first example of ecclesiastical dissension, and that the punishment
is a warning to all who presumptuously intrude into the priestly
office. Laymen take the censer; and the fire of the Lord burns them
up. So, let not laymen, at any time in the Church's history, venture
to touch the sacred mysteries. If ritual and sacramentarian miracle
were the heart of religion; if there could be no worship of God and
no salvation for men now unless through a consecrated priesthood,
this might be said. But the old covenant, with its symbols and
shadows, has been superseded. We have another centre now, another
tabernacle, another way which has been consecrated for ever by the
sacrifice of Christ, a way into the holiest of all open to every
believer. Our unity does not depend on the priesthood of men, but on
the universal and eternal priesthood of Christ. The co-operation of
Aaron as priest was needful to Moses, not that his power might be
maintained for his own sake, but that he might have authority over
the host for Israel's sake. It was not the dignity of an order or of
a man that was at stake, but the very existence of religion and of
the nation. This bond snapped at any point, the tribes would have
been scattered and lost.
A leader of men standing above them for their temporal interests
can rarely take upon him to be the instrument of administering the
penalty of their sins. What king, for instance, ever invoked an
interdict on his own people, or in his own right of judging for God
condemned them to pay a tax to the Church, because they had done what
was morally wrong? Rulers generally have regarded disobedience to
themselves as the only crime it was worth their while to punish. When
Moses stood against the faithless spirit of the Israelites and issued
orders by way of punishing that bad spirit, he certainly put his
authority to a tremendous test. Without a sure ground of confidence
in Divine support, he would have been foolhardy in the extreme.
And we are not surprised that the coalition against him represented
many causes of discontent. Under his administration the long sojourn
in the desert had been decreed, and a whole generation deprived of
what they held their right--a settlement in Canaan. He appeared to
be tyrannising over the tribes; and proud Reubenites sought to put
an end to his rule. The priesthood was his creation, and seemed to
be made exclusive simply that through Aaron he might have a firmer
hold of the people's liberties. Why was the old prerogative of the
headmen in religious matters taken from them? They would reclaim
their rights. Neither Levi nor Reuben should be denied its priestly
autonomy any longer. In the whole rebellion there was one spirit,
but there were also divided counsels; and Moses showed his wisdom by
taking the revolt not as a single movement, but part by part.
First he met the Levites, with Korah at their head, professing great
zeal for the principle that all the congregation were holy, every
one of them. A claim made on that ground could not be disproved by
argument, perhaps, although the holiness of the congregation was
evidently an ideal, not a fact. Jehovah Himself would have to decide.
Yet Moses remonstrated in a way that was fitted to move the Levites,
and perhaps did touch some of them. They had been honoured by God in
having a certain holy office assigned to them. Were they to renounce
it in joining a revolt which would make the very priesthood they
desired common to all the tribes? From Jehovah Himself the Levites
had their commission. It was against Jehovah they were fighting;
and how could they speed? They spoke of Aaron and his dignity. But
what was Aaron? Only a servant of God and of the people, a man who
personally assumed no great airs. By this appeal some would seem
to have been detached from the rebellion, for in xxvi. 9-11, when
the judgment of Korah and his company is referred to, it is added,
"Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not." From 1 Chron. vi.
we learn that in the line of Korah's descendants appeared certain
makers and leaders of sacred song, Heman among them, one of David's
singers, to whom Psalm lxxxviii. is ascribed.
With the Reubenites Moses deals in the next place, taking their
cause of discontent by itself. Already one of the three Reubenite
chiefs had withdrawn, and Dathan and Abiram stood by themselves.
Refusing to obey the call of Moses to a conference, they stated their
grievance roughly by the mouth of a messenger; and Moses could only
with indignation express before God his blamelessness in regard to
them: "I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one
of them." Neither for his own enrichment, nor in personal ambition
had he acted. Could they maintain, did the people think, that the
present revolt was equally disinterested? Under cover of opposition
to tyranny, are they not desiring to play the part of tyrants and
aggrandise themselves at the expense of the people?
