The Israelite priesthood must be held to include the Levites. Their
functions and status differed from those of the house of Aaron in degree,
and not in kind. They formed a hereditary caste set apart for the service
of the sanctuary, and as such they shared the revenues of the Temple with
the sons of Aaron. The priestly character of the Levites is more than once
implied in Chronicles. After the disruption, we are told that “the priests
and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to Rehoboam,” because
“Jeroboam and his sons cast them off, that they should not exercise the
priest’s office unto Jehovah.” On an emergency, as at Hezekiah’s great
feast at the reopening of the Temple, the Levites might even discharge
priestly functions. Moreover, the chronicler seems to recognise the
priestly character of the whole tribe of Levi by retaining in a similar
connection the old phrase “the priests the Levites.”(263)
The relation of the Levites to the priests, the sons of Aaron, was not
that of laymen to clergy, but of an inferior clerical order to their
superiors. When Charlotte Brontë has occasion to devote a chapter to
curates, she heads it “Levitical.” The Levites, again, like deacons in the
Church of England, were forbidden to perform the most sacred ritual of
Divine service. Technically their relation to the sons of Aaron might be
compared to that of deacons to priests or of priests to bishops. From the
point of view of numbers,(264) revenues, and social standing, the sons of
Aaron might be compared to the dignitaries of the Church: archbishops,
bishops, archdeacons, deans, and incumbents of livings with large incomes
and little work; while the Levites would correspond to the more moderately
paid and fully occupied clergy. Thus the nature of the distinction between
the priests and the Levites shows that they were essentially only two
grades of the same order; and this corresponds roughly to what has been
generally denoted by the term “priesthood.” Priest-hood, however, had a
more limited meaning in Israel than in later times. In some branches of
the Christian Church, the priests exercise or claim to exercise functions
which in Israel belonged to the prophets or the king.
Before considering the central and essential idea of the priest as a
minister of public worship, we will notice some of his minor duties. We
have seen that the sanctity of civil government is emphasised by the
religious supremacy of the king; the same truth is also illustrated by the
fact that the priests and Levites were sometimes the king’s officers for
civil affairs. Under David, certain Levites of Hebron are spoken of as
having the oversight of all Israel, both east and west of Jordan, not only
“for all the business of Jehovah,” but also “for the service of the
king.”(265) The business of the law-courts was recognised by Jehoshaphat
as the judgment of Jehovah, and accordingly amongst the judges there were
priests and Levites.(266) Similarly the mediæval governments often found
their most efficient and trustworthy administrators in the bishops and
clergy, and were glad to reinforce their secular authority by the sanction
of the Church; and even to-day bishops sit in Parliament: incumbents
preside over vestries, and sometimes act as county magistrates. But the
interest of religion in civil government is most manifest in the moral
influence exercised unofficially by earnest and public-spirited ministers
of all denominations.
The chronicler refers more than once to the educational work of the
priests, and especially of the Levites. The English version probably gives
his real meaning when it attributes to him the phrase “teaching
priest.”(267) Jehoshaphat’s educational commission was largely composed of
priests and Levites, and Levites are spoken of as scribes. Jewish
education was largely religious, and naturally fell into the hands of the
priesthood, just as the learning of Egypt and Babylon was chiefly in the
hands of priests and magi. The Christian ministry maintained the ancient
traditions: the monasteries were the homes of mediæval learning, and till
recently England and Scotland mainly owed their schools to the Churches,
and almost all schoolmasters of any position were in holy orders—priests
and Levites. Under our new educational system the free choice of the
people places many ministers of religion on the school boards.
The next characteristic of the priesthood is not so much in accordance
with Christian theory and practice. The house of Aaron and the tribe of
Levi were a Church militant in a very literal sense. In the beginning of
their history the tribe of Levi earned the blessing of Jehovah by the
pious zeal with which they flew to arms in His cause and executed His
judgment upon their guilty fellow-countrymen.(268) Later on, when “Israel
joined himself unto Baal-peor, and the anger of Jehovah was kindled
against Israel,”(269) then stood up Phinehas, “the ancestor of the house
of Zadok,” and executed judgment.
