_SPEAKERS FOR GOD.--II. THE PRIEST_
DEUT. xviii. 1-8
The priesthood naturally follows the kingship in the regulations
regarding the position of the governing classes. But it was an
older and much more radical constituent in the polity of Israel
than we have seen the kingship to be. Originally, the priests were
the normal and regular exponents of Yahweh's will. They received
and gave forth to the people oracles from Him, and they were the
fountain of moral and spiritual guidance. The Torah of the priests,
which on the older view was the Pentateuch as we have it, or its
substance at least, which Moses had put into their hands, is much
more probably now regarded as the guidance given by means of the
sacred lot and the Urim and Thummim. Because of their special
nearness to and intimacy with God, the priests were in contact with
the Divine will and could receive special Divine guidance; and
in days when the voice of prophecy was dumb, or in matters which
it left untouched, the priestly Torah, or direction, was the one
authorised Divine voice. But this was not the only function of
the priests. Sacrificial worship was a more fundamental function.
Wellhausen and his school indeed seem inclined to deny that as
priests of Yahweh they had any Divinely ordered connection with
sacrifice. But the truer view is that their power to give Torah to
Israel depended entirely upon their being the custodians of the
places where Yahweh had caused His name to be remembered. The
theory was that, as they approached Him with sacrifices in His
sanctuaries, they consequently could speak for Him; so that the
guarding of His shrines, and the offering of the people's sacrifices
there were their first duties. In fact they were the mediators
between Yahweh and Israel. Yahweh was King, but He was invisible,
and the priests were His visible earthly representatives. The dues,
which in a merely secular state would have gone to the king, as
rent for the lands held of him, were employed for their appointed
uses by the priests, as the servants and representatives of the
heavenly King who had bestowed the land upon Israel and allotted
to each family its portion. Occupying a middle position, then,
between the two parties to the Covenant by which Israel had become
Yahweh's chosen people, they spoke for the people when they appeared
before Yahweh, and for Him when they came forth to the people. They
were, as we have said, the oldest and most important of the ruling
classes, and must have been from early times a special order set
apart for the service of Israel's God.
The main passages in Deuteronomy which bear upon the position
and character of the priesthood and of the tribe of Levi are the
following. In chaps. xviii. 1-8, x. 6-9, and xxvii. 9-14 the
strictly priestly functions of the tribe of Levi are dealt with;
in xvii. 9 ff. xix. 17, the judicial functions; in xxi. 1-5 their
function in connection with sanitary matters is referred to. Besides
these there are the various injunctions to invite the Levites to
the sacrificial feasts, because they have no inheritance, and a
number of references to the priesthood as a well-known body, the
constitution and duties of which did not need special treatment.
These last are of themselves sufficient to prove beyond question
that in dealing with the priests and Levites the author of this book
writes from out of the midst of a long established system. He does
not legislate for the introduction of priests, neither does he refer
to a priestly system recently elaborated by himself, and only now
coming into operation. He does not tell us how priests are to be
appointed, nor from whom, nor with what ceremonies of consecration
they are to be inducted into their office. In fact the writer speaks
of what concerns the priests and Levites in a manner which makes
it certain that in his day there were, and had long been, Levites
who were priests, and Levites of whom it may at least be said that
they were probably nothing more than subordinates in regard to
religious duty. In a word, while presupposing an established system
of priestly and Levitical service, he nowhere attempts to give any
clear or complete view of that system. His whole mind is turned
towards the people. It is about their duties and their rights he
is anxious, about their duties perhaps more than their rights; and
he touches upon matters connected with others than the people only
in a cursory way. In this matter, especially, he clearly needs to
be supplemented by information drawn from other sources, and his
every word about it shows that he is not introducing or referring to
anything new. Any modifications he makes are plainly stated and are
limited to a few special points.
The chief passage for our purpose is, however, xviii. 1-8, where we
have the agents of the cultus defined, and directions for the dues
to be given them. In ver. 1 these agents are clearly said to be
the whole tribe of Levi; for the phrase "The priests, the Levites,
the whole tribe of Levi," cannot mean the priests and the Levites
who together make up the whole tribe of Levi. Notwithstanding the
arguments of Keil and Curtiss and other ingenious scholars, the
unprejudiced mind must, I think, accept Dillmann's rendering, "The
Levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi," the latter clause
standing in apposition to the former. In that case Deuteronomy must
be held to regard every Levite as in some sense priestly. This
view is confirmed by x. 8 f., where distinctly priestly duties are
assigned to the "tribe of Levi." Some indeed assert that this verse
was written by a later editor, but valid reasons for the assertion
are somewhat difficult to find.[85] Neither Kuenen nor Oettli nor
Dillmann find any. We may, then, accept it as Deuteronomic since
critics of such various leanings do so. To quote Dillmann, "Beyond
question, therefore, the tribe as a whole appears here as called to
sacred, especially priestly service; only it does not follow from
that that every individual member of the tribe could exercise these
functions at his pleasure, without there being any organisation and
gradation among these servants of God." No, that does not follow;
and this very passage (Deut. xviii. 1-8) shows that it does not,
for it makes a very clear distinction. In vv. 3 ff. the dues of the
priest are dealt with, while in vv. 6 ff. those of the Levite in one
special case are provided for. As if to emphasise the distinction
between them, the priest in ver. 3 is not called "Levitical," as he
is in other passages.