It is singular that not a word is said in special condemnation of
the two hundred and fifty because they were in possession of censers
and incense. May it be the case that the complete reservation of
the high-priestly duties to the house of Aaron had not as yet taken
effect, that it was a purpose rather than a fact? May it not further
be the case that the rebellion partly took form and ripened because
an order had been given withdrawing the use of censers from the
headmen of the tribes? If there had as yet been a certain temporary
allowance of the tribal priesthood and ritual, we should not have to
ask how incense and censers were in the hands of the two hundred and
fifty, and why the brass of their vessels was held to be sacred and
put to holy use.
The prayer of Moses in which he interceded for the people, ver. 22,
is marked by an expression of singular breadth, "O God, the God of
the spirits of all flesh." The men, misled on the fleshly side by
appetite (ver. 13), and shrinking from pain, were against God. But
their spirits were in His hand. Would He not move their spirits,
redeem and save them? Would He not look on the hearts of all and
distinguish the guilty from the innocent, the more rebellious from
the less? One man had sinned, but would God burst out on the whole
congregation? The form of the intercession is abrupt, crude. Even
Moses with all his justice and all his pity could not be more just,
more compassionate, than Jehovah. The purpose of destruction was not
as the leader thought it to be.
Regarding the judgments, that of the earthquake and that of the fire,
we are too remote in time to form any proper conception of what they
were, how they were inflicted. "Moses," says Lange, "appears as a man
whose wonderful presentiment becomes a miraculous prophecy by the
Spirit of revelation." But this is not sufficient. There was more than
a presentiment. Moses knew what was coming, knew that where the rebels
stood the earth would open, the consuming fire burn. The plague, on the
other hand, which next day spread rapidly among the excited people and
threatened to destroy them, was not foreseen. It came as if straight
from the hand of Divine wrath. But it afforded an opportunity for Aaron
to prove his power with God and his courage. Carrying the sacred fire
into the midst of the infected people he became the means of their
deliverance. As he waved his censer, and its fumes went up to heaven,
faith in Jehovah and in Aaron as the true priest of Jehovah was revived
in the hearts of men. Their spirits came again under the healing power
of that symbolism which had lost its virtue in common use, and was
now associated in a grave crisis with an appeal to Him who smites and
heals, who kills and makes alive.
It has been maintained by some that the closing sentences of chap.
xvii. should follow chap. xvi. with which they appear to be closely
connected, the incident of the budding of Aaron's rod seeming to call
rather for a festal celebration than a lament. The theory of the
Book of Numbers we have seen reason to adopt would account for the
introduction of the fresh episode, simply because it relates to the
priesthood and tends to confirm the Aaronites in exclusive dignity. The
symbolic test of the claim raised by the tribes corresponds closely to
the signs that were used by some of the prophets, such as the girdle
laid up by the river Euphrates, and the basket of summer fruits. The
rod on which Aaron's name was written was of almond, a tree for which
Syria was famous. Like the sloe it sends forth blossoms before the
leaves; and the unique way in which this twig showed its living vigour
as compared with the others was a token of the choice of Levi to serve
and Aaron to minister in the holiest office before Jehovah.
The whole circumstances, and the closing cry of the people, leave the
impression of a grave difficulty found in establishing the hierarchy
and centralising the worship. It was a necessity--shall we call it
a sad necessity?--that the men of the tribes should be deprived of
direct access to the sanctuary and the oracle. Earthly, disobedient,
and far from trustful in God, they could not be allowed, even the
hereditary chiefs among them, to offer sacrifices. The ideas of the
Divine holiness embodied in the Mosaic law were so far in advance of
the common thought of Israel, that the old order had to be superseded
by one fitted to promote the spiritual education of the people, and
prepare them for a time when there shall be "on the bells of the
horses, HOLY UNTO THE LORD; and every pot in Judah shall be holy unto
the Lord of hosts, and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of
them and seethe therein." The institution of the Aaronic priesthood
was a step of progress indispensable to the security of religion and
the brotherhood of the tribes in that high sense for which they were
made a nation. But it was at the same time a confession that Israel
was not spiritual, was not the holy congregation Korah declared
it to be. The greater was the pity that afterwards in the day of
Israel's opportunity, when Christ came to lead the whole people into
the spiritual liberty and grace for which prophets had longed, the
priestly system was held tenaciously as the pride of the nation.