“And so the plague was stayed,
And that was counted unto him for righteousness
Unto all generations for evermore.”(270)
But the militant character of the priesthood was not confined to its early
history. Amongst those who “came armed for war to David to Hebron to turn
the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of Jehovah,” were four
thousand six hundred of the children of Levi and three thousand seven
hundred of the house of Aaron, “and Zadok, a young man mighty of valour,
and twenty-two captains of his father’s house.”(271) “The third captain of
David’s army for the third month was Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the
priest.”(272)
David’s Hebronite overseers were all “mighty men of valour.” When Judah
went out to war, the trumpets of the priests gave the signal for
battle(273); when the high-priest Jehoiada recovered the kingdom for
Joash, the Levites compassed the king round about, every man with his
weapons in his hand(274); when Nehemiah rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem,
“every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other
held his weapon,”(275) and amongst the rest the priests. Later on, when
Jehovah delivered Israel from the hand of Antiochus Epiphanes, the
priestly family of the Maccabees, in the spirit of their ancestor
Phinehas, fought and died for the Law and the Temple. There were priestly
soldiers as well as priestly generals, for we read how “at that time
certain priests, desirous to show their valour, were slain in battle, for
that they went out to fight inadvisedly.”(276) In the Jewish war the
priest Josephus was Jewish commander in Galilee.
Christianity has aroused a new sentiment with regard to war. We believe
that the servant of the Lord must not strive in earthly battles. Arms may
be lawful for the Christian citizen, but it is felt to be unseemly that
the ministers who are the ambassadors of the Prince of Peace should
themselves be men of blood. Even in the Middle Ages fighting prelates like
Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, were felt to be exceptional anomalies; and the
prince-bishops and electoral archbishops were often ecclesiastics only in
name. To-day the Catholic Church in France resents the conscription of its
seminarists as an act of vindictive persecution.
And yet the growth of Christian sentiment in favour of peace has not
prevented the occasional combination of the soldier and the ecclesiastic.
If Islam has had its armies of dervishes, Cyril’s monks fought for
orthodoxy at Alexandria and at Constantinople with all the ferocity of
wild beasts. The Crusaders, the Templars, the Knights of St. John, were in
varying degrees partly priests and partly soldiers. Cromwell’s Ironsides,
when they were wielding carnal weapons in their own defence or in any
other good cause, were as expert as any Levites at exhortations and psalms
and prayers; and in our own day certain generals and admirals are fond of
playing the amateur ecclesiastic. In this, as in so much else, while we
deny the form of Judaism, we retain its spirit. Havelock and Gordon were
no unworthy successors of the Maccabees.
The characteristic function, however, of the Jewish priesthood was their
ministry in public worship, in which they represented the people before
Jehovah. In this connection public worship does not necessarily imply that
the public were present, or that the worship in question was the united
act of a great assembly. Such worshipping assemblies were not uncommon,
especially at the feasts; but ordinary public worship was worship on
behalf of the people, not by the people. The priests and Levites were part
of an elaborate system of symbolic ritual. Worshippers might gather in the
Temple courts, but the Temple itself was not a place in which public
meetings for worship were held, and the people were not admitted into it.
The Temple was Jehovah’s house, and His presence there was symbolised by
the Ark. In this system of ritual the priests and Levites represented
Israel; their sacrifices and ministrations were the acceptable offerings
of the nation to God. If the sacrifices were duly offered by the priests
“according to all that was written in the law of Jehovah, and if the
priests with trumpets and the Levites with psalteries, and harps, and
cymbals duly ministered before the ark of Jehovah to celebrate, and thank,
and praise Jehovah, the God of Israel,” then the Divine service of Israel
was fully performed. The whole people could not be regularly present at a
single sanctuary, nor would they be adequately represented by the
inhabitants of Jerusalem and casual visitors from the rest of the country.
Three times a year the nation was fully and naturally represented by those
who came up to the feasts, but usually the priests and Levites stood in
their place.
When an assembly gathered for public worship at a feast or any other time,
the priests and Levites expressed the devotion of the people. They
performed the sacrificial rites, they blew the trumpets and played upon
the psalteries, and harps, and cymbals, and sang the praises of Jehovah.
