Levites, described in viii. 5-26, may be noticed here. They differed
considerably from those enjoined for the consecration of priests.
Neither were the Levites anointed with sacred oil, for instance,
nor were they sprinkled with the blood of sacrifices; nor, again,
do they seem to have worn any special dress, even in the tabernacle
court. There was, however, an impressive ritual which would produce
in their minds a consciousness of separation and devotion to God. The
water of expiation, literally of _sin_, was first to be sprinkled
upon them, a baptism not signifying anything like regeneration, but
having reference to possible defilements of the flesh. A razor was
then to be made to pass over the whole body, and the clothes were
to be washed, also to remove actual as well as legal impurity. This
cleansing completed, the sacrifices followed. One bullock for a
burnt offering, with its accompanying meal offering, and one for a
sin offering were provided. The people being assembled towards the
door of the tent of meeting, the Levites were placed in front of
them to be presented to Jehovah. The princes probably laid their
hands on the Levites, so declaring them the representatives of all
for their special office. Then Aaron had to offer the sacrifices
for the Levites, and the Levites themselves as living sacrifices to
Jehovah. The Levites laid their hands on the bullocks, making them
their substitutes for the symbolic purpose. Aaron and his sons slew
the animals and offered them in the appointed way, burning the one
bullock upon the altar, around which its blood had been sprinkled,
of the other burning only certain portions called the fat. Then
the ceremony of waving was performed, or what was possible in the
circumstances, each Levite being passed through the hands of Aaron
or one of his sons. So set apart, they were, according to viii. 24,
required to wait upon the work of the tent of meeting, each from his
twenty-fifth to his fiftieth year. The service had been previously
ordered to begin at the thirtieth year (iv. 3). Afterwards the time
of ministry was still further extended (1 Chron. xxiii. 24-27).
Such is the account of the symbolic cleansing and the representative
ministry of the Levites; and we see both a parallel and a contrast to
what is demanded now for the Christian life of obedience and devotion
to God. Purification there must be from all defilement of flesh
and spirit. With the change which takes place when by repentance
and faith in Christ we enter into the free service of God there
must be a definite and earnest purging of the whole nature. "As ye
presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity
unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to
righteousness unto sanctification" (Rom. vi. 19). "Mortify therefore
your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness,
passion, evil desire, and covetousness, the which is idolatry, ...
put ye also away all these: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful
speaking out of your mouth: lie not one to another; seeing that
ye have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the
new man" (Col. iii. 5, 8, 9). Thus the purity of heart and soul so
imperfectly represented by the cleansings of the Levites is set
forth as the indispensable preparation of the Christian. And the
contrast lies in this, that the purification required by the New
Testament law is for all, and is the same for each. Whether one is
to serve in the ministry of the Gospel or sweep a room as for God's
cause, the same profound purity is needful. All in the Kingdom of God
are to be holy, for He is holy.
3. LEVITICAL SERVICE
NUMBERS iii. 14-39; iv
The sacred service of the Levites is described in detail. There are
three divisions, the Gershonites, the Kohathites, the Merarites.
The Gershonites, from a month old and upward, number 7,500; the
Kohathites, 8,600; the Merarites, 6,200. Eleazar, son of Aaron, is
prince of the princes of the Levites.
The office of the Kohathites is of peculiar sanctity, next to that
of Aaron and his sons. They are not "cut off" or specially separated
from among the Levites (iv. 18); but they have duties that require
great care, and they must not venture to approach the most holy
things till preparation has been made by the priests. The manner of
that preparation is fully described. When order has been given for
the setting forward of the camp, Aaron and his sons cover the ark of
the covenant first with the veil of the screen, then with a covering
of sealskin, and lastly with a cloth of blue; they also insert in the
rings the long staves with which the ark is to be carried. Next the
table of shewbread is covered with a blue cloth; the dishes, spoons,
bowls, and cups are placed on the top, over them a scarlet cloth,
and above that a sealskin covering; the staves of the table are
also placed in readiness. The candlestick and its lamps and other
appurtenances are wrapped up in like manner and put on a frame. Then
the golden altar by itself, and the vessels used in the service of
the sanctuary by themselves are covered with blue cloth and sealskin
and made ready for carriage. Finally, the great altar is cleansed of
ashes, covered up with purple cloth and sealskin, and its staves set
in their rings. When all this is done the sons of Kohath may advance
to bear the holy things, never touching them lest they die.