[85] Kuenen, _H. K. O._, Eerste Deel, p. 113.
Further, the verses concerning the Levite also emphasise the
distinction; for few will be able to adopt the view that here in vv.
6 ff. every Levite who chooses is authorised to become a priest, by
the mere process of presenting himself at the central sanctuary.
The author of Deuteronomy must have known, better probably than any
one now considering this matter, that the priests in the central
sanctuary would never consent to divide their privileges and their
income with every member of their tribe who might choose to come
up to Jerusalem. Indeed, if they had received each and every one,
the crowd would have been an embarrassment instead of a help.
As a matter of fact, when the Deuteronomic reform came to be put
in practice, this free admission of every Levite to the service
of the Jerusalem Temple was not adopted, and it is _prima facie_
improbable that the author of it can have meant his provision in
that sense. The meaning seems to be that, as only those Levites who
were employed in the central sanctuary could be _de facto_ priests,
those living in the country were not priests in the same sense;
and the regulation made is that if any Levite came up to Jerusalem
and was received into the ranks of the Temple Levites, _i.e._ the
sacrificial priests, he should receive the same dues as the others
performing the same work did. But though no conditions of admission
to the Temple service are mentioned, obviously there must have
been some conditions, some division of labour, some organisation
involving gradations in rank, and perhaps also some limitation as to
time in the case of such voluntary service as is here dealt with.
For, as Dillmann points out, it is not said that the service of
every Temple Levite is the same; numbers of them may have had no
higher work than the Levites under the laws of the Priest Codex.
Moreover the other functions assigned to the priests confirm the
argument, and prove that in the time of Deuteronomy distinctions of
rank among the Levites must have been firmly established. They had
a place in the public justiciary, even in the supreme court, "in
the place which Yahweh their God" had chosen (Deut. xvii. 9, xix.
17). Not only so, the law concerning a man found slain in chap.
xxi., vv. 1-5, implies that there were in the cities throughout
the land priests, the sons of Levi, whom "Yahweh thy God hath
chosen to minister unto Him and to bless in the name of Yahweh, and
according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke
be." Now it cannot possibly have been the intention of the author
of Deuteronomy that every member of the tribe of Levi should have
equal power to decide such matters. If in his view every Levite was
a priest, then we should have this impossible state of affairs, that
the highest courts for judicial process should be in the hands of
a class which was more largely indebted to the generosity of the
rich for its maintenance than any other in the country. It seems
plain therefore that every Levite could not exercise _full_ priestly
functions because of his birth. Clearly, if any Levite might become
a priest it was only in the same sense in which every Napoleonic
soldier was said to carry a marshal's baton in his knapsack.[86]
[86] The same conclusion must be come to in connection with the
sanitary duties of the priesthood as laid down, or rather as alluded
to, in Deut. xxiv. 8, 9. This implies that the Levitical priests had
special duties in connection with such matters, duties which, if not
precisely the same as those laid down in the Law of Leprosy (Lev.
xiii., xiv.), must have nearly resembled them. Semi-medical skill
must have been necessary for the satisfactory discharge of these
duties, and we must suppose that the priests who discharged them
were selected from the tribe of Levi on some principle either of
special proved knowledge and fitness, or on the ground of hereditary
devotion to such work.
Finally, in this passage (ver. 5), by the words "him and his sons
for ever," which refer back to "the priest," a hereditary character
of the priesthood is asserted. This phrase is remarkably parallel
to that so frequently used by P, "Aaron and his sons"; and though
we are not told in what family or families the priesthood was
hereditary, it must have been so in some. But in x. 6, 7, the family
of Aaron is mentioned by the Deuteronomist as having hereditary
right to the priesthood at the central shrine. There can therefore
be no doubt that in the time of the author of Deuteronomy priesthood
was hereditary, perhaps in several families, but certainly in the
family of Aaron.
The remaining point in these verses of chap. xviii. is the dues.
As the whole tribe had no land, so the whole tribe had a share in
the dues paid by the people to their Divine King. In vv. 3 ff. we
have a statement of what these were. The whole tribe of Levi are
to eat "the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, and His inheritance.
And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren: Yahweh is
their inheritance, as He hath spoken unto them." The only place
in Scripture in which such a promise is given is Numb. xviii. 20,
24, so that these passages, if not referred to by the author of
Deuteronomy, must be founded upon a tradition already old in his
time. As the servants of Yahweh, the Levites were to be wholly
Yahweh's care; as His representatives, they were to use for the
supply of their needs all such portions of the offerings made to Him
by fire as were not to be consumed on the altar. Their remaining
provision was to be "His," _i.e._ Yahweh's, "inheritance," or rather
"portion," or that which belongs to Him. Now Yahweh's "portion"
consisted of all the other sacred dues (besides the sacrifices)
which should be paid to Yahweh, such as the tithes, the firstlings,
and the firstfruits. On these the whole tribe of Levi was to live,
and so be free to give their time to the special business of the
sanctuary, and to related duties, in so far as they were called upon.
