breach of the eighth commandment which involved trespass not only
against man, but also against God--"When a man or woman shall commit
any sin that men commit to do a trespass against the Lord, and that
soul be guilty; then shall they confess their sin which they have
done." The statute supplements one given in Lev. vi. 1-4, omitting
some details, but adding the provision that if the person defrauded
has died, restitution shall be made to the _goël_, and if there is no
surviving relation, to the priest. The cases specified in Leviticus
are those of false dealing in regard to a deposit or a bargain,
robbery, oppression,--probably in the way of withholding hire from a
labourer,--finding what was lost and denying it; but in each instance
false swearing is added to the offence and constitutes it a trespass
against the Lord. Restitution to man must be made by returning the
amount and one-fifth in addition; to God by bringing a ram without
blemish, with which the priest makes atonement.
In this statute the punishment does not seem severe. But the penalty
is imposed after confession when the offence has been for some time
undetected. The ordinary law required for the theft of an ox, if the
animal had not been slaughtered, double restitution; and if it had
been slaughtered or sold, fivefold restitution. In the case of a sheep
slaughtered or sold the restitution was to be fourfold. Confession of
the theft, according to the present statute, diminishes the penalty.
Noticeable particularly is the provision for atonement, which is
nowhere else admitted in connection with a serious breach of the
moral law. Any offence against the first four commandments was to be
punished with death; so also were murder, adultery, and certain other
crimes. It might have been expected that false swearing by any one in
regard to theft or valuables intrusted to him would add to his guilt.
Here, however, by means of the ram of atonement even that offence is
apparently expiated. Possibly the confession is held to mitigate the
crime. Still the nature of the statute is surprising and exceptional.
3. THE WATER OF JEALOUSY
NUMBERS v. 11-31
The long and remarkable statute regarding the water of jealousy seems
to have been interposed to prevent, by means of an ordeal, that cruel
practice of peremptory divorce which had been in vogue at some period
among the Hebrews. The position given to woman by the old customs
must have been exceedingly low. Under polygamy a wife was in constant
danger of suspicions and accusations she had no means of removing.
The whole scope of this enactment and the means used for deciding
between the husband and a suspected wife point to the frequency and
general groundlessness of charges made by men in the "hardness of
their hearts," or by other women in the hardness of theirs.
The ordeal to which the wife was to be subjected was twofold. One
point was the imprecation of the Divine curse upon herself if she had
been guilty. This oath was administered in terms and with ceremonies
fitted to produce the most profound impression. She is set "before the
Lord"--probably in the court of the sanctuary. Her hair is loose. She
has the offering of jealousy in her hand--the tenth part of an ephah
of barley-meal. The priest holds a basin of the "water of jealousy."
The terms of the curse with its frightful consequences are not only
repeated in her hearing, but written on a scroll which is dropped into
the water. The second thing is her drinking of the "water of jealousy,"
"holy water" mingled with dust from the floor of the sanctuary, and
with the terms of the curse. The nature of the ordeal was such that
few guilty persons would have braved it. The only thing which appears
wanting is a provision for the punishment of the man whose wife had
passed the terrible test. Since the punishment of this crime was death,
and he made the accusation without cause, his own judgment should
have followed. Here, however, deference had to be paid to the notions
of the time, as our Lord clearly indicates. The absolute right, the
just equality between husband and wife, could not be established. Nor
indeed, with all our progress, is it yet secured.
The ordeal of the water of jealousy must have saved many an innocent
life from wreck. In one sense it was part of a system designed to
maintain a high standard of morality, and in that system it had a
place which at the time could not be filled in any other way. The
main stress lies on the oath of purgation; and to the present day
in certain ecclesiastical courts this is in use for the purpose of
bringing to an end processes not otherwise capable of solution.