The question arises, why so great care is considered necessary that
none but the priests should handle the furniture of the sanctuary.
We have learned to think that a real religion should avoid secrecy,
that everything connected with it should be done in the open light of
day. Why, then, is the shrine of Jehovah guarded with such elaborate
precaution? And the answer is that the idea of mystery appears here
as absolutely needful, in order to maintain the solemn feelings of
the people and their sense of the holiness of God. Not only because
the Israelites were rude and earthly, but also because the whole
system was symbolic, the holy things were kept from common sight. In
this respect the worship described in these books of Moses resembled
that of other nations of antiquity. The Egyptian temple had its
innermost shrine where the arks of the gods were placed; and into
that most holy place with its silver soil the priests alone went. But
even Egyptian worship, with all its mystery, did not always conceal
the arks and statues of the gods. When those gods were believed to
be favourable, the arks were carried in procession, the images so
far unveiled that they could be seen by the people. It was entirely
different in the case of the sacred symbols and instruments of
Hebrew worship, according to the ideal of the law. And the elaborate
precautions are to be regarded as indicating the highest tide-mark
of symbolised sanctity. Jehovah was not like Egyptian or Assyrian
or Phœnician gods. These might be represented by statues which the
people could see. But everything used in His worship must be kept
apart. The worship must be of faith; and the ark which was the great
symbol must remain always invisible. The effect of this on the
popular mind was complex, varying with the changing circumstances of
the nation; and to trace it would be an interesting piece of study.
It may be remembered that in the time of most ardent Judaism the want
of the ark made no difference to the veneration in which the temple
was held and the intense devotion of the people to their religion.
The ark was used as a talisman in Eli's time; in the temple erected
after the captivity there was no ark; its place in the holy of holies
was occupied by a stone.
The Gershonites had as their charge the screens and curtains of the
tabernacle, or most holy place, and the tent of meeting or holy
place, also the curtains of the court of the tabernacle. The boards,
bars, pillars, and sockets of the tabernacle and of the court were to
be entrusted to the Merarites.
In the whole careful ordering of the duties to be discharged by
these Levites we see a figure of the service to be rendered to God
and men in one aspect of it. Organisation, attention to details,
and subordination of those who carry out schemes to the appointed
officials, and of all, both inferior and superior, to law--these
ideas are here fully represented. Assuming the incapacity of many for
spontaneous effort, the principle that God is not a God of confusion
but of order in the churches of the saints may be held to point to
subordination of a similar kind even under Christianity. But the idea
carried to its full limit, implies an inequality between men which
the free spirit of Christianity will not admit. It is an honour for
men to be connected with any spiritual enterprise, even as bearers of
burdens. Those who take such a place may be spiritual men, thoughtful
men, as intelligent and earnest as their official superiors. But the
Levites, according to the law, were to be bearers of burdens, menials
of the sanctuary from generation to generation. Here the parallel
absolutely fails. No Christian, however cordially he may fill such a
place for a time, is bound to it in perpetuity. His way is open to
the highest duties and honours of a redeemed son of God. In a sense
Judaism even did not prevent the spiritual advancement of any Levite,
or any man. The priesthood was practically closed, but the office of
the prophet, really higher than that of the priest, was not. From the
routine work of the priesthood men like Jeremiah and Ezekiel were
called by the Spirit of God to speak in the name of the Highest.
The word of the Lord was put into their mouths. Elijah, who was
apparently of the tribe of Manasseh, Amos and Daniel, who belonged to
Judah, became prophets. The open door for the men of the tribes was
into this calling. Neither in Israel nor in Christendom is priesthood
the highest religious function. The great servants of God might well
refuse it or throw aside its shackles.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] "Religion of the Semites," p. 445.
