of servants of the sanctuary. Under Christianity the ideal of the
life of faith and the manner of worship are entirely different.
A way into the holy place of the Divine presence is now open to
every believer, and each may have boldness to enter it. But even
under Christianity there is a general failure from holiness, from
the spiritual worship of God. And as among the Hebrews, so among
Christians, the need for a body of guardians of sacred truth and
pure religion has been widely acknowledged. Throughout the Church
generally down to the Reformation, and still in countries like Russia
and Spain, we may even say in England, the condition of things is
like that in Israel. A people conscious of ignorance and secularity,
feeling nevertheless the need of religion, willingly supports the
"priests," sometimes a great army, who conduct the worship of God.
There is nothing to wonder at here, in a sense; much, indeed, for
which to be thankful. Yet the system is not the New Testament one;
and those who endeavour to realise the ideal are not to be branded
and scorned as schismatics. They should be honoured for their noble
effort to reach and use the holy consecration of the Christian.
3. THE CAMP
NUMBERS ii
The second chapter is devoted to the arrangement of the camp and the
position of the various tribes on the march. The front is eastward,
and Judah has the post of honour in the van; at its head Nahshon son
of Amminadab. Issachar and Zebulun, closely associated with Judah in
the genealogy as descended from Leah, are the others in front of the
tabernacle. The right wing, to the south of the tabernacle, is composed
of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, again connected by the hereditary tie,
Gad by descent from the "handmaid of Leah." The seniority of Reuben
is apparently acknowledged by the position of the tribe at the head
of the right wing, which would sustain the first attack of the desert
clans; for dignity and onerous duty go together. The rear is formed by
Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, connected with one another by descent
from Rachel. Northward, on the left of the advance, Dan, Asher, and
Naphtali have their position. Standards of divisions and ensigns of
families are not forgotten in the description of the camp; and Jewish
tradition has ventured to state what some of these were. Judah is said
to have been a lion (compare "the lion that is of the tribe of Judah,"
Rev. v. 5); Reuben, the image of a human head; Ephraim, an ox; and Dan
an eagle. If this tradition is accepted, it will connect the four main
ensigns of Israel with the vision of Ezekiel in which the same four
figures were united in each of the four living creatures that issued
from the fiery cloud.
The picture of the great organised camp and orderly march of Israel
is interesting; but it presents a contrast to the disorganised,
disorderly condition of human society in every land and every age.
While it may be said that there are nations leagued in creed, allied
by descent, which form the van; that others, similarly connected more
or less, constitute the right and left wings of the advancing host;
and the rest, straggling far behind, bring up the rear--this is but
a very imaginative representation of the fact. No people advances as
with one mind and one heart; no group of nations can be said to have a
single standard. Time and destiny urge on the host, and all is to be
won by steady resolute endeavour. Yet some are encamped, while others
are moving about restlessly or engaged in petty conflicts that have
nothing to do with moral gain. There should be unity; but one division
is embroiled with another, tribe crosses swords with tribe. The truth
is that as Israel came far short of real spiritual organisation and due
disposition of its forces to serve a common end, so it is still with
the human race. Nor do the schemes that are occasionally tried to some
extent promise a remedy for our disorder. For the symbol of our most
holy faith is not set in the midst by most of those who aim at social
organisation, nor do they dream of seeking a better country, that is, a
heavenly. The description of the camp of Israel has something to teach
us still. Without the Divine law there is no progress, without a Divine
rallying-point there is no unity. Faith must control, the standard of
Christianity must show the way; otherwise the nations will only wander
aimlessly, and fight and die in the desert.
III
_PRIESTS AND LEVITES_
1. THE PRIESTHOOD
NUMBERS iii. 1-10
In the opening verse of this chapter, which relates to the designation
of the priesthood, Moses is named, for once, after his brother.
According to the genealogy of Exod. vi., Aaron was the elder; and this
may have led to the selection of his as the priestly house--which
again would give him priority in a passage relating to the hierarchy.
If Moses had chosen, his undoubted claims would have secured the
priestly office for his family. But he did not desire this; and indeed
the duties of administrative head of the people were sufficiently
heavy. Aaron was apparently fitted for the sacerdotal office, and
without peculiar qualifications for any other. He seems to have had no
originating power, but to have been ready to fall in with and direct
the routine of ceremonial worship. And we may assume that Moses knew
the surviving sons of Aaron to be of the stamp of their father, likely
to inaugurate a race of steady, devoted servants of the altar.
Yet all Aaron's sons had not been of this quiet disposition. Nadab
and Abihu, the two eldest, had sinned presumptuously, and brought on
themselves the doom of death. No fewer than five times is their fall
referred to in the books of Leviticus and Numbers. Whatever that
strange fire was which they put in their censers and used before the
Lord, the judgment that befell them was signal and impressive. And
here reference is made to the fact that they died without issue, as
if to mark the barrenness of the sacrilegious. Did it not appear that
inherent disqualification for the priesthood, the moral blindness or
self-will which was shown in their presumptuous act, had been foreseen
by God, who wrote them childless in His book? This race must not be
continued. Israel must not begin with priests who desecrate the altar.
Whether the death of those two sons of Aaron came by an unexpected
stroke, or was a doom inflicted after judgment in which their
father had to acquiesce, the terrible event left a most effectual
warning. The order appointed for the incense offering, and all
other sacred duties, would thenceforth be rigidly observed. And the
incident--revived continually for the priests when they studied the
Law--must have had especial significance through their knowledge of
the use and meaning of fire in idolatrous worship. The temptation
was often felt, against which the fate of Nadab and Abihu set every
priest on his guard, to mingle the supposed virtue of other religious
symbols with the sanctities of Jehovah. Who can doubt that priests
of Israel, secretly tempted by the rites of sun-worship, might have
gone the length of carrying the fire of Baal into Jehovah's temple,
if the memory of this doom had not held back the hand? Here also the
degradation of the burnt offering by taking flame from a common fire
was by implication forbidden. The source of that which is the symbol
of Divine purity must be sacredly pure.
Those who minister in holy things have still a corresponding danger,
and may find here a needed warning. The fervour shown in sacred
worship and work must have an origin that is purely religious. He who
pleads earnestly with God on behalf of men, or rises to impassioned
appeal in beseeching men to repent, appearing as an ambassador of
Christ urged by the love of souls, has to do not with symbols, but
with truths, ideas, Divine mysteries infinitely more sacred than the
incense and fire of Old Testament worship. For the Hebrew priest
outward and formal consecration sufficed. For the minister of the
New Testament, the purity must be of the heart and soul. Yet it is
possible for the heat of alien zeal, of mere self-love or official
ambition, to be carried into duties the most solemn that fall to the
lot of man; and if it is not in the Spirit of God a preacher speaks
or offers the sacrifice of thanksgiving, if some other inspiration
makes him eloquent and gives his voice its tremulous notes, sin like
that of Nadab and Abihu is committed, or rather a sin greater than
theirs. With profound sorrow it must be confessed that the "strange
fire" from idolatrous altars too often desecrates the service of
God. Excitement is sought by those who minister in order that the
temperament may be raised to the degree necessary for free and ardent
speech; and it is not always of a purely religious kind. Those who
hear may for a time be deceived by the pretence of unction, by
dramatic tones, by alien fire. But the difference is felt when it
cannot be defined; and on the spiritual life of the ministrant the
effect is simply fatal.
The surviving sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, were anointed
and "consecrated to minister in the priest's office." The form of
designation is indicated by the expression, "whose hand he filled
to exercise priesthood." This has been explained as referring to a
portion of the ceremony described in Lev. viii. 26 f. "And out of
the basket of unleavened bread, that was before the Lord, he took
one unleavened cake, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and
placed them on the fat, and upon the right thigh: and he put the
whole upon the hands of Aaron, and upon the hands of his sons, and
waved them for a wave offering before the Lord." The explanation is
scarcely satisfactory. In the long ceremony of consecration this
incident was not the only one to which the expression "filling
the hand" was applied; and something simpler must be found as the
source of an idiomatic phrase. To fill the hand would naturally
mean to pay or hire, and we seem to be pointed to the time when
for the patriarchal priesthood there was substituted one that was
official, supported by the community. In Exod. xxviii. 41 and in
Lev. viii. 33, the expression in question is used in a general sense
incompatible with its reference to any particular portion of the
ceremony of consecration. It is also used in Judges xvii., where to
all appearance the consecration of Micah's Levite implied little else
than the first payment on account of a stipulated hire. The phrase,
then, appears to be a mark of history, and carries the mind back to
the simple origin of the priestly office.
Eleazar and Ithamar "ministered in the priest's office in the
presence of Aaron their father." So far as the narrative of the
Pentateuch gives information, there were originally, and during
the whole of the wilderness journey, no other priests than Aaron
and his sons. Nadab and Abihu having died, there remained but the
two besides their father. Phinehas the son of Eleazar appears in
the history, but is not called a priest, nor has he any priestly
functions. What he does is indeed quite apart from the holy office.
And this early restriction of the number is not only in favour of
the Pentateuchal history, but partly explains the fact that in
Deuteronomy the priests and Levites are apparently identified. Taking
at their very heaviest the duties specially laid on the priests, much
must have fallen to the share of their assistants, who had their
own consecration as ministers of the sanctuary. It is certain that
members of the Levitical families were in course of time admitted to
the full status of priests.
The direction is given in ver. 10, "Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his
sons, and they shall keep their priesthood; and the stranger that
cometh nigh shall be put to death." This is rigorously exclusive, and
seems to contrast with the statements of Deuteronomy, "At that time
the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant
of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto Him and to
_bless in His name_ unto this day" (x. 8); and again, "The priests
the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor
inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made
by fire, and His inheritance" (xviii. 1); and once more, "Moses wrote
the law and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, which
bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of
Israel" (xxxi. 9). Throughout Deuteronomy the priests are never called
sons of Aaron, nor is Aaron called a priest. Whether the cause of this
apparent discrepancy is that Deuteronomy regarded the arrangements for
the priestly service in a different light, or that the distinction of
priests from Levites fell into abeyance and was afterwards revived,
the variation cannot be ignored. In the book of Joshua "the children
of Aaron the priest" appear on a few occasions, and certain of the
duties of high priest are ascribed to Eleazar. Yet even in Joshua the
importance attached to the Aaronic house is far less than in Exodus,
Leviticus, and Numbers; and the expression "the priests the Levites"
occurs twice. If we regard the origin of the Aaronic priesthood as
belonging to the Mosaic period, then the wars and disturbances of
the settlement in Canaan must have entirely disorganised the system
originally instituted. In the days of the judges there seems to have
been no orderly observance of those laws which gave the priesthood
importance. Scattered Levites had to do as they best could what was
possible in the way of sacrifice and purification. And this confusion
may have begun in the plain of Moab. The death of Aaron, the personal
insignificance of his sons, and still more the death of Moses himself,
would place the administration of religious as well as secular affairs
on an entirely different footing. Memoranda preserved in Leviticus
and Numbers may therefore be more ancient than those of Deuteronomy;
and Deuteronomy, describing the state of things before the passage of
Jordan, may in regard to the priesthood reflect the conditions of a new
development, the course of which did not blend with the original design
till after the captivity.
The tribe of Levi is, according to ver. 6 ff., appointed to minister
to Aaron, and to keep his charge and that of the congregation before
the "tent of meeting," to do the service of the tabernacle. For all
the necessary work connected with the sanctuary the Levites are
"wholly given unto Aaron on behalf of the children of Israel." It
was of course in accordance with the patriarchal idea that each clan
should have a hereditary chief. Here, however, an arbitrary rule
breaks in. For Aaron was not by primogeniture head of the tribe of
Levi. He belonged to a younger family of the tribe. The arrangements
made by Moses as the representative of God superseded the succession
by birthright. And this is by no means the only case in which a law
usually adhered to was broken through. According to the history the
high-priesthood did not invariably follow the line of Eleazar. At a
certain point a descendant of Ithamar was for some reason raised to
the dignity. Samuel, too, became virtually a priest, and rose higher
than any high-priest before the captivity, although he was not even
of the tribe of Levi. The law of spiritual endowment in his case set
the other aside. And is it not often so? The course of providence
brings forward the man who can guide affairs. While his work lasts he
is practically supreme. It is useless to question or rebel. Neither
in religion nor in government can the appeal to Divine right or to
constitutional order alter the fact. Korah need not revolt against
Moses; nor may Aaron imagine that he can push himself into the
front. And Aaron, as head of the tribe of Levi, and of the religious
administration, is safe in his own position so long only as his
office is well served. It is to responsibility he is called, rather
than to honour. Let him do his duty, otherwise he will surely become
merely a name or a figure.
2. THE FIRST-BORN
NUMBERS iii. 11-13, 40-51
These two passages supplement each other and may be taken together.
Jehovah claims the first-born in Israel. He hallowed them unto
Himself on the day when He smote all the first-born in the land of
Egypt. They are now numbered from a month old and upward. But instead
of their being appointed personally to holy service, the Levites are
substituted for them. The whole account supplies a scheme of the
origin of the sacerdotal tribe.
It has been questioned whether the number of the first-born, which
is 22,273, can in any way be made to agree with the total number
of the male Israelites, previously stated at 603,550. Wellhausen
is specially contemptuous of a tradition or calculation which, he
says, would give an average of forty children to each woman. But
the difficulty partly yields if it is kept in view that the Levites
were separated for the service of the sanctuary. Naturally it would
be the heir-apparent alone of each family group whose liability to
this kind of duty fell to be considered. The head of a household was,
according to the ancient reckoning, its priest. In Abraham's family
no one counted as a first-born but Isaac. Now that a generation of
Israelites is growing up sanctified by the covenant, it appears fit
that the presumptive priest should either be devoted to sacerdotal
duty, or relieved of it by a Levite as his substitute. Suppose each
family had five tents, and suppose further that the children born
before the exodus are not reckoned, the number will not be found at
all disproportionate. The absolute number remains a difficulty.