But there were to be distinctions. In vv. 3-5 we have a special
statement of what was to be paid by the people to the priests,
_i.e._ the sacrificing priests. Of every animal offered in
sacrifice, except those offered as whole burnt-offerings, they
were to receive "the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw," all
choice pieces. Further, they were to receive the "firstfruits of
corn, wine, oil, and the first of the fleece of the sheep." For the
priests of one sanctuary these would be quite provision enough,
though the word translated "firstfruits," _rēshith_, is very
indefinite, and probably meant much or little, according as the
donor was liberal or churlish. But how does this agree with that
which is bestowed upon the priests according to the Priest Codex? In
the passage corresponding to this (Lev. vii. 31-34) the wave breast
and the heave thigh are the portions which are to be bestowed upon
"Aaron the priest and his sons, as a due for ever from the children
of Israel"; and where the firstfruits are dealt with (Numb. xviii.
12 ff.) "the first of the fleece of the sheep" is not mentioned.
That is an addition made by the author of Deuteronomy; but what of
"the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw"? Are they a substitute
for the "wave breast and the heave thigh," or are they an addition?
If we hold that the laws in the Pentateuch were all given by Moses
in the wilderness, and in the order in which they stand, it will
be most natural to think that what we have here is meant to be
an addition to what Numbers prescribes. But if it is established
that Deuteronomy is a distinct work, written at a different period
from the other books of the Pentateuch, then, though there is not
sufficient evidence to justify a dogmatic decision on either side,
the weight of probability is in favour of the supposition that the
Deuteronomic provision is a substitute, or at least an alternative,
for what we have in Numbers. The fact that the prescription in
Numbers is not repeated makes for that view, as well as the fact
that Deuteronomy does not as a rule tend to increase the burdens on
the people. Keil's view, that Deuteronomy and Numbers are dealing
with quite different sacrifices, will hardly stand examination. He
thinks that the feasts at which the firstlings, turned into money,
and the third-year tithes were eaten, are referred to here, while
in Numbers it is the ordinary peace-offerings which are dealt with.
But the postponed firstlings were eaten at the sanctuary, and would
consequently come under the head of ordinary sacrifices; and the
third-year tithes were eaten in the local centres, so that the
bringing of the priestly portions would be as difficult in this
case as in the case of the slaughterings for ordinary meals, which
Keil, partly for that reason, thinks cannot be referred to here. On
the whole, the best opinion seems to be that Deuteronomy has here
different prescriptions from those in Numbers, and that probably
there is a considerable interval of time between the two.
In vv. 6-8 the Levite as distinguished from the priest is dealt
with, though by no means fully. Only in one respect are special
regulations given. When such an one came to do duty at the central
sanctuary, he was to receive his share of the sacrifices with the
rest.
In Chapter I. the main outlines of the Deuteronomic system of
priestly arrangements have been placed alongside those of the Book
of the Covenant and JE, and those of P, with a view to decide
whether they could all have been the work of one lawgiver's life.
Here they must be compared in order that we may ascertain whether a
view of the development of the priestly tribe which will do justice
to these various documents and their provisions can be suggested.
Some schools of critics offer the hypothesis that there was no
special priesthood till late in the time of the kings. From the
beginning, they say, the head of each household was the family
priest, and secular men, such as the kings, and men of other
tribes than the Levites, could be and were priests, and offered
sacrifice even at Jerusalem. With Deuteronomy the tribe of Levi was
established as the priestly tribe, and only after the Exile was
priesthood restricted to the sons of Aaron. But this scheme does
justice to one set of passages only at the expense of another. It
accounts for all that is anomalous in the history, and pushes aside
the main and consistent affirmation of all our authorities, that
from the earliest days the tribe of Levi had a special connection
with sacred things and a special position in Israel. To what
straits its advocates are reduced may be seen in the fact that
Wellhausen has to declare that there were two tribes of Levi, one
purely secular that was all but destroyed in an attack upon Shechem,
and which afterwards disappeared, and a later ecclesiastical and
somewhat factitious tribe, or caste, which "towards the end of the
monarchy arose out of the separate priestly families of Judah."[87]
A more improbable suggestion than that can hardly be conceived.
[87] _History of Israel_, p. 145.
But historical analogy, the favourite weapon of these very critics,
also condemns it. Let us look at the growth of the priesthood
in other ancient nations. In small and isolated communities the
head of the household was generally the family priest, and in all
probability this was the case in the various separate tribes of
which Israel was composed; at least it was so in the households
of the patriarchs. But, in communities formed by amalgamation
of different tribes--and according to modern ideas Israel was
so formed--there was almost always superinduced upon that more
primitive state of things another and different arrangement. In
antiquity no bond could hold together tribes or families conscious
of different descent, save the bond of religion. Consequently,
whenever such an amalgamation took place, the very first thing which
had to be done was to establish religious rites common to the whole
new community, which of course were not the care of the heads of
households as such. Each separate section of the composite body
kept up, no doubt, the family rites; but there had to be a common
worship, and of course a special priesthood, for the new community.
