The Relation of Ezekiel to the Levitical Law.
BY PROF. FREDERIC GARDINER,
In the discussions which have arisen
of late years about the origin
and
date of the Mosaic legislation it has been generally recognized
that
the book of Ezekiel, especially in its later chapters, has a peculiar
importance.
The traditional view regards the laws of the Pentateuch
as
having been given through Moses to the Israelites soon after their
Exodus
from
their
more or less perfectly observed standard of ecclesiastical law and
religious
ceremonial; the view of several modern critics, on the other
hand,
is that this legislation was of gradual development, having its
starting
point, indeed, quite far back in the ages of
but
reaching its full development only in the times succeeding the
Babylonian
exile. Especially, the exclusive limitation of the func-
tions of the
priesthood to the Aaronic family, and the distinction
between
the priests and their brethren of the tribe of Levi, as well as
the
cycle of the feasts and other like matters, are held by these critics
to
be of post-exilic origin.
The writings of a priest who lived
during the time of the exile, and
who
devotes a considerable part of his book to an ideal picture of the
restored
theocracy, its temple, its worship, and the arrangement of
the
tribes, cannot fail to be of deep significance in its bearing upon
this
question. Certain facts in regard to Ezekiel are admitted by all:
he
was himself a priest (i. 3); he had been carried into
captivity not
before
he had reached early manhood; and, whether he had himself
ministered
in the priest's office at
asserts,
Relig. of Israel, vol. ii. p. 105) or not, he
was certainly thor-
oughly conversant with
the ceremonial as there practiced and with the
duties
of the priesthood; further, he began his prophecies a few years
after
Zedekiah was carried into captivity, and continued them until
near
the middle of the Babylonian exile, the last nine chapters being
dated
"in the 25th year of our captivity," which corresponds with the
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 173
33d
of Nebuchadrezzar's reign. If any development of
gion, therefore,
were going on during the captivity, it must have been
already
well advanced at the time of this vision. So far there is a
general
agreement. The main point necessarily follows:--that in
such
case Ezekiel's vision must present an intermediate stage on the
line
of progress from that which we certainly know to have existed
before
to that which we know, with equal certainty, was practiced
afterwards.
It is indeed theoretically conceivable
that in the course of this
development
of religion Ezekiel may have been a strange, erratic
genius,
who was both regardless of the traditions of his fathers and
was
without influence upon the course of his successors; but such
strange
estimation of him is entertained by no one, and needs no
refutation.
It would be contradicted by his birth, his position as a
prophet,
his evident estimation among his contemporaries, and his
relations
to his fellow prophet-priest, Jeremiah. It may be assumed
that
his writings were an important factor in whatever religious devel-
opment actually
occurred.
This argument is the more important on
account of the great
weight
attached by some critics to the argument e
silentio. This argu-
ment can be only of
limited application in regard to historical books,
fully;
occupied as they are with other matters, and only occasionally and
incidentally
alluding to existing ecclesiastical laws and customs; but it
is
plainly of great importance in this prophetical setting forth of quite
a
full and detailed ecclesiastical scheme. The omission of references
to
any ritual law or feast or ceremony in the historical books can occa-
sion no surprise,
and afford no just presumption against the existence
of
such rites and ceremonies, unless some particular reason can be
alleged
why they should have been mentioned; but a corresponding
omission
from the pages of Ezekial is good evidence either
that the
thing
omitted was too familiar to require mention, or else that he
purposely
excluded it from his scheme. In other words, it shows
that
what he omits, as compared with the mosaic law, was either
already
entirely familiar to him and to the people; or else that the
law
he sets forth was, in these particulars, different from the Mosaic
law.
To illustrate by an example: There can be no question that
circumcision
was a fundamental rite of the religion of the Israelites,
practiced
in all ages of their history; yet, after the Pentateuch and
the
few first chapters of Joshua, there is no mention of it, and the
words
circumcise, circumcised, circumcision,
do not occur in the sacred
literature
down to the time of Jeremiah; neither does the word fore-
skin, except in
connection with David's giving the foreskins of the
174 JOURNAL.
Philistines
as dowry for Michal (I Sam. xviii. 25, 27; 2 Sam. iii. 14).