The people were dismissed by the priestly blessing. When an individual
offered a sacrifice as an act of private worship, the assistance of the
priests and Levites was still necessary. At the same time the king as well
as the priesthood might lead the people in praise and prayer, and the
Temple psalmody was not confined to the Levitical choir. When the Ark was
brought away from Kirjath-jearim, “David and all Israel played before God
with all their might, even with songs, and with harps, and with
psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets”; and
when at last the Ark had been safely housed in Jerusalem, and the due
sacrifices had all been offered, David dismissed the people in priestly
fashion by blessing them in the name of Jehovah.(277) At the two solemn
assemblies which celebrated the beginning and the close of the great
enterprise of building the Temple, public prayer was offered, not by the
priests, but by David(278) and Solomon.(279) Similarly Jehoshaphat led the
prayers of the Jews when they gathered to seek deliverance from the
invading Moabites and Ammonites. Hezekiah at his great passover both
exhorted the people and interceded for them, and Jehovah accepted his
intercession; but on this occasion, when the festival was over, it was not
the king, but “the priests the Levites,”(280) who “arose and blessed the
people: and their voice was heard, and their prayer came up to His holy
habitation, even unto heaven.” In the descriptions of Hezekiah’s and
Josiah’s festivals, the orchestra and choir, of course, are busy with the
music and singing; otherwise the main duty of the priests and Levites is
to sacrifice. In his graphic account of Josiah’s passover, the chronicler
no doubt reproduces on a larger scale the busy scenes in which he himself
had often taken part. The king, the princes, and the chiefs of the Levites
had provided between them thirty-seven thousand six hundred lambs and kids
and three thousand eight hundred oxen for sacrifices; and the resources of
the establishment of the Temple were taxed to the utmost. “So the service
was prepared, and the priests stood in their place, and the Levites by the
courses, according to the king’s commandment. And they killed the
passover, and the priests sprinkled the blood, which they received of
their hand, and the Levites flayed the sacrifices. And they removed the
burnt offerings, that they might give them according to the divisions of
the fathers’ houses of the children of the people, to offer unto Jehovah,
as it is written in the law of Moses; and so they did with the oxen. And
they roasted the passover according to the ordinance; and they boiled the
holy offerings in pots, and caldrons, and pans, and carried them quickly
to all the children of the people. And afterward they prepared for
themselves and for the priests, because the priests the sons of Aaron were
busied in offering the burnt offerings and the fat until night; therefore
the Levites prepared for themselves and for the priests the sons of Aaron.
And the singers were in their place, and the porters were at their several
gates; they needed not to depart from their service, for their brethren
the Levites prepared for them. So all the service of Jehovah was prepared
the same day, to keep the passover, and to offer burnt offerings upon the
altar of Jehovah.”(281) Thus even in the accounts of great public
gatherings for worship the main duty of the priests and Levites is to
perform the sacrifices. The music and singing naturally fall into their
hands, because the necessary training is only possible to a professional
choir. Otherwise the now symbolic portions of the service, prayer,
exhortation, and blessing, were not exclusively reserved to ecclesiastics.
The priesthood, like the Ark, the Temple, and the ritual, belonged
essentially to the system of religious symbolism. This was their peculiar
domain, into which no outsider might intrude. Only the Levites could touch
the Ark. When the unhappy Uzzah “put forth his hand to the Ark,” “the
anger of Jehovah was kindled against him; and he smote Uzzah so that he
died there before God.”(282) The king might offer up public prayer; but
when Uzziah ventured to go into the Temple to burn incense upon the altar
of incense, leprosy broke forth in his forehead, and the priests thrust
him out quickly from the Temple.(283)
Thus the symbolic and representative character of the priesthood and
ritual gave the sacrifices and other ceremonies a value in themselves,
apart alike from the presence of worshippers and the feelings or
“intention” of the officiating minister. They were the provision made by
Israel for the expression of its prayer, its penitence and thanksgiving.
When sin had estranged Jehovah from His people, the sons of Aaron made
atonement for Israel; they performed the Divinely appointed ritual by
which the nation made submission to its offended King and cast itself upon
His mercy. The Jewish sacrifices had features which have survived in the
sacrifice of the Mass, and the multiplication of sacrifices arose from
motives similar to those that lead to the offering up of many masses.