This is sufficiently attested for the Greeks and Romans by De
Coulanges, who in his _La Cité Antique_ gathers together such a mass
of authorities in regard to this matter that few will be inclined
to dispute his conclusion. On page 146 he says: "Several tribes
might unite, on condition that the worship of each was respected.
When such an alliance was entered into, the city or state came into
existence. It is of little importance to inquire into the causes
which induced several tribes to unite; what is certain is that the
bond of the new association was again a religion. The tribes which
grouped themselves to form a state never failed to light a sacred
fire, and to set up a common religion." But the family and tribal
rites continued to exist as _sacra privata_, just as the central
government dominated but did not destroy the family and tribal
governments.[88]
[88] Cf. also Muirhead, article "Roman Law," in _Ency. Brit._, vol.
xx. p. 669, 2nd col., and Ramsay, _Church in Roman Empire_, p. 190.
It may be objected that these customs are proved only for the
Aryan races, and that, though proved for them, they form no valid
analogy for Semitic peoples. But besides the fact that part of the
statements we have quoted are obviously true of Israel, we have a
guarantee that the principle enunciated is also valid for it. The
whole process traced in the religious progress of the Aryan nations
is based upon the worship of ancestors. Now one of the critical
discoveries is that ancestor-worship was a part of the religion of
the tribes which afterwards united to form the Israelite nation.
Some, like Stade, tell us that that was the early religion of Israel
itself. In that form the theory is, I think, to be rejected; but
there would seem to be little doubt that, before the birth of the
nation, ancestor-worship was much practised by the Hebrew tribes. If
so, we may quite safely take over the analogy we have established,
and believe that when Moses united the tribes into a nation, the
religion of Yahweh was the absolutely necessary connecting link
which bound them together. For though the tribes were related,
and are represented as the descendants of Abraham, they must have
varied considerably from each other in religious beliefs and usages.
By Moses these variations were extinguished, as far as that was
possible, by the establishment of an exclusive Yahweh-worship as the
national cult; and to carry on this, not the heads of households,
but a priesthood that represented the nation, must have been
selected. But if so, who would most naturally be selected for this
duty? A sentence from De Coulanges will show that in this case
the tribe of Levi would almost necessarily be chosen. Speaking of
cases in which a composite state relieved itself of the trouble of
inventing a new worship by adopting the special god of one of the
component tribes, he says: "But when a family consented to share its
god in this fashion it reserved for itself at least the priesthood."
Now if that was the case in Israel, the priesthood of the tribe of
Levi would at once become a necessity. Whether Yahweh had been ever
known to the other tribes or not, there can be little doubt that the
knowledge of Him which made them a nation and started them on their
unique career of spiritual discovery came from the Mosaic tribe, and
family.
The God whom the family worshipped became the God of the
confederacy, and they would be the natural guardians of His
sanctuary. This would not in the least involve special sanctity and
meekness on the part of the tribe, as some insist. They would remain
a tribe, like the others; but their leading men would discharge the
functions of priests for the confederated nation. It is difficult,
indeed, to see why any one else should have been thought of: most
likely the arrangement was made as a thing of course.
But if there was such a common worship, there must have been
a sanctuary for it, and at it the Levitic priests must have
discharged their functions. Now though the Tabernacle, as P knows
it, is not spoken of either in JE or in Deuteronomy, a "tent of
meeting" at which Jehovah revealed Himself to Moses and to which
the people went to seek Yahweh (Exod. xxxiii. 7 ff.) is known to
all our authorities. Further, Wellhausen himself says, "If Moses
did anything at all he certainly founded the sanctuary at Qadesh
and the Torah there, which the priests of the ark carried on after
him," so that even he recognises the necessity we have pointed out.
From the days of Moses onwards, therefore, there must have been
special priests of Yahweh, a special Yahwistic sanctuary, ritual
with a special sacrifice presented to Yahweh, and lastly a central
oracle, which is precisely what the passages explained away by
Wellhausen assert. But of course at that early time, even if the
ultimate purpose was to have an exclusively Levitical priesthood,
concessions to the old state of things would have to be made. The
Passover was left in the hands of the household priest, and in other
ways probably he would be considered. The old order would insist
on surviving, and the rigour of the later arrangements cannot then
have been attained. In other respects we know that it was so; and we
may well believe that the priesthood of the individual householder
and of the rulers was tolerated, and as far as possible regulated,
so as to offer no public scandal to the religion of Yahweh. So,
among the Homeric Greeks special hereditary priesthoods coexisted
with a political priesthood of the head of the State, and with the
household priesthood.[89]
[89] Rägelsbach, _Homerische Theologie_, p. 198.