It must be noted that our marriage laws, lax as they are thought
to be, do not give to a husband anything like the power or allow
divorce with anything like the facility admitted by the Mosaic law
as some of the Rabbis interpreted it. And this ordeal was of such a
nature that if those in use throughout Europe only a century ago or
thereby, in the trial of witches for instance, be compared with it,
we can at once see its superiority. Those barbarous tests, not used
by the vulgar alone, but by religious men and Church authorities,
made escape from false accusation next to impossible. Here there
is absolutely nothing required which could in any sense injure or
imperil an innocent woman. She might take her oath, see it written,
and drink the water without the least fear or hesitation. The
beneficence of the law is strongly marked along with its wisdom. It
was a wonderful provision for the time.
V
_NAZIRITISM: THE BLESSING OF AARON_
NUMBERS vi
1. The custom of Naziritism, which tended to form a semi-religious
caste, is obscure in its origin. The cases of Samson and Samuel imply
that before birth some were bound in terms of this vow by their
parents. In the passage before us nothing whatever is said as to the
reasons which the law recognised for the practice of Naziritism. We
may believe, however, that it was from the first, like many votive
customs, distinctly religious. One who had been delivered from some
danger or restored to health might adopt this method of showing his
thankfulness to God. It is impossible to connect Naziritism with any
sacerdotal duty. A man under the vow had no function, no privilege,
that in the least approached that of the priest. Nor can we trace any
parallel between the Nazirite rule and that of the fakirs of India
or the dervishes of Egypt and Arabia, whose poverty is their mark of
consecration. There is, however, some resemblance to the vow of the
Arab pilgrim, who, on his way to the holy place, must not cut or dress
his hair, and must abstain from bloodshed. The prophet Amos (ii. 11)
claims that God had raised up young men to be Nazirites, and he places
their influence almost on a level with that of the prophets as a means
of blessing to the people. We may believe, therefore, that they helped
both morality and religion; and the conditions of their vow seem to
have given them fine bodily health and personal appearance.
When the Nazirite vow was undertaken for a term, say thirty, sixty, or
a hundred days, the law assumed its religious character, prescribed the
conditions to be observed, the means of removing accidental defilement,
and the ceremonies to be performed when the period of separation
closed. Any man might devote himself without appealing to the priest or
going through any religious rite; and in general his own conscience was
depended on to make him rigidly attentive to his vow. There was to be
no monastic association of Nazirites, no formal watch kept over their
conduct. They mingled with others in ordinary life, and went about
their business as at other times. But the unshorn hair distinguished
them; they felt that the eye of God as well as the eyes of men were
upon them, and walked warily under the sense of their pledge. The
discharge which had to be given by the priest was a further check; it
would have been withheld if any charge of laxity had been made against
the Nazirite. The ceremonies of release were of a kind fitted to
attract general attention.
The modern pledge of abstinence bears in various points resemblance
to the Nazirite vow. We can easily believe that indulgence in strong
drink was one of the principal sins against which Naziritism testified.
And as in ancient Israel that body of abstainers from the fruit of the
vine, honourably known as a caste, acknowledged by the Divine law,
formed a constant check on intemperance, so the existence of a large
class among ourselves, bound to abstinence, aids most effectually
in restraining the drinking customs of the present age. When we add
to the approval of Naziritism which is before us here the fact that
priests in the discharge of their ministry were required to forego
the use of wine, the sanction of Hebrew legislation on its moral side
may certainly be claimed for the total abstinence pledge. No doubt
the circumstances differ greatly. Wine was the common beverage in
Palestine. It was in general so slightly intoxicating that the use of
it brought little temptation. But our distilled liquors and fermented
drinks are so strongly alcoholic, so dangerous to health and morals,
that the argument for abstinence is now immensely greater than it was
among the Hebrews. Not only as an example of self-restraint, but as a
safeguard against constant peril, the pledge of abstinence deservedly
enjoys the sanction of the Churches of Christ.