One would expect, as has happened in the Christian Church, that the
ministrants of the symbolic ritual would annex the other acts of public
worship, not only praise, but also prayer and exhortation. Considerations
of convenience would suggest such an amalgamation of functions; and among
the priests, while the more ambitious would see in preaching a means of
extending their authority, the more earnest would be anxious to use their
unique position to promote the spiritual life of the people. Chronicles,
however, affords few traces of any such tendency; and the great scene in
the book of Nehemiah in which Ezra and the Levites expound the Law had no
connection with the Temple and its ritual. The development of the Temple
service was checked by its exclusive privileges; it was simply impossible
that the single sanctuary should continue to provide for all the religious
wants of the Jews, and thus supplementary and inferior places of worship
grew up to appropriate the non-ritual elements of service. Probably even
in the chronicler’s time the division of religious services between the
Temple and the synagogue had already begun, with the result that the
representative and symbolic character of the priesthood is almost
exclusively emphasised.
The representative character of the priesthood has another aspect.
Strictly the priest represented the nation before Jehovah; but in doing so
it was inevitable that he should also in some measure represent Jehovah to
the nation. He could not be the channel of worship offered to God without
being also the channel of Divine grace to man. From the priest the
worshipper learnt the will of God as to correct ritual, and received the
assurance that the atoning sacrifice was duly accepted. The high-priest
entered within the veil to make atonement for Israel; he came forth as the
bearer of Divine forgiveness and renewed grace, and as he blessed the
people he spoke in the name of Jehovah. We have been able to discern the
presence of these ideas in Chronicles, but they are not very conspicuous.
The chronicler was not a layman; he was too familiar with priests to feel
any profound reverence for them. On the other hand, he was not himself a
priest, but was specially preoccupied with the musicians, the Levites, and
the doorkeepers; so that probably he does not give us an adequate idea of
the relative dignity of the priests and the honour in which they were held
by the people. Organists and choirmasters, it is said, seldom take an
exalted view of their minister’s office.
The chronicler deals more fully with a matter in which priests and Levites
were alike interested: the revenues of the Temple. He was doubtless aware
of the bountiful provision made by the Law for his order, and loved to
hold up this liberality of kings, princes, and people in ancient days for
his contemporaries to admire and imitate. He records again and again the
tens of thousands of sheep and oxen provided for sacrifice, not altogether
unmindful of the rich dues that must have accrued to the priests out of
all this abundance; he tells us how Hezekiah first set the good example of
appointing “a portion of his substance for the burnt offerings,” and then
“commanded the people that dwelt at Jerusalem to give the portion of the
priests and the Levites that they might give themselves to the law of the
Lord. And as soon as the commandment came abroad the children of Israel
gave in abundance the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and
of all the increase of the field; and the tithe of all things brought they
in abundantly.”(284) These were the days of old, the ancient years when
the offering of Judah and Jerusalem was pleasant to Jehovah; when the
people neither dared nor desired to offer on God’s altar a scanty tale of
blind, lame, and sick victims; when the tithes were not kept back, and
there was meat in the house of God(285); when, as Hezekiah’s high-priest
testified, they could eat and have enough and yet leave plenty.(286) The
manner in which the chronicler tells the tale of ancient abundance
suggests that his days were like the days of Malachi. He was no pampered
ecclesiastic, revelling in present wealth and luxury, but a man who
suffered hard times, and looked back wistfully to the happier experiences
of his predecessors.
Let us now restore the complete picture of the chronicler’s priest from
his scattered references to the subject. The priest represents the nation
before Jehovah, and in a less degree represents Jehovah to the nation; he
leads their public worship, especially at the great festal gatherings; he
teaches the people the Law. The high character, culture, and ability of
the priests and Levites occasions their employment as judges and in other
responsible civil offices. If occasion required, they could show
themselves mighty men of valour in their country’s wars. Under pious
kings, they enjoyed ample revenues which gave them independence, added to
their importance in the eyes of the people, and left them at leisure to
devote themselves exclusively to their sacred duties.
In considering the significance of this picture, we can pass over without
special notice the exercise by priests and Levites of the functions of
leadership in public worship, teaching, and civil government. They are not
essential to the priesthood, but are entirely consistent with the tenure
of the priestly office, and naturally become associated with it. Warlike
prowess was certainly no part of the priesthood; but, whatever may be true
of Christian ministers, it is difficult to charge the priests of the Lord
of hosts with inconsistency because, like Jehovah Himself, they were men
of war(287) and went forth to battle in the armies of Israel. When a
nation was continually fighting for its very existence, it was impossible
for one tribe out of the twelve to be non-combatant.
With regard to the representative character of the priests, it would be
out of place here to enter upon the burning questions of sacerdotalism;
but we may briefly point out the permanent truth underlying the ancient
idea of the priesthood. The ideal spiritual life in every Church is one of
direct fellowship between God and the believer.
“Speak to Him, thou, for He hears, and spirit with spirit can
meet;
Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.”
And yet a man may be truly religious and not realise this ideal, or only
realise it very imperfectly. The gift of an intense and real spiritual
life may belong to the humblest and poorest, to men of little intellect
and less learning; but, none the less, it is not within the immediate
reach of every believer, or indeed of any believer at every time. The
descendants of Mr. Little-faith and Mr. Ready-to-halt are amongst us
still, and there is no immediate prospect of their race becoming extinct.
Times come when we are all glad to put ourselves under the safe conduct of
Mr. Great-heart. There are many whose prayers seem to themselves too
feebly winged to rise to the throne of grace; they are encouraged and
helped when their petitions are borne upwards on the strong pinions of
another’s faith. George Eliot has pictured the Florentines as awed
spectators of Savonarola’s audiences with Heaven. To a congregation
sometimes the minister’s prayers are a sacred and solemn spectacle; his
spiritual feeling is beyond them; he intercedes for blessings they neither
desire nor understand; they miss the heavenly vision which stirs his soul.
He is not their spokesman, but their priest; he has entered the holy
place, bearing with him the sins that crave forgiveness, the fears that
beg for deliverance, the hopes that yearn to be fulfilled. Though the
people may remain in the outer court, yet they are fully assured that he
has passed into the very presence of God. They listen to him as to one who
has had actual speech with the King and received the assurance of His
goodwill towards them. When the vanguard of the Ten Thousand first sighted
the Euxine, the cry of “Thalassa! Thalassa!” (“The sea! the sea!”) rolled
backward along the line of march; the rearguard saw the long-hoped-for
sight with the eyes of the pioneers. Much unnecessary self-reproach would
be avoided if we accepted this as one of God’s methods of spiritual
education, and understood that we all have in a measure to experience this
discipline in humility. The priesthood of the believer is not merely his
right to enter for himself into the immediate presence of God: it becomes
his duty and privilege to represent others. But times will also come when
he himself will need the support of a priestly intercession in the Divine
presence-chamber, when he will seek out some one of quick sympathy and
strong faith and say, “Brother, pray for me.” Apart from any
ecclesiastical theory of the priesthood, we all recognise that there are
God-ordained priests, men and women, who can inspire dull souls with a
sense of the Divine presence and bring to the sinful and the struggling
the assurance of Divine forgiveness and help. If one in ten among the
official priests of the historic Churches had possessed these supreme
gifts, the world would have accepted the most extravagant sacerdotalism
without a murmur. As it is, every minister, every one who leads the
worship of a congregation, assumes for the time being functions and should
possess the corresponding qualifications. In his prayers he speaks for the
people; he represents them before God; on their behalf he enters into the
Divine presence; they only enter with him, if, as their spokesman and
representative, he has grasped their feelings and raised them to the level
of Divine fellowship. He may be an untutored labourer in his working
garments; but if he can do this, this spiritual gift makes him a priest of
God. But this Christian priesthood is not confined to public service; as
the priest offered sacrifice for the individual Jew, so the man of
spiritual sympathies helps the individual to draw near his Maker. “To pray
with people” is a well-known ministry of Christian service, and it
involves this priestly function of presenting another’s prayers to God.
This priesthood for individuals is exercised by many a Christian who has
no gifts of public utterance.
The ancient priest held a representative position in a symbolic ritual, a
position partly independent of his character and spiritual powers. Where
symbolic ritual is best suited for popular needs, there may be room for a
similar priesthood to-day. Otherwise the Christian priesthood is required
to represent the people not in symbol, but in reality, to carry not the
blood of dead victims into a material Holy of holies, but living souls
into the heavenly temple.
There remains one feature of the Jewish priestly system upon which the
chronicler lays great stress: the endowments and priestly dues. In the
case of the high-priest and the Levites, whose whole time was devoted to
sacred duties, it was obviously necessary that those who served the altar
should live by the altar. The same principle would apply, but with much
less force, to the twenty-four courses of priests, each of which in its
turn officiated at the Temple. But, apart from the needs of the
priesthood, their representative character demanded that they should be
able to maintain a certain state. They were the ambassadors of Israel to
Jehovah. Nations have always been anxious that the equipment and suite of
their representative at a foreign court should be worthy of their power
and wealth; moreover, the splendour of an embassy should be in proportion
to the rank of the sovereign to whom it is accredited. In former times,
when the social symbols were held of more account, a first-rate power
would have felt itself insulted if asked to receive an envoy of inferior
rank, attended by only a meagre train. Israel, by her lavish endowment of
the priesthood, consulted her own dignity and expressed her sense of the
homage due to Jehovah. The Jews could not express their devotion in the
same way as other nations. They had to be content with a single sanctuary,
and might not build a multitude of magnificent temples or adorn their
cities with splendid, costly statues in honour of God. There were limits
to their expenditure upon the sacrifices and buildings of the Temple; but
the priesthood offered a large opportunity for pious generosity. The
chronicler felt that loyal enthusiasm to Jehovah would always use this
opportunity, and that the priests might consent to accept the distinction
of wealth and splendour for the honour alike of Israel and Jehovah. Their
dignity was not personal to themselves, but rather the livery of a
self-effacing servitude. For the honour of the Church, Thomas à Becket
kept up a great establishment, appeared in his robes of office, and
entertained a crowd of guests with luxurious fare; while he himself wore a
hair shirt next his skin and fasted like an ascetic monk. When the Jews
stinted the ritual or the ministrants of Jehovah, they were doing what
they could to put Him to open shame before the nations. Julian’s
experience in the grove of Daphne at Antioch was a striking illustration
of the collapse of paganism: the imperial champion of the ancient gods
must have felt his heart sink within him when he was welcomed to that once
splendid sanctuary by one shabby priest dragging a solitary and reluctant
goose to the deserted altar. Similarly Malachi saw that Israel’s devotion
to Jehovah was in danger of dying out when men chose the refuse of their
flocks and herds and offered them grudgingly at the shrine.
The application of these principles leads directly to the question of a
paid ministry; but the connection is not so close as it appears at first
sight, nor are we yet in possession of all the data which the chronicler
furnishes for its discussion. Priestly duties form an essential, but not
predominant, part of the work of most Christian ministers. Still the loyal
believer must always be anxious that the buildings, the services, and the
men which, for himself and for the world, represent his devotion to
Christ, should be worthy of their high calling. But his ideas of the
symbolism suitable for spiritual realities are not altogether those of the
chronicler: he is less concerned with number, size, and weight, with tens
of thousands of sheep and oxen, vast quantities of stone and timber, brass
and iron, and innumerable talents of gold and silver. Moreover, in this
special connection the secondary priestly function of representing God to
man has been expressly transferred by Christ to the least of His brethren.
Those who wish to honour God with their substance in the person of His
earthly representatives are enjoined to seek for them in hospitals, and
workhouses, and prisons, to find these representatives in the hungry, the
thirsty, the friendless, the naked, the captives. No doubt Christ is
dishonoured when those who dwell in “houses of cedar” are content to
worship Him in a mean, dirty church, with a half-starved minister; but the
most disgraceful proof of the Church’s disloyalty to Christ is to be seen
in the squalor and misery of men, and women, and children whose bodies
were ordained of God to be the temples of His Holy Spirit.
This is only one among many illustrations of the truth that in Christ the
symbolism of religion took a new departure. His Church enjoys the
spiritual realities prefigured by the Jewish temple and its ministry. Even
where Christian symbols are parallel to those of Judaism, they are less
conventional and richer in their direct spiritual suggestiveness.