IV
_DEFILEMENT AND PURGATION_
NUMBERS v
The separation of Israel as a people belonging to Jehovah proceeded
on ideas of holiness which excluded from privilege many of the
Hebrews themselves. The law did not ordain that in cases of
defilement there might be immediate purification by washing or
sacrifice. So far as ceremonial uncleanness was concerned, we may
think this might have been provided for, and moral offences alone
might have involved the offender in continued defilement. But just
as idolatry, blasphemy, and murder caused pollution which could
not be removed by sacrifice, but only by the capital punishment of
the guilty, so certain bodily conditions and defects, and certain
diseases, chiefly leprosy and those akin to it, were held to cause
a defilement which could not be purged by any ceremony. A high
standard of bodily health and purity was required for the priesthood;
a lower standard was to be applied to the people. And the system
declaring the uncleanness of many animals, and of the person under
various conditions, touched at countless points the life of society.
An Israelite who was unclean for one or other of a hundred reasons
could not approach the sanctuary. He had his portion in God after a
sense; yet for a time, it might be for life, the peculiar blessings
of holy fellowship were denied him. He could celebrate no feast. He
had no share in the great atonement. The precautions and terms to be
observed were of such a nature that if the law had been at any time
stringently enforced a very large percentage of the people would have
been denied access to the altar.
It may appear a strange thing that the precept, "Ye shall be holy;
for I am holy," was affixed not only to moral duties but with almost
the same force to ceremonial duties. We can understand this, however,
when we trace the result of the priestly ordinances. They created
religious care and feeling; and the end was gained not so much by
directing attention, as we now do, to faults of conduct, defects
of will, sins of injustice, impurity, intemperance, and the like,
but by keeping up a scrupulous attention to matters not, properly
speaking, either moral or immoral, not ethical as we say, which were
yet declared to be of moment in religion. The moral law did its part.
But to make the enforcement of moral statutes, many of which bore
on desire and will, the only means of urging the fear of God, would
have resulted practically in a very bare and desultory cultus. Among
a comparatively rude people like the Israelites it would have been
absurd to institute a religion consisting of "morality touched by
emotion." For the mass of people still it is equally hopeless. There
must be ordinances of prayer, praise, sacrament, and the duties which
reach Godward through the Church. The value of the whole ceremonial
system of the Mosaic law is clear from this point of view; and we
need not wonder in the least at the nature of many provisions which,
without grasp of the principle, we might reckon irksome and useless.
The origin of some of the statutes is apparently hygienic; others
again reach back to customs and beliefs of a very primitive world.
But they are made part of the sacred law in order to enforce the
conviction that the judgment of God enters into the whole of life,
follows men wherever they go, decides as to their state with relation
to Him hour by hour, almost moment by moment. The ceremonial law was
a constant and strenuous lesson in regard to the omnipresence of God,
and the oversight of human affairs by Him. It created a conscience of
God's existence, His control, His superintendence of each life. And
for a certain stage of the education of Israel this could be achieved
in no other way. The moral and spiritual progress of a people,
depending on the recognition of the authority of One who is of purer
eyes than to behold iniquity, depends also, of necessity, on the
sense of His oversight of human life at every point.
1. EXCLUSION FROM THE CAMP
NUMBERS v. 1-4
The rigidness of the law which excluded lepers from the camp and
afterwards from the cities had its necessity in the presumed nature
of their disease. Leprosy was regarded as contagious, and practically
incurable by any medical appliances, requiring to be kept in check by
strenuous measures. Care for the general health meant hardship to the
lepers; but this could not be avoided. From friends and home they were
sent forth to live together as best they might, and spend what remained
of life in almost hopeless separation. The authority of Moses is
attached to the statute of exclusion, and there can be no doubt of its
great antiquity. In Leviticus there are detailed enactments regarding
the disease, some of which contemplate its decay and provide for the
restoration to privilege of those who had been cured. The ceremonies
were complicated, and among them were sacrifices to be offered by way
of "atonement." The leper was alienated from God, severed from the
congregation as one guilty in the eye of the law (Lev. xiv. 12); and
there can be no wonder that with this among other facts before him the
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the law as having a mere
"shadow of the good things to come."
And yet, in view of the malignant nature of the disease and the
peril it caused to the general health, we must admit the wisdom of
segregating those afflicted with leprosy. That Israel might be a
robust people capable of its destiny, a rule like this was needful.