On the other hand, the pledge of the total abstainer, like the vow
of the Nazirite, carries with it a certain moral danger. One who,
having come voluntarily under such a pledge, allows himself to break
it, suffers a serious loss of spiritual power. The abstainer, like
the Nazirite, is his own witness, his own judge. But if his pledge
has been sacredly undertaken, solemnly made, any breach of it is an
offence to conscience, a denial of obligation to God which must react
on the will and life. It was not by using strong drink that Samson
broke his vow of Naziritism, but in a far less serious manner--by
allowing his hair to be cut off. Still his case is an instructive
parable. The Spirit of the Lord passed from him; he became weak as
other men, the prey of his enemies. The man who has come under the
bond of total abstinence, especially in a religious way, and breaks
it, becomes weaker than others. To confess his fault and resume his
resolution may not lift him up again. The will is less capable, the
sense of sacredness less imperative and potent.
It is hard to say why the peculiar defilement caused by touching a
dead body or being present at a death is that alone on which special
attention is fixed in the Nazirite law (vi. 9 ff.). One would have
expected the other offence of using wine to be dealt with rather than
mere accidents, so to speak. We can see that the law as it stands is
one of many that must have preceded the prophetic period. If Amos,
for example, had influenced the nature of the legislation regarding
Naziritism, it would have been in the direction of making drunkenness
rather than ceremonial uncleanness a special point in the statutes.
From beginning to end of his prophecy he makes no distinct reference
to ceremonial defilement. But injustice, intemperance, disaffection to
Jehovah, are constantly and vehemently denounced. Hosea, again, does
refer to unclean food, the necessity of eating which would be part
of Israel's punishment in exile. But he too, unless in this casual
reference, is a moralist--cares nothing, so far as his language goes,
for the contact with dead bodies or any other ceremonial defilement.
Judging a Nazirite, he would certainly have regarded sobriety and
purity of life as the tests of consecration--drunkenness and neglect
of God as the sins that deserved punishment. Hosea's condemnation of
Israel is: "They have left off to take heed to Jehovah. Whoredom and
wine and new wine take away the understanding." In Ezekiel, whose
schemes of worship and of priestly work are declared to have been the
origin of the Priests' Code, the same tendency is to be found. He
has a passage regarding unclean foods, which assumes the existence of
statutes on the subject. But as a legislator he is not concerned with
ceremonial transgressions, the defilement caused by dead bodies, and
the like. Take into account the whole of his prophecy, and it will be
seen that the new heart and the right spirit are for Ezekiel the main
things, and the worship of the temple he describes is to be that of a
people not ceremonially consecrated, but spiritually pure, and so in
moral unity with God. He adopts the old forms of worship along with the
priesthood, but his desire is to give the ritual an ethical basis and
aim.
The statute which applies to the discharge of the Nazirite from his
rule (vi. 13-21) is exceedingly detailed, and contains provisions
which on the whole seem fitted to deter rather than encourage the
vow. The Nazirite could not escape from obligation as he had entered
upon it, without priestly intervention and mediation. He had to offer
an oblation,--one he-lamb of the first year for a burnt offering;
one ewe-lamb of the first year for a sin offering; and for peace
offerings a ram, with a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine
flour mingled with oil, unleavened wafers anointed with oil; and
meal offerings and drink offerings. These had to be presented by the
priest in the prescribed manner. In addition to the possible cost
of repeated cleansings which might be needful during the period of
separation, the expense of those offerings must have been to many in
a humble station almost prohibitory. We cannot help concluding that
under this law, at whatever time it prevailed, Naziritism became
the privilege of the more wealthy. Those who took the vow under the
appointed conditions must have formed a kind of puritan aristocracy.
The final ceremonies included burning of the hair, which was
carefully removed at the door of the tent of meeting. It was to
be consumed in the fire under the peace offering, the idea being
that the obligation of the vow and perhaps its sanctity had been
identified with the flowing locks. The last rite of all was similar
to that used in the consecration of priests. The sodden shoulder
of the ram, an unleavened cake, and an unleavened wafer were to be
placed on the hands of the Nazirite, and waved for a wave offering
before the Lord--thereafter, with other parts of the sacrifice,
falling to the priest. After that the man might drink wine, perhaps
in a formal way at the close of the ceremonies.