When the law of ritual and sacrifice and priestly mediation should
have been left behind as no longer necessary because the Messiah had
come, the way of higher life was opened in vain. Sacerdotalism held
its place with full consent of those who guided affairs. Israel as a
nation was blinded, and its day shone in vain.
Of all priesthoods as corporate bodies, however estimable, zealous,
and spiritually-minded individual members of them may be, must it
not be said that their existence is a sad necessity? They may be
educative. A sacerdotal system now may, like that of the Mosaic law,
be a tutor to bring men to Christ. Realising that, those who hold
office under it may bring help to men not yet fit for liberty. But
priestly dominance is no perpetual rule in any church, certainly not
in the Kingdom of God. The freedom with which Christ makes men free
is the goal. The highest duty a priest can fulfil is to prepare men
for that liberty; and as soon as he can he should discharge them for
the enjoyment of it. To find in episodes like those of Korah's revolt
and its suppression a rule applicable to modern religious affairs is
too great an anachronism. For whatever right sacerdotalism now has is
purely of the Church's tolerance, in the measure not of Divine right,
but of the need of uninstructed men. To the spiritual, to those who
know, the priestly system with its symbols and authoritative claim is
but an interference with privilege and duty.
Can any Aaron now make an atonement for a mass of people, or even
in virtue of his office apply to them the atonement made by Christ?
How does his absolution help a soul that knows Christ the Redeemer
as every Christian soul ought to know Him? The great fault of
priesthoods always is, that having once gained power, they endeavour
to retain it and extend it, making greater claims the longer they
exist. Affirming that they speak for the Church, they endeavour
to control the voice of the Church. Affirming that they speak for
Christ, they deny or minimise His great gift of liberty. Freedom of
thought and reason was to Cardinal Newman, for example, the cause
of all deplorable heresies and infidelities, of a divided Church and
a ruined world. The candid priest of our day is found making his
claim as largely as ever, and then virtually explaining it away.
Should not the vain attempt to hold by Judaic institutions cease? And
although the Church of Christ early made the mistake of harking back
to Mosaism, should not confession now be made that priesthood of the
exclusive kind is out of date, that every believer may perform the
highest functions of the consecrated life?
The Divine choice of Aaron, his confirmation in high religious office
by the budding of the almond twig as well as by the acceptance of
his intercession, have their parallels now. The realities of one
age become symbols for another. Like the whole ritual of Israel,
these particular incidents may be turned to Christian use by way
of illustration. But not with regard to the prerogative of any
arch-hierarch. The availing intercession is that of Christ, the sole
headship over the tribes of men is that which He has gained by Divine
courage, love, and sacrifice. Among those who believe there is equal
dependence on the work of Christ. When we come to intercession which
they make for each other, it is of value in consideration not of
office but of faith. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much." It is as "righteous" men, humble men, not as priests
they prevail. The sacraments are efficacious, "not from any virtue
in them or in him that administers them," but through faith, by the
energy of the omnipresent Spirit.
Yet there are men chosen to special duty, whose almond twigs bud and
blossom and become their sceptres. Appointment and ordination are our
expedients; grace is given by God in a higher line of calling and
endowment. While there are blessings pronounced that fall upon the
ear or gratify the sensibility, theirs reach the soul. For them the
world has need to thank God. They keep religion alive, and make it
bourgeon and yield the new fruits for which the generations hunger.
They are new branches of the Living Vine. Of them it has often to be
said, as of the Lord Himself, "The stone which the builders rejected
the same has become head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and
it is marvellous in our eyes."
FOOTNOTE:
[8] Prolegomena to the "History of Israel," p. 354.