The laxity on these points ascribed to Moses is, however, less
than has been supposed. At Mount Sinai he certainly did appoint
the "young men of the children of Israel"[90] to slaughter the
beasts for sacrifice; but he reserved for himself, a Levite, the
sprinkling of the blood on the altar.[91] He also made Joshua
his servant, an Ephraimite, the keeper of the sanctuary; but even
under the Levitical law, a priest's slave was reckoned to be of his
household and could eat of the holy things. These were not very
great laxities, and there is nothing in them to make us suppose that
a regular priesthood did not exist from Sinai. Moreover, that a
special place should be assigned to Aaron and his sons was natural.
He was the brother of Moses, and would be the natural representative
of the tribe, since Moses was removed from it as being leader of
all. Everything therefore concurs to confirm the Biblical view that
the Levitic priesthood had its origin at Sinai, and that at the
chief sanctuary and oracle the chief place in the priesthood fell
to Aaron and his sons. Worship at other sanctuaries was permitted,
and there the heads of households may have performed priestly
functions, or in later times in Canaan some other Levitic families;
but that there was a central sanctuary in the hands of Levitic
priests, among whom the family of Aaron had a chief place, is what
the circumstances, the historical data we have, and all historical
analogy alike demand.
[90] Exod. xxiv. 5.
[91] Exod. xxxiii. 11.
For the discharge of their sacred functions certain dues were
doubtless assigned to the priests, and the Levites sharing in
the subordinate duties of the sanctuary would share also in the
emoluments. In other respects Levi in the wilderness would differ
in nothing from other tribes. But in preparation for the arrival in
Canaan, it was decreed that Levi should "have no part or inheritance
in Israel." Yahweh was to be their inheritance.
The point to notice here is that this tribe was to retain the
nomadic life when the other tribes became agricultural. The
reason for it is plain. That ancient manner of life was looked
upon as superior in a religious aspect to the agricultural life.
In the first place, the ancestral life of Israel had been of
that kind. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been heads of nomadic
families or tribes; and the pure and peaceful religious life, the
intimate communion with God which they enjoyed, always dominated
the imagination of the pious Israelite. Moreover the fundamental
revelation had come to Moses when he was a shepherd in the waste.
Further, the life of the shepherd is necessarily less continuously
busy than that of the agriculturist; it has, therefore, more scope
in it for contemplation; and in many countries and at various times
shepherds have been a specially thoughtful, as well as a specially
pious class. But, perhaps the chief reason was that the shepherd
life was not only simple and frugal in itself, but it was also
by its very conditions free from some of the greatest dangers to
which the religious life of the Israelite in Canaan was exposed.
When the bulk of the people adopted the settled life, they were
not only thrown among the Canaanites, but they went to school them
in all that concerned elaborate agriculture. This necessarily
made the intercourse and connection between the two peoples
extremely intimate, and was fruitful in evil results. From this the
semi-nomadic portions of the people were to a great extent free, and
they would seem to have been regarded as the guardians of a higher
life and a purer tradition than others. They represented to the
popular mind the Israel of ancient days, which had known nothing of
the vices of cities, and in which the pure uncorrupted religion of
Yahweh had held exclusive sway.
A remarkable narrative of the Old Testament establishes this. When
Jehu was engaged in his sanguinary suppression of the house of Ahab,
and the Baal-worship which they had introduced, we read in 2 Kings
x. 15 ff. that he lighted on Jonadab the son of Rechab coming to
meet him. This Jonadab was the chief of the Rechabites, a nomadic
clan, who were bound by oath to drink no wine, nor to build houses,
nor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, and to dwell in tents all their
days (Jer. xxxv. 6, 7). This was clearly intended as a protest
against the prevailing corruption of manners, and was founded on a
special zeal for the uncorrupted religion of Yahweh. Recognising
Jonadab's position as a champion of true religion, Jehu anxiously
seeks his approval and co-operation. He says, "Is thine heart right,
as my heart is with thy heart?" And Jonadab answered, "It is." "If
it be," said Jehu, "give me thine hand." And he gave him his hand,
and he took him up to him into the chariot. And he said, "Come with
me, and see my zeal for Yahweh." At a much later time, Jeremiah, at
the Divine command, used the faithfulness of these nomads to the
ordinances of their chiefs to put to shame the unfaithfulness of
Israel to Yahweh's ordinances; and promises (Jer. xxxv. 19) that
because of it "Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never want a man to
stand before Yahweh," _i.e._ as His servant. The Nazarites, again,
were in some measure an indication of the same thing. Their rigorous
abstinence from the fruit of the vine (the special sign and gift
of a settled life in a country like Palestine) was their great
distinguishing mark, as persons peculiarly set apart to the service
of God. Something analogous is seen in that other desert faith,
Mohammedanism. When the great reformer, Abd-el-Wahab, attempted to
bring back Islam to its primitive power, he fell back largely upon
the simplicity of the desert life, though he did not insist upon the
abandonment of agriculture and fixed habitations.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the priestly tribe was kept
to the nomadic life by the ordinance that they should not have
a portion in the distribution of the Canaanite territory. But
according to the narrative of the attack upon Shechem by Levi and
Simeon, and the verses in the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix.)
dealing with these tribes, the course of history reinforced this
command. Whether the treachery at Shechem occurred, as the Genesis
narrative places it, before the Exodus, when Israel was only a
family, or was an incident in the history of the two tribes after
Canaan had been invaded, as many critics think,[92] the significance
of it is that because of an historical exhibition of fierce and
intolerant zeal on the part of Levi and Simeon, which the other
tribes would not defend, their settlement in that part of the land
was rendered difficult, if not impossible. Hence Simeon had to seek
other settlements, while Levi fell back to the position assigned
to it by its priestly character. It is not a valid exception to
this view--which reconciles the two statements that Levi had no
inheritance with the other tribes because of its specially near
relation to Yahweh, and also because of its cruel treachery at
Shechem--that a priestly tribe is likely to have been not more, but
rather less, fierce than the others. That would entirely depend
upon the cause or occasion which called out the fierceness. In all
that concerned religion Levi would naturally be more inclined to
extreme measures than the other tribes, and in this case the higher
morality, secured by the separateness of Israel, might easily appear
to be at stake.[93] It is, therefore, quite credible that the
excessive vengeance taken should have been planned mainly by Levi,
and that the resulting hatred should have broken up Simeon, and
driven back Levi with emphasis to its higher call.
[92] Cf. Kittel's _Geschichte der Hebräër_, II., p. 63.
[93] Cf. Exod. xxxii. 15-20.
In any case there never was again any doubt that the Levites were
to be excluded from the number of land-owning tribes. Even in the
legislation regarding the forty-eight priestly cities this principle
asserts itself. The keeping of sheep and cattle on the pastures,
which were the only lands attached to these cities, was to be the
Levites' only secular occupation, and they were neither to own
nor work agricultural land. But to compensate for any hardship
this arrangement might bring with it, the Levites, as the special
servants of Yahweh, were to have Him for their inheritance, _i.e._
as we have seen, the dues coming to Yahweh were to become the
property of the Levites in great part. I say in great part, because
the gift to the Levites exclusively of a tithe of the income of the
people is thought by many to be only a late provision.
After Canaan had been conquered, the state of things in connection
with the priesthood would be something like this. The tent with
the ark would be the principal sanctuary, served by a hereditary
Levitic priesthood, at the head of which would be a descendant of
Aaron. The tribe of Levi, being nomadic, would probably encamp in
the neighbourhood of the central sanctuary in part, and recruits for
the priestly work would be taken occasionally from them, while other
sections would gravitate to the neighbourhood of other sanctuaries.
As we see from the story of Micah in Judges, it was considered
desirable to have a Levite for priest everywhere, and consequently
there would arise at all the High Places Levitic priesthoods,
most probably in part hereditary. But notwithstanding their dues,
the bulk of the tribe, being nomads, would be looked upon by the
agricultural population as poor, just as the Bedouin, in Palestine
now are, comparatively speaking, very poor. This state of things
would correspond entirely with what Deuteronomy tells us; and after
that legislation the position of the Levites as a priestly body
would be more assured than ever. In the post-exilic period all
that had been regulated by practice in earlier days found written
expression. Differentiation of function was minutely carried out.
The priesthood was confined rigorously to the Aaronic house, and
the other Levites were given to them as attendants. In this way
the whole Levitic system was introduced, and with the exclusive
altar came the exclusive priesthood. So far as I can see, it is
only by some such hypothesis that justice can be done to _all_ the
statements of Scripture; and considering the elastic nature of Old
Testament law, there is nothing improbable in it. In any case there
is an amount of evidence of various kinds for the Mosaic origin of
the Levitic, and even the Aaronic priesthood, which no proof of
irregularities can overturn.
In the Divinely sanctioned arrangements of the Old Testament Church,
therefore, the existence of a body of ecclesiastical persons,
having little share in the ordinary pursuits of their neighbours,
and dependent upon their clerical duties for a large part of their
maintenance, was deemed necessary to secure the continuity of
worship and religious belief. As has been already pointed out, the
priesthood was necessarily more conservative than progressive. As
an institution, it was suited rather to gather up and perpetuate
the results of religious movements otherwise originated, than to
originate them itself. But in that sphere it was an absolutely
necessary element in the life of Israel. Difficult as it was to
permeate the people with the truths of revealed religion, it would
have been impossible without the services of the priestly tribe.
Wherever they went they were a visible embodiment of the demand
for faithfulness to Yahweh, and, with all their aberrations, they
probably lived at a higher spiritual level than the average layman.
As has been well said, though Malachi had much reason to complain
of the priests in his own day, his estimate of what Levi had been
in the past is no exaggeration (ii. 6): "The law of truth was in
his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips: he walked
with Me in peace and uprightness, and did turn many away from
iniquity." But such a body as the Levites could not have been kept
thus spiritually alive, unless the members of it had lived somewhat
aloof from the strifes and envies of the market-place, and this they
could not have done had they not lived by their sacred function.
The prophets, under the power and impulse of new truth adapted
to their own time, did not need this protection; consequently
some of them were called from ordinary secular work--from the
plough, like Elisha, or from the midst of the rich and highborn
inhabitants of Jerusalem, like Isaiah. If one may so say, they were
men of religious genius; while the bulk of the priests and Levites
must always have been commonplace men in comparison. Yet even of
the prophets a number were trained in the nomadic life; others
were priests who were shut off also from agriculture. Clearly,
therefore, some measure of separation from the full pulsing life
of the world was, even in the most favourable circumstances,
helpful in developing religious character. For the ordinary average
ecclesiastic it was indispensable; and that he should exist, and
should live at as high a level as possible, was as much a condition
of Israel's discharge of her great mission, as that the voice of
the prophet should be heard at all the great turning-points of her
career.
The modern tendency in Old Testament study is to depreciate the
priest and to exalt the prophet, just as in ecclesiastical life we
tend to make much of those who are or give themselves out to be
religious reformers and thinkers, and to make little of the ordinary
parish or congregational ministry. But the good done by the latter
is, and must be, for each individual generation more than that
done by the former. No one can estimate too highly the conserving
and elevating effect of a faithful high-minded spiritual minister.
Often without genius either intellectual or religious, without much
speculative power, with so firm a hold of the old truth, which has
been their own guiding star, that they cannot readily see the
good in anything new, such men, when faithful to the light they
have, are the stable, restful, immediately effective element in all
Church life. And such a body can be best spiritualised by being
separated somewhat from the stress and strain of competition in the
race of life. Being what they are, the necessity of taking their
full part in the business of the world would inevitably secularise
them, to the great and lasting damage of all spiritual interests.
For though to modern students of Old Testament religion, who are
interested most in its growth and progress towards its consummation
in Christianity, the prophet is by far the most interesting figure,
to the ancient people itself it must have seemed that the priests
and Levites, if they in any degree deserved Malachi's eulogy, were
the entirely indispensable element in their religious life. They
gave the daily bread of religion to the people. They embodied
the principles which came to them from prophetic inspiration in
ceremonies and institutions; they treasured up whatever had been
gained, and kept the people nurtured in it and admonished by it. In
short, they prepared the soil and cultivated the roots from which
alone the consummate flower of prophecy could spring; and when the
voice of prophecy was dying away they brought the piety of the
average Israelite to the highest point it ever reached.
In modern times the necessity for such a body of special churchmen
is challenged from two opposite sides. There is, on the one hand,
the body of over-spiritualised believers who abhor organisation,
and the machinery of organisation, as if it were an intolerable
evil. Conscious very often of quick spiritual impulse and vivid
life in themselves, they fret against the slow movements of large
bodies of men; they separate themselves from all the organised
Churches and reject a regular ministry. All the Lord's people
are now, under the Christian dispensation, priests and prophets,
they say, and a separate paid ministry in sacred things they
refuse to hear of. For spiritual nourishment they rely solely
upon the prophetic gifts of their members, and are satisfied that
thus they are preparing the way for the universal prevalence of a
higher form of Church life. But, so far as can be judged, their
experiment has not prospered, nor is it likely to do so. For these
separatist Christians have found that spiritual life, like other
kinds of life, cannot express itself without an organism. That
implies organisation; and though they do with less of it than other
Christians, still they are often driven into arrangements which
really bring back the regular ministry with its separate position;
and in other respects they are saved from the inconveniences they
have fled from, only by their want of success. If their system
ever became general, it would necessarily drift into organisation,
for only at that price can any coherent, continuous, and lasting
effect be produced. Unfettered by the dull, the critical, and the
judicious, the impulsive and enthusiastic would always be outrunning
the possibilities of the present time. In the interests of the
best, they would be continually ignoring or destroying the good. To
prevent that, a special body of religious men set apart for sacred
services, and freed from the rough struggle for existence so far
as a maintenance from funds devoted to religious purposes can free
them, is one of the best provisions known. Where in the mass they
are really religious men, they secure that the pressure upward,
which the Church exerts upon the lives of its own members and upon
the community in general, shall be effective to the highest degree
then possible, and shall be exerted in the directions in which such
pressure will most fully answer to the needs and aspirations of the
time. Where, on the contrary, the mass of them are secularised,
they no doubt are a power for evil; but the contrast between their
profession and their practice in that case is so shocking, that
unless they be supported by the "dead hand" of endowments with no
living spiritual demand behind them, they soon sink by their own
weight, to give place to a better type. And even when they are thus
supported, though unfaithful, their calling in name at least remains
spiritual, and sooner than the other elements in the nation they are
apt to be stirred by breathings of a new life.
The other objectors to the regular ministry are those, in the press
and elsewhere, who demand of all ministers that they should be
prophets, or inspired religious geniuses, and, because they are
not, deny their right to exist. According to this view every sermon
that is not a new revelation is a failure, every minister of the
sanctuary who is not a discoverer in religion is a pretender, every
one who only exemplifies and lives by the power of the Gospel, as
it was last formulated so as to lay hold upon the popular mind, is
an obscurantist. But no reasonable man really believes this. Such
reproaches are merely the penalty which must be paid for claiming
so high a calling as that of an ambassador for Christ. No man can
quite adequately fill such a position; and the bulk of ministers
of Christ know better than others how much below their ideal their
real service is. But this also is true, that, take them all in
all, no class of men are doing anything like so much as Christian
ministers throughout the world are doing to keep up the standard of
morals and to keep alive faith in that which is spiritual. We have
no right to complain that in their sphere they are conservative of
that which has been handed on to them. They have tried and proved
that teaching; they know that wherever it secures a foothold it
lifts men up to God, and they are naturally doubtful whether new and
untried teaching will do as much. They have pressing upon them,
too, as others have not, the interest of individual men and women
whom they see and know, men and women who for the most part, and so
far as they can see, are accessible to spiritual impulse only on
lines with which they are familiar; and they dread the diversion
of their thoughts from their real spiritual interests, to matters
which, for them at least, must remain largely intellectual and
speculative. No doubt it would be well if all pastors could, as the
most highly endowed do, look beyond that narrower field; could take
account of the movements which are drifting men into new positions,
from which the old landmarks cannot be seen and consequently exert
no influence; and could endeavour to rethink their Christianity
from new points of view, which may be about to become the orthodoxy
of the next generation. But no ministry will ever be a ministry
of prophets. It may even be doubted whether such a ministry could
be borne if it ever should arise. Under it one might fear that
spiritual repose and spiritual growth would alike be impossible for
the average man, in his breathless race after teachers each of whom
was always catching sight of new lights. The mass of men need, first
of all, teachers who have firmly seized the common truth by which
the Church of their day lives, who live conspicuously nearer the
Christian ideal, as generally conceived, than others do, who devote
themselves in sincerity and self-sacrifice to the work of making the
things that are most surely believed among Christians a common and
abiding possession. Such men need never be ashamed of themselves
or of their calling. Theirs is the foundation work, so far as any
attempt to realise the Kingdom of God on earth is concerned; for
without the general acceptance of the truth attained which they
bring about, no further attainment would be possible. The very
environment out of which alone the prophet could be developed would
be wanting, and stagnation and death would certainly and necessarily
follow.
One other thing remains to be said. Though we have taken these
significant words of ver. 2--"And they shall have no inheritance
among their brethren: Yahweh is their inheritance, as He hath
spoken unto them"--in their first and most obvious reference, it
is not to be supposed that that meaning has exhausted all that the
words conveyed to ancient Israel. The perpetuation of the nomadic
form of life among the Levites, and the bestowal of tithes and
sacrificial meats upon them, was undoubtedly the first purpose of
this command. But it had, even for ancient Israel, a more spiritual
meaning. Just as in the promise of Canaan as a dwelling-place the
spiritual Israelite never regarded _merely_ the gift of wealth and
the prospect of comfort,--Canaan was always for them Yahweh's land,
the land where they would specially live near Him and find the joy
of His presence,--so in this case the spiritual gift, of which the
material was only an expression, is the main thing. To have Yahweh
for their heritage can never have meant _only_ so much money and
provisions, so much leisure and opportunity for contemplation,
to any true son of Levi. Otherwise it is inexplicable how the
words used to indicate this very earthly thing should have become
so acceptable a formula for the deepest spiritual experience of
Christian men. It meant also a spiritual bond between Yahweh and
His servants--a special nearness on their part, and a special
condescension on His. To the other tribes Yahweh had given His land,
to them He had given Himself as a heritage; and though doubtless any
unspiritual son of Levi must have thought the tangible advantages of
a fertile farm more attractive than visionary nearness to God, the
spiritual among the Levites must have felt that they had received
the really good part, which no hostile invasion, no oppression of
the rich, could ever take away. Their ordinary life-work brought
them more into contact with sacred things than others. The goodness,
the mercy, the love of God were, or at least ought to have been,
clearer to them than to their brethren; and the joy of doing good
to men for God's sake, the rapture of contemplation which possessed
them when they were privileged to see the face of God, must have
made all the coarser benefits of the earthly heritage seem worse
than nothing and vanity. Of course there was the danger that
familiarity with religious things should dull instead of quickening
the insight; and many passages in the Old Testament show that this
danger was not always escaped. But often, and for long periods, it
must have been warded off; and then the superiority of God's gift of
Himself must have been manifest, not only to the chosen tribe, but
to all Israel. For the nature of man is too intrinsically noble ever
to be quite satisfied with the world, and the riches and comforts
of the world, for its inheritance. At no time has man ever failed
to do homage to spiritual gifts. Even to-day, in spheres outside of
religion, there are multitudes of men and women who would put aside
without a sigh any wealth the world could give, if it were offered
as a substitute for their delight in poetry, or for their power
to rethink and re-enjoy the ideas of those whose "thoughts have
wandered through eternity." And the power to follow and to yield
oneself up to the thoughts of the Eternal God Himself is a reward
far above these. To the faithful servant of God at all times and in
all lands that joy has been open, for God Himself has been their
heritage; and though in ancient Israel the beauty of "Yahweh their
God" was not quite unveiled, yet we know from the Psalms that many
penetrated even then to the inner glory where God meets His chosen,
and there, though having nothing, yet found that in Him they had
all.