To explain this elaborate ritual of discharge it has been affirmed
that the idea of the vow "culminated in the sacrificial festival
which terminated the consecration, and in this attained to its
fullest manifestation." If this were so, ritualism was indeed
predominant. To make such the underlying thought is to declare that
the abstinence of the Nazirite from strong drink and dainties, to
which a moralist would attach most importance, was in the eye of
the law nothing compared to the symbolic feasting with God and the
sacerdotal functions of the final ceremony. Far more readily would we
assume that the ritual of the discharge was superfluously added to
the ancient law at a time when the hierarchy was in the zenith of its
power. But, as we have already seen, the final rites were of a kind
fitted to direct public attention to the vow, and may have had their
use chiefly in preventing any careless profession of Naziritism,
tending to bring it into contempt.
One other question still demands consideration: What was meant by the
"sin offering" which had to be presented by the Nazirite when he had
unintentionally incurred uncleanness, and the sin offering which had to
be offered at the time of his discharge--what, in short, was the idea
of sin to which this oblation corresponded? The case of the Nazirite
is peculiarly instructive, for the point to be considered is seen here
entirely free from complications. The Nazirite does not undertake
the obligation of his vow as an acknowledgment of wrong he has done,
nor does he place himself under any moral disadvantage by assuming
it. There is no reason why in becoming a Nazirite or ceasing to be a
Nazirite he should appear as a transgressor; rather is he honouring
God by what he does. Suppose he has been present at a death which has
unexpectedly taken place--that involves no moral fault by which a man's
conscience should be burdened. Deliberately to touch a dead body might,
under the law, have brought the sense of wrongdoing; but to be casually
in a defiled house could not. Yet an atonement was necessary (vi. 11).
It is expressly said that a sin offering and a burnt offering must be
presented to "make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of
the dead." And again, when he has kept the terms of his vow to the
last, honouring Jehovah by his devotion, commending morality by his
abstinence, maintaining more rigidly than other Israelites the idea
of consecration to Jehovah, he cannot be released from his obligation
till a sin offering is made for him. There is no moral offence to be
expiated. Rather, to judge in an ordinary human way, he has carried
obedience farther than his fellow-Israelites.
The whole circumstances show that the sin offering has no reference
to moral pollution. The idea is not that of removing a shadow from
the conscience, but taking away a taint of the flesh, or, in certain
cases, of the mind which has become aware of some occult injury. A
clear division was made between the moral and the immoral; and it was
assumed that all Israelites were keeping the moral commandments of
the law. Then moral persons were divided into those who were clean
and those who were unclean; and the ceremonial law alone determined
the conditions of undefiled and acceptable life. If the law declared
that a sin offering was necessary, it meant not that there had been
immorality, but that some specified or unspecified taint lay upon a
man. No doubt there were principles according to which the law was
framed. But they might not be apparent; and no man could claim to
have them explained. Now with regard to Naziritism, the idea was that
of a vivid and pure form of life to which a man might attain if he
would discipline himself. And it seems to have been understood that
in returning from this to the common life of the race an apology, so
to speak, had to be made to Jehovah and to religion. The higher range
of life during the term of separation was peculiarly sensitive to
invasions of earthly circumstance, and especially of the defilement
caused by death; and for anything of this sort there was needed
more than apology, more than trespass-offering. The Nazirite going
back to ordinary life was regarded in more senses than one as a
sinner. The conditions of his vow had been difficult to keep, and,
presumably, had been broken. He was all the more under the suspicion
of defilement that he had undertaken special obligations of purity.
A peculiar form of mysticism is involved here, an effort of humanity
to reach transcendental holiness. And the law seemed to give up
each experiment with a sigh. In the story of Samson we have only the
popular pictorial elements of Naziritism. The statutes convey hints
of deeper thought and feeling.
Generally speaking the whole system of purification enjoined by
the ceremonial law, the constant succession of cleansings and
sacrifices, must have appeared to be arbitrary. But it would be a
mistake to suppose that there was no esoteric meaning, no purpose
beyond that of keeping up the sense of religious duty and the
need of mediation. Some intangible defilement seems to have been
associated with everything mundane, everything human. The aim was to
represent sanctity of a transcendent kind, the nature of which no
words could express, for which the shedding of blood alone supplied a
sufficiently impressive symbol.
2. The blessing which the priests were commissioned to pronounce on
the people (vi. 24-26) was in the following terms:--
"Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee:
Jehovah make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto
thee:
Jehovah lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace."
By means of this threefold benediction the name of Jehovah was to be
put upon the children of Israel--that is to say, their consecration
to Him as His accepted flock and their enjoyment of His covenant
grace were to be signified. In a sense the invocation of this
blessing was the highest function of the priest: he became the
channel of spiritual endowment in which the whole nation shared.
It is a striking fact that the distinctive ideas conveyed in the three
portions of the blessing--Preservation, Enlightenment, Peace--bear a
relation, by no means fanciful, to the work of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. First are invoked the providential care and favour of
God, as Ruler of the universe, Arbiter among the nations, Source of
creaturely life, Upholder of human existence. Israel as a whole, and
each individual Israelite as a member of the sacred community, should
in terms of the covenant enjoy the guardianship of the Almighty. The
idea is expanded in Psalm cxxi.:--
"Jehovah is thy keeper:
Jehovah is thy shade upon thy right hand.
The sun shall not smite thee by day,
Nor the moon by night.
Jehovah shall keep thee from all evil;
He shall keep thy soul.
Jehovah shall keep thy going out and thy coming in,
From this time forth and for evermore."
And in almost every Psalm the theme of Divine preservation is touched
on either in thanksgiving, prayer, or exultant hope.
"For God will save Zion, and build the cities of Judah;
And they shall abide there, and have it in possession.
The seed also of His servants shall inherit it;
And they that love His name shall dwell therein."
Often sorely pressed by the nations around, their land made the
battle-field of empires, the Hebrews could comfort themselves with
the assurance that Jehovah of Hosts was with them, that the God of
Jacob was their refuge. And each son of Abraham had his own portion
in the blessing.
"I will say of Jehovah, He is my refuge and my fortress,
My God in whom I trust."
The keynote of joyful confidence in the unseen King was struck in the
benediction which, pronounced by Aaron and by the high-priests after
him, associated Israel's safety with obedience to all the laws and
forms of religion.
The second member of the blessing indicates under the figure of the
shining of Jehovah's face the revelation of enlightening truth. Here
are implied the unfolding of God's character, the kindly disclosure
of His will in promise and prophecy, the opening to the minds of men
of those high and abiding laws that govern their destiny. There is a
forth-shining of the Divine countenance which troubles and dismays
the human heart: "The face of the Lord is against them that do evil."
But here is denoted that gracious radiance which came to its fulness
in Christ. And of this Divine shining Jacob Boehme writes: "As the
sun in the visible world ruleth over evil and good, and with its
light and power and all whatsoever itself is, is present everywhere,
and penetrates every being, and yet in its image-like [symbolic] form
doth not withdraw again to itself with its efflux, but wholly giveth
itself into every being, and yet ever remaineth whole, and nothing
of its being goeth away therewith: thus also it is to be understood
concerning Christ's power and office which ruleth in the inward
spiritual world visibly, and in the outward world invisibly, and
throughly penetrateth the faithful man's soul, spirit, and heart....
And as the sun worketh through and through an herb so that the herb
becometh solar (or filled with the virtue of the sun, and as it were
so converted by the sun that it becometh wholly of the nature of the
sun): so Christ ruleth in the resigned will in soul and body over all
evil inclinations, over Satan's introduced lust, and generateth the
man to be a new heavenly creature and wholly floweth into him."[2]