It anticipated our modern laws made in harmony with advanced medical
science, which require segregation or isolation in cases of virulent
disease.
It has been affirmed that leprosy was from the first regarded as
symbolic of moral disease, and that the legislation was from this
point of view. There is, however, no evidence to support the theory.
Indeed the conception of moral evil would have been confused rather
than helped by any such idea. For although evil habits taint the mind
and vice ruins it as leprosy taints and destroys the body; although
the infectious nature of sin is fitly indicated by the insidious
spread of this disease--one point in which there is no resemblance
would make the symbol dangerously misleading. A few here and there
were attacked by leprosy, and these with their blotched disfigured
bodies were easily distinguished from the healthy. But this was in
contrast with the secret moral malady by which all were tainted. The
teaching that leprosy is a type of sin would make, not for morality,
but for hypocrisy. The symptoms of a bad nature, like the signs of
leprosy, would be looked for and found by every man in his neighbour,
not in his own heart. The hypocrite would be encouraged in his
self-satisfaction because he escaped the judgment of his fellow men.
But the disease of sin is endemic, universal. The whole congregation
was by reason of that excluded from the sanctuary of God.
According to the idea which underlies the priest law, leprosy did
not typify sin; it meant sin. In no single place, indeed, is this
directly affirmed. Yet the belief connecting bodily afflictions and
calamities with transgressions implied it, and the fact that guilt
offerings had to be made for the leper when he was cleansed. Again,
in the cases of Miriam, of Gehazi, and of Uzziah, the punishment
of sin was leprosy. Under the conditions of climate which often
prevailed, the germs of this disease might rapidly be developed by
excitement, especially by the excitement of immoral rashness. Here
we may find the connection which the law assumes between leprosy and
guilt, and the origin of the statute which made the intervention
of the priests necessary. In their poor dwellings beyond camp and
city wall the lepers lay under a double reproach. They were not only
tainted in body but appeared as sinners above others, men on whom
some divine judgment had fallen, as the very name of their disease
implied. And not till One came who did not fear to lay His hand on
the leprous flesh, whose touch brought healing and life, was the
pressure of the moral condemnation taken away. Of many cases of
leprosy He would have said, as of the blindness He cured: "Neither
did this man sin, nor his parents."
Now is the law to be charged with creating a class of social pariahs?
Is there any reason for saying that in some way the legislation
should have expressed pity rather than the rigour which appears
in the passage before us and other enactments regarding leprosy?
It would be easy to bring arguments which would seem to prove the
law defective here. But in matters of this kind civilization and
Christian culture could not be forestalled. What was possible,
what in the conditions that existed could be carried into effect,
this only was commanded. These old enactments sprang out of the
best wisdom and religion of the age. But they do not represent
the whole of the Divine will, the Divine mercy, even as they were
contemporaneously revealed. Add to the statutes regarding leprosy the
other, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," and those that
enjoined kindness to the poor and provision for their needs, and the
true tenor of the legislation will be understood. According to these
laws there were to be no pariahs in Israel. It was a sad necessity
if any were excluded from the congregation of God's people. The laws
of brotherhood would insure for the wretched colony outside the camp
every possible consideration. Denied access to God in festival and
sacrifice, the lepers appealed to the humane feelings of the people.
With their pathetic cry, "Unclean, unclean!" their loose hair and
rent clothes, they confessed a miserable state that touched every
heart. As time went on, the law of segregation was interpreted
liberally. Even in the synagogues a place was set apart for the
lepers. The kindly disposition promoted by the Mosaic institutions
was shown thus, and in many other ways.
The lepers banished outside the camp remind us of those who have for
no wrong-doing of their own to endure social reproach. Were sometimes
good men and women among the Hebrews, men with kind hearts, good
mothers and daughters, attacked by this disease and compelled to
betake themselves to the squalid tents of the lepers? That decree
of rigorous precaution is outdone by the strange fact that under
the providence of God, in His world, the best have often had to
undergo opprobrium and cruelty; that Jesus Himself was crucified as
a malefactor, bore the curse of him that "hangeth upon a tree." We
see great suffering which is not due to moral delinquency; and we
see the sting of it taken quite away. The stern ordinances of nature
have light thrown upon them from a higher world. "Himself took our
infirmities and bare our sicknesses." For our sakes He was the object
of brutal mockery, the sufferer, the sacrifice.
