic and
sacred literature, of so much as the existence of a New Testament, or
of any observance of the most distinctive festivals and sacraments of
Christianity. And this, as Professor Robertson knows, is infinitely
far from being the case. It is true that an argument _ex silentio_
may easily be pushed too far; but we cannot ignore it when it is
so striking as this, and when it is also strengthened by so many
positive and corroborative facts.
A solution of this phenomenon--which becomes most salient in the
Book of Kings--is proposed by the criticism which has received
the title of "The Higher Criticism," because it is historic and
constructive, and rises above purely verbal elements. That solution
is that the Pentateuch is not only a composite structure (which all
would concede), but that it was written in very different ages, and
that much of it is of very late origin. Critics of the latest school
believe that it consists of three well-marked and entirely different
codes of laws--namely, "the Book of the Covenant" (Exod. xx.
23-xxiii.); the "Deuteronomic Code," first brought into prominence in
the reign of Josiah, and written shortly before that reign; and the
"Levitical" or "Priestly Code," which comprises most of Exodus, and
nearly all Leviticus, and was not introduced till after the Exile.
This would be indeed a radical conclusion, and cannot yet be regarded
as having been conclusively established. But so remarkable has been
the rapidity with which the opinion of religious critics has advanced
on the subject, that now even the strongest opponents of this extreme
view admit that _the existence of the three separate codes_ has been
demonstrated, although they still think that all three may belong to
the Mosaic age.[313] It is obvious, however, that this view leaves
many of the difficulties entirely untouched. Criticism has not yet
spoken her last word upon the subject, but we ought to take her views
into account in considering the judgments pronounced by the historian
of the Kings. They were judgments which, in their details, though not
as regards broad moral principles, were based on the standpoint of a
later age. The views of that later age must be discounted if we have
to admit that some of the ritual innovations and legal transgressions
of the kings were transgressions of laws of the very existence of
which they were profoundly ignorant. That they _were_ thus ignorant
of them is not only implied throughout, but appears from the direct
statements of the sacred historians.[314]
FOOTNOTES:
[307] See, especially, Deut. xii. 5-19. In the later Priestly Code
the centralisation of worship is not inculcated, but supposed to be
already established. In the original Book of the Covenant it is not
required at all.
[308] Judg. ii. 5, vi. 24, viii. 27, xx. 1, xxi. 2, 4; 1 Sam. vii. 9,
x. 8, xi. 15, xiii. 9, xvi. 5, etc.
[309] ἡ νηστεία (Acts xxvii. 9); Philo, _Lib. de Septenariis_.
[310] Neh. viii. 17.
[311] Canon Cook in the _Speaker's Commentary_ (Leviticus, p. 496)
admits: "It is by no means unlikely there are insertions of a later
date, which were written and sanctioned by the prophets and holy men
who _after the captivity_ arranged and edited the Scriptures of the
Old Testament."
[312] _Book by Book_, p. 7.
[313] See Professor Robertson, _Book by Book_, p. 56. I quote Professor
Robertson as one of the ablest and most competent opponents of extreme
conclusions; but it does not seem to me that he touches on some of the
arguments which constitute the main strength of the case against him.
[314] See 2 Kings xxii. 11; Ezra ix. 1, 7; Neh. ix. 3.