Even
uncircumcised, as a designation of
the enemies of
only
nine times (Judg. xiv. 3; xv. 18; I Sam. xiv. 6; xviii. 26, 36;.
xxxi.
4; 2 Sam. i. 20; i Chron.
x. 4; Isa. lii. 1) in the interval,
and
several of these passages are considered by the critics to be of
later
date; neither is there any allusion to circumcision in Ezekiel,
except
the mention of the stranger “uncircumcised in heart and un-
circumcised
in flesh" (xliv. 7, 9). Of course, the reason for this, in
both
cases, is that the law of circumcision was so familiar and the
practice
so universal that there was no occasion for its mention. On the
other
hand, the fast of the day of atonement is not mentioned either in
the
historical books or in Ezekiel. We are not surprised at its omis-
sion from the
former, nor "can this cast any shade of doubt on its
observance,
unless some passage can be shown in which it would have
been
likely to bespoken of; but we can only account for its being
passed
over in the cycle of the festivals in Ezekiel on the supposition
that
it formed no part of his scheme, while yet, as will be shown
farther
on, there, are indications that he recognizes it, in his other
arrangements,
as existing in his time.
While abundant references to the Mosaic
law may be found in
every
part of Ezekiel,* it has seemed best to confine the present
investigation
to the last nine chapters, both because these are by far
the
most important in this connection, and also because these have
been
chiefly used in the discussion of the subject.
Unfortunately,
there
is a difference of opinion in regard to the general interpretation
of
these chapters. Some will have them to be literally understood as
the
expression of the prophet's hope and expectation of what was
actually
to be; more generally the vision is looked upon as a figur-
ative description of
the future glory of the church, clothed, as all
such
descriptions must necessarily be, in the familiar images of the
past.
A determination of this question is not absolutely necessary to
the
present discussion, but is so closely connected with it, and the
argument
will be so much clearer when this has first been examined
that
it will be well to give briefly some of the reasons for considering
Ezekiel's
language in this passage to be figurative. †
It is evident that Ezekiel's
description differs too widely from the
past
to allow of the supposition that it is historical; and written at a
*For a very ample list of quotations
and allusions to the law in Eze-
ing, &c. By
Rufus P. Stebbins,
† This question is treated more fully in
my notes upon these chapters
in
Bp. Ellicott's Commentary for English
Readers.
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 175
time
when the temple lay in ashes and the land desolate, it cannot
refer
to the present. It must then have reference to the future. The
presumption
is certainly that it portrays an ideal future, because the
whole
was seen “in the visions of God” (xl. 2), an expression which
Ezekiel
always applies to a symbolic representation rather than to an
actual
image of things (cf. i. I; viii. 3; also xi. 24, and
xliii. 3).
Moreover,
if it is to be literally understood, it must portray a state of
things
to be realized either in the near future, or else at a time still in
advance
of our own day. If the former, as is supposed by a few
commentators,
it is plain that the prophecy was never fulfilled, and
remains
a monument of magnificent purposes unaccomplished. The
attempt
to explain this by the theory that the returning exiles found
themselves
too few and feeble to carry out the prophet's whole designs,
and
therefore concluded to postpone them altogether to a more con-
venient season, must be
regarded as an entire failure. For one of
two
suppositions must be adopted, both of them leading to the same
result:
either that of the negative critics--that certain great features of
the
Mosaic law, such as the distinction between the priests and
Levites
and the general priestly legislation, had their origin with
Ezekiel;
and in this case it is inconceivable that, while adopting this,
no
attention should have been paid to the authority of this great
prophet
in other matters; or else we must accept the commonly
received
view, that the Mosaic law was earlier, and is here profoundly
modified
by Ezekiel. In the latter case, however much the returning
exiles
might have been disappointed in their circumstances, yet if they
understood
the prophet literally, they must have looked forward to
the
accomplishment of his designs in the future, and would naturally
have
been anxious to order the restored theocracy on his plan, as far
as
they could, from the first, to avoid the necessity of future changes;
and
a large part of the scheme, such as the cycle of the feasts, the
ordering
of the sacrifices, &c., was quite within their power. In
either
case, if the vision is to be taken literally, it is inexplicable that
there
should be no reference to it in the historical books of Ezra and
Nehemiah
and the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, which all
relate
to this period, and describe the return and settlement in the
land,
and the rebuilding of the temple.