XV
_TITHES AND CLEANSINGS_
NUMBERS xviii., xix
1. DUTIES AND SUPPORT OF THE MINISTRY.--The statutes of chap. xviii.
are related to the rebellion of Korah by a clause in ver. 9, "Ye shall
keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar: that
there be wrath no more upon the children of Israel." The enactments
are directed anew against any intrusion into the sacred service by
those who are not Levites, and into the priesthood by those who are not
Aaronites. It is clearly implied that the ministry of the tabernacle is
held under a grave responsibility. The "iniquity of the sanctuary" and
the "iniquity of the priesthood" have to be borne; and the Aaronites
alone are commissioned to bear that iniquity. The Levites, though they
serve, are not to touch the holy vessels lest they die. The priesthood,
"for everything of the altar, and for that within the veil," is given
to the Aaronites as a service of gift.
A certain "iniquity," corresponding to the holiness of the tabernacle
and its vessels, attends the service which is to be done by the
priests. Their entrance into the sacred tent is an approach to
Jehovah, and from His purity there is thrown a defilement on human
life. The idea thus represented is capable of fine spiritual
realisation. With this embodied in the law and worship, there is no
need to look in any other direction for that evangelical poverty
of spirit which the better Israelites of an after time knew. Here
prophecy found in the law a germ of deep religious feeling which,
rising above tabernacle and altar, became the holy fear of Him who
inhabits eternity. The creation throughout its whole range, in
the very act of receiving existence, comes into contrast with the
creative Will and is on a lower moral plane, to which the Divine
purity does not accompany it. The seraphim of Isaiah's vision feel
this severance to a certain extent. They are so far apart from God
that His holiness is not enjoyed unconsciously, as the element of
life. It shines above them and determines their attitude and the
terms of their praise. With their wings they cover their faces, and
they cry to each other, "Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of hosts: the
whole earth is full of His glory." Even they "bear the iniquity" of
the great temple of the world in which they minister. On fallen man
that iniquity lies with almost crushing weight. "Woe is me!" says
the prophet, "for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes
have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts." Thus the soul is brought into
that profound consciousness of defect and pollution which is the
preparation for reverent service of the Highest. The attribute of
holiness remains with God always, and His mercy in forgiving sin in
no way detracts from it. The eternity of God sets Him so far above
transitory men that He can extend compassion to them. "Art Thou not
from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, mine Holy One? We shall not
die." But His touch is, to the sinful earth, almost destruction.
When the Lord the God of hosts toucheth the land it melteth, and all
that dwell therein mourn (Amos ix. 12). When a people falls from
righteousness the Divine holiness burns against it like a consuming
fire. "We are all become as one that is unclean, and all our
righteousnesses are as a polluted garment: and we all do fade as a
leaf; and our iniquities like the wind take us away.... Thou hast hid
Thy face from us, and hast consumed us by means of our iniquities"
(Isa. lxiv. 6, 7).
The idea of the identification with the Holy God of the sanctuary
dedicated to Him, so that from the porch of it falls the shadow of
iniquity, is still further carried out in Numb. xviii. 1, where it is
declared that Aaron and his sons shall "bear the iniquity" of their
priesthood. The meaning is that the priesthood as an abstract thing,
an office held from Jehovah and for Him, has a holiness like the
sanctuary, and that the entrance into it of a man like Aaron brings
to light his human imperfection and taint. And this corresponds to
a consciousness which every one who deals with sacred truth and
undertakes the conduct of Divine worship in the right spirit is bound
to have. Entering on those exalted duties he "bears his iniquity."
The sense of daring intrusion may almost keep back a man who knows
that he has received a Divine call.
To the heavenly muse the poet can but reply:--
"I am not worthy even to speak
Of Thy prevailing mysteries;
For I am but an earthly muse ...
And darken sanctities with song."
With regard to the Levites whom Aaron is to bring near "that they
may be joined unto him," it is singular that their duties and the
restrictions put on them are detailed here as if now for the first
time this branch of the sacred ministry was being organised. In the
actual development of things this may be true. Difficulties had to
be overcome, the nature of the statutes and ordinances had to be
explained. Now the time of practical initiation may have arrived. On
the other hand, the attempt of Korah to press into the priesthood may
have made necessary a recapitulation of the law of Levitical service.
For the support of the Aaronites the heave offerings, "even all the
hallowed things of the children of Israel" were to be given "by
reason of the anointing." The meal offerings, sin offerings, and
guilt offerings, as most holy, were to be for the male Aaronites
alone: heave offerings of sacrifice, again, "all the wave offerings,"
were to be used by the Aaronites and their families, the reservation
being made that only those without ceremonial defilement should
eat of them. The first-fruits of the oil and vintage and the first
ripe of all fruits in the land were other perquisites. Further, the
first-born of man and of beast were to be nominally devoted; but
first-born children were to be redeemed for five shekels, and the
firstlings of unclean beasts were also to be redeemed. The children
of Aaron were to have no inheritance in the land. In these ways
however, and by the payment to the priests of the tenth part of the
tithes collected by the Levites, ample provision was made for them.
For the Levites, nine-tenths of all tithes of produce would appear to
have been not only sufficient, but far more than their proportion.
According to the numbers reported in this book, twenty-two thousand
Levites--about twelve thousand of them adult men--were to receive
tithes from six hundred thousand. This would make the provision for
the Levite as much as for any five men of the tribes. An explanation
is suggested that the regular payment of tithes could not be reckoned
upon. There would always be Israelites who resented an obligation like
this; and as the duty of paying tithes, though enjoined in the law,
was a moral one, not enforced by penalty, the Levites were really in
many periods of the history of Israel in a state of poverty. It was
a complaint of Malachi even after the captivity, when the law was in
force, that the tithes were not brought to the temple storehouses.
The Deuteronomic laws of tithing, moreover, are different from those
given in Numbers. While here we read of a single tithe which is to be
for the Levites, which, if paid, would be more than sufficient for
them, Deuteronomy speaks of an annual tithe of produce to be eaten by
the people at the central sanctuary by way of a festival, to which
children, servants, and Levites were to be invited. Each third year
a special tithe was to be used in feasting, not necessarily at the
sanctuary, and again the Levites were to have their share. It is
supposed by some that there were two annual tithings and in the third
year three tithings of the produce of the land. But this seems far more
than even a specially fertile country could bear. There was no rent to
be paid, of course; and if the tithes were used in a festival no great
difficulty might be found. But it is clear at all events that more
dependence was placed on the free will of the people than on the law;
and the Levites and priests must have suffered when religion fell into
neglect. Israel was not ideally generous.
2. WATER OF PURIFICATION.--The statute of xix. 1-22 is peculiar,
and the rites it enjoins are full of symbolism. It is implied that
water alone was unable to remove the defilement caused by touching a
dead body; but at the same time the taint was so common and might be
incurred so far from the sanctuary that sacrifice could not always
be exacted. In order to meet the case an animal was to be offered,
and the residue of its burning was to be kept for use whenever the
defilement of death had to be taken away.
A red heifer was to be chosen, the colour of the animal pointing to
the hue of blood. The heifer was to be free from blemish, a type of
vigorous and prolific life. The charge of the sacrifice was to be given
to Eleazar the priest, for the high-priest himself might not undertake
a duty the performance of which caused uncleanness. The ceremonies must
take place not only outside the tabernacle court, but outside the camp,
that the intensity of the uncleanness to be transferred to the animal
and purged by the sacrifice may be clearly understood. The heifer
being slain, the priest takes of its blood and sprinkles it towards
the tent of meeting seven times, in lieu of the ordinary sprinkling on
the altar. The whole animal is then burnt, and while the flame ascends
the virtue of the residuent ashes is symbolically increased by certain
other elements. These are cedar wood, which was believed to have
special medicinal qualities, and also may have been chosen on account
of the long life of the tree; some threads of scarlet wool which would
represent the arterial blood, instinct with vital power; and hyssop
which was employed in purification.