Dr. Robertson Smith argues from his own premises about the sanctity
of the first-born. He repudiates the notion that at one time the
Hebrews actually sacrificed all their first-born sons; yet he affirms
that "there must have been some point of attachment in ancient custom
for the belief that the Deity asked for such a sacrifice."[1] "I
apprehend," he proceeds, "that all the prerogatives of the first-born
among Semitic peoples are originally prerogatives of sanctity; the
sacred blood of the kin flows purest and strongest in him (Gen. xlix.
3). Neither in the case of children nor in that of cattle did the
congenital holiness of the first-born originally imply that they must
be sacrificed or given to the Deity on the altar, but only that if
sacrifice was to be made, they were the best and fittest because the
holiest victims." The passage in Numbers may be confidently declared
to be far from any such conception. The special fitness for sacrifice
of the first-born of an animal is assumed: the fitness of the heir
of a family, again, is plainly not to _become_ a sacrifice, but to
offer sacrifice. The first-born of the Egyptians died. But it is
the life, the holy activity of His own people, not their death, God
desires. And this holy activity, rising to its highest function in
the first-born, is according to our passage laid on the Levites to a
certain extent. Not entirely indeed. The whole congregation is still
consecrated and must be holy. All are bound by the covenant. The head
of each family group will still have to officiate as a priest in
celebrating the passover. Certain duties, however, are transferred
for the better protection of the sanctities of worship.
The first-born are found to exceed the number of the Levites by two
hundred and seventy-three; and for their redemption Moses takes "five
shekels apiece by the poll; after the shekel of the sanctuary." The
money thus collected is given unto Aaron and his sons.
The method of redemption here presented, purely arbitrary in respect of
the sum appointed for the ransom of each life, is fitly contrasted by
the Apostle Peter with that of the Christian dispensation. He adopts
the word _redeem_, taking it over from the old economy, but says,
"Ye were redeemed not with corruptible things, with silver or gold,
from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers." And the
difference is not only that the Christian is redeemed with the precious
blood of Christ, but this also, that, while the first-born Israelite
was relieved of certain parts of the holy service which might have been
claimed of him by Jehovah, it is for sacred service, "to be a holy
priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices," Christians are redeemed.
In the one case exemption, in the other case consecration is the end.
The difference is indeed great, and shows how much the two covenants
are in contrast with each other. It is not to enable us to escape any
of the duties or obligations of life Christ has given Himself for us.
It is to make us fit for those duties, to bring us fully under those
obligations, to purify us that we may serve God with our bodies and
spirits which are His.
A passage in Exodus (xiii. 11 f.) must not be overlooked in
connection with that presently under consideration. The enactment
there is to the effect that when Israel is brought into the land of
the Canaanites every first-born of beasts shall be set apart unto
the Lord, the firstling of an ass shall be redeemed with a lamb
or killed, and all first-born children shall be redeemed. Here the
singular point is that the law is deferred, and does not come into
operation till the settlement in Canaan. Either this was set aside
for the provisions made in Numbers, or these are to be interpreted
by it. The difficulties of the former view are greatly increased by
the mention of the "shekel of the sanctuary," which seems to imply a
settled medium of exchange, hardly possible in the wilderness.
In Numb. viii. 18, 19, the subject of redemption is again touched,
and the additions are significant. Now the service of the Levites
"in the tent of meeting" is by way of atonement for the children of
Israel, "that there be no plague among the children of Israel when
the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary." Atonement
is not with blood in this case, but by the service of the living
substitute. While the general scope of the Mosaic law requires the
shedding of blood in order that the claim of God may be met, this
exception must not be forgotten. And in a sense it is the chief
instance of atonement, far transcending in expressiveness those
in which animals were slaughtered for propitiation. The whole
congregation, threatened with plagues and disasters in approaching
God, has protection through the holy service of the Levitical tribe.
Here is substitution of a kind which makes a striking point in the
symbolism of the Old Testament in its relation to the New. The
principle may be seen in patriarchal history. The ten in Sodom, if
ten righteous men could have been found, would have saved it, would
have been its atonement in a sense, not by their death on its behalf
but by their life. And Moses himself, standing alone between God
and Israel, prevails by his pleading and saves the nation from its
doom. So our Lord says of His disciples, "Ye are the salt of the
earth." Their holy devotion preserves the mass from moral corruption
and spiritual death. Again, "for the elect's sake," the days of
tribulation shall be shortened (Matt. xxiv. 22).