Besides the lepers and those who had an issue, every one who was
unclean by reason of touching a dead body was to be excluded from
the camp. This provision appears to rest on the idea that death
was no "debt of nature," but unnatural, the result of the curse of
God. Associated, however, in the statute before us with leprosy,
defilement from the dead may have been decreed to prevent the spread
of disease. Many maladies too well known to us have an infectious
character; and those who were present at a death would be most
exposed to their influence. Pathological explanations do not by
any means account for all the kinds and causes of defilement; but
exclusion from the camp is the special point here; and the cases
may be classed together as having a common origin. The notion that
some demon or fallen spirit was at work both in producing leprosy
and in causing death, was involved in the customs of some barbarous
tribes and entered into the beliefs of the Egyptians and Assyrians.
This explanation, however, is too remote and alien from Judaism to
be applied to these statutes regarding uncleanness, at least in the
form they have in the Mosaic books. The few hints surviving in them,
as where a bird was to be allowed to fly away when the leper was
pronounced clean, cannot be permitted to fix a charge of superstition
on the whole code.
A singular point in the statute regarding uncleanness "by the dead"
is that the word נֶפֶשׁ (_nephesh_) stands apparently for the
dead body. Of this some other explanation is needed than the free
transference of meanings in Hebrew. Here and elsewhere in the Book
of Numbers (vi. 11; ix. 6, 7, 10; xix. 13), as well as in various
passages in Leviticus, defilement is attributed to the _nephesh_.
Commonly the word means _soul_ or animal life-principle. When
connected with death it corresponds to our word "ghost," as in Job
xi. 20; Jer. xv. 9. Now the law was that not only those who touched
a dead body, but all present in a house when death took place in it,
were unclean. The question occurs whether the _nephesh_, or soul
escaping at death, was believed to defile. As if in doubt here a
rabbi said, "The body and the soul may plead successfully not guilty
by charging their sinful life each upon the other. The body may
say: 'Since that guilty soul parted with me, I have been lying in
the grave as harmless as a stone.' The soul may plead: 'Since that
depraved body separated from me, I flutter about in the air like an
innocent bird.'" Is it not possible that the _nephesh_ meant the
effluvium of the dead body, the active element which, springing from
corruption, diffused uncleanness through the whole house of death? It
seems quite in harmony with other uses of the word, and with the idea
of defilement, to interpret "was unclean by the _nephesh_," "sinned
by the _nephesh_," as technical expressions carrying this meaning.
The passage Numb. xix. 13 is peculiarly instructive--אֲשֶׁר־יָמוּת
הָאָדָם בְּנֶפֶשׁ בְּמֵת כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ--"Every one coming in
contact with the dead, with the _nephesh_ of a man who has died." To
translate, "with the corpse of a man who has died," would fix on the
language the fault of tautology. In Psalm xvii. 9 _nephesh_ has the
meaning of _deadly_, that is to say _breathing death_; and the idea
here points to the meaning suggested.
The reason given for the banishment of the unclean is the presence
of God in the congregation--"That they defile not their camp, in
the midst whereof I dwell." All that are unhealthy, and those who
have been in contact with death, which is the result of irremediable
disease or accident, must be withdrawn from the precincts that belong
to the Holy God. Human maladies are in contrast with the Divine
health, death is in contrast to the Divine life. Here the whole
scope of the legislation regarding defilement has its highest range
of suggestion. It was a part of moral education to realise that God
was separate from all distortion, wasting, and decay. In glad and
deathless power He reigned in the midst of Israel. From the living
God man received life which had to be kept pure and disciplined.
Among the Egyptians it was held to be sacrilege when the operator,
in the process preparatory to embalming, opened a human body. He who
made the incision was driven out of the room by his assistants with
abuse and violence. Quite different is the idea of the Mosaic law
which makes the holiness belong entirely to God, and requires of
men the preservation of the clean life He has given. Every statute
suggests that there is a tendency in the creature to fall away from
purity and become unfit for fellowship with the Most Holy.
2. ATONEMENT FOR TRESPASS
NUMBERS v. 5-10