It is scarcely necessary to speak of a
literal fulfilment still in the
future.
Ordinarily it is difficult to say that any state of things may
not
possibly be realised in the future; but here there
are features of
the
prophecy, and those neither of a secondary nor incidental charac-
ter, which enable us to assert
positively that their literal fulfilment
would
be a plain contradiction of the Divine revelation. It is impos-
176 JOURNAL.
sible to conceive, in
view of the whole relations between the old and
new
dispensations, that animal sacrifices can ever be restored by
Divine
command and with acceptance to God. And, it may be added,
it
is equally impossible to suppose that the church of the future, pro-
gressing in the liberty
wherewith Christ has made it free, should ever
return
to "the weak and beggarly elements" of Jewish bondage here
set
forth.
Having thus alluded to these general
presumptions, we are pre-
pared
to look at those particular indications which have been intro-
duced into the
prophecy itself as if to show that it is to be under-
stood
ideally. I do not propose to speak of those more general
indications,
such as the regularity of proportions and forms, the sym-
metry of measurements
&c., which here, as in the later chapters of
the
apocalypse, give to almost every reader a somewhat indefinable
but
very strong impression of the ideality of the whole description;
but
will confine myself to statements which admit of definite tests in
regard
to their literalness.
In the first place, the connection
between the temple and the city
of
the
thought of every pious Israelite, is so close that, a prophecy inci-
dentally
separating them, without any distinct statement of the fact or
of
the reason for so doing, could hardly have been intended, or have
been
understood literally. Yet in this passage the temple is described
as
at a distance of nearly nine and a half miles from the utmost
bound
of the city, or about fourteen and a quarter miles from its centre.*
A temple in any other locality than
the
temple of Jewish hope and association. The location of Ezekiel's
temple
depends upon whether the equal portions of land assigned to
*This holds true, however the tribe
portions of the land and the
“oblation”
are located; for the priests' portion of the "oblation," in the
midst
of which the sanctuary is placed, (xlviii. 10) is 10,000 reeds, or
about
nineteen miles broad; to the south of this (xlviii. 15-17) is a strip
of
land of half the width, in which the city is situated, occupying with
its
"suburbs " its whole width. These distances, in their exactness,
depend
upon the length of the cubit which is variously estimated. For
the
purposes of this discussion it is taken at a convenient average of the
conflicting
estimates, viz: 20 inches. If it were a little more
or a little
less
the general argument would remain the same. There should
also
be noticed the view of a few writers (Henderson on xlv. 1; Hengs-
tenberg on xlv. 1, and
a few others) that the dimensions given in this
chapter
are to be understood of cubits and not of reeds; but this is so
generally
rejected, and is in itself so improbable that it seems to require
no
discussion. Even if adopted, it would only change the amount of
the
distance and would still leave the temple quite outside the city and
separated
from it by a considerable space.
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 177
each
of the tribes in ch. xlviii. were actually equal in
area, or were
only
strips of equal width. The latter view is, so far as I know,
adopted
by all commentators. On this supposition Ezekiel's city
would
be several miles north of
of
that, would be well on the road to
supposition,
it would fall nearly in the latitude of
In either case, the temple, with its
precincts, is described as a mile
square,
or larger than the whole ancient city of
12
it is expressly said "that the whole limit thereof round about" is
"upon
the top of the mountain." But without pressing this, it is
hardly
possible that the precincts of any actual temple could be in-
tended
to embrace such a variety of hill and valley as would be
involved.
Moreover, the description of the
"oblation" itself is physically
impossible.
The boundaries of the land are expressly said to be the
15-2
1). The eastern boundary is not formed by an indefinite exten-
sion into the
desert, but is distinctly declared to be the
above
that, the boundaries of Hauran and
tially the same with
that given in Num. xxxiv. 10-12, and in both
cases
excludes the trans-Jordanic territory which was not a
part of
half
tribes had been allowed to settle with some reluctance (Num.
xxxii.
). Now, if the portions of the tribes were of equal width, the
"oblation"
could not have been extended so far south as the mouth
of
the
according
to the English "exploration fund" maps, is only 55 miles.
Measuring
northwards from this point the width of the oblation, 47 1/3
miles,
a point is reached where the distance between the river and the
sea
is only 40 miles. It is impossible therefore that the oblation itself
should
be included between them, and the description requires that
there
should also be room left for the prince's portion at either end.
It
has been suggested that the prophet might have had in mind meas-
urements made on the
uneven surface of the soil or along the usual
routes
of travel; but both these suppositions are absolutely excluded
by
the symmetry and squareness of this description.
Again: the city of the vision is
described as the great city of the
restored
theocracy; but, as already said, it cannot be placed geo-
graphically
upon the site of
be
understood ideally, or else a multitude of other prophecies, and
notably
many of Ezekiel which speak of
must
be so interpreted. There is no good reason why both may not
178 JOURNAL.
be
figurative, but it is impossible to take both literally; for some of
them
make statements in regard to the future quite as literal in form
as
these, and yet in direct conflict with them. Such prophecies, both
in
Ezekiel and in the other prophets, in regard to
familiar
to need citation; yet one, on a similar point, from a prophet
not
much noticed, may be given as an illustration. Obadiah (accord-
ing to some authorities, a
contemporary of Ezekiel) foretells (ver. 19)
that
at the restoration "Benjamin shall possess
ing to Ezekiel,
Benjamin's
territory is to be immediately south of the " oblation."
Again,
Obadiah (ver. 20) says, "The captivity of
in
distinction from "the captivity of the host of the children of
must
refer to the two tribes) " shall possess the cities of the south";
but
according to
tral
"oblation," and four other tribes are to have their portions south
of
them. Such instances might easily be multiplied. It must surely
be
a false exegesis which makes the prophets gratuitously contradict
each
other and even contradict themselves (as in this case of Obadiah)
almost
in the same sentence.
The division of the land among the
twelve tribes; the assignment
to
the priests and the Levites of large landed estates, and to the
former
as much as to the latter; the enormous size of the temple
precincts
and of the city, with the comparatively small allotment of
land
for its support, are all so singular, and so entirely destitute of
either
historical precedent or subsequent realization, that only the
clearest
evidence would justify the assumption that these things were
intended
to be literally carried out. No regard is paid to the differ-
ing numbers of the tribes, but--as
if to set forth an ideal equality-
an
equal strip of land is assigned to each; and, the trans-Jordanic
territory
being excluded and about one-fifth of the whole land being
set
apart as an "oblation," the portion remaining allows to each of
the
tribes only about two-thirds as much territory as, on the average,
they
had formerly possessed. The geographical order of the tribes is
also
extremely singular, and bears all the marks of ideality. More-
over,
nearly the whole territory assigned to Zebulon and Gad is
habitable
only by nomads.
A further difficulty with the literal
interpretation may be found in
the
description of the waters which issued from under the eastern
threshold
of the temple (xlvii. 1-1 2). This difficulty is so great that
some
commentators, who have adopted generally a literal interpreta-
tion, have found
themselves constrained to resort here to the figurative;
but
on the whole, it has been recognized that the vision is essentially
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 179
one,
and that it would be unreasonable to give a literal interpretation
to
one part of it and a figurative to another. The waters of the vision
run
to the "east country," and go down "'to the sea," which can
only
be
the
without
changes in the surface of the earth, since the location of the
temple
of the vision is on the west of the water-shed of the country.*
They
had, moreover, the effect of "healing" the waters of the sea,
an
effect which could not be produced naturally without providing an
outlet
from the sea, and Ezekiel (xlvii. 11) excludes the idea of an
outlet.
No supply of fresh water could remove the saltness,
while
this
was all disposed of by evaporation. But, setting aside minor
difficulties,
the character of the waters themselves is impossible, ex-
cept by a perpetual
miracle. Without insisting upon the strangeness
of
a spring of this magnitude upon the top of "a very high moun-
tain" (xl. 2;
cf. also xliii. 12), at the distance of 1,000 cubits from
their
source, the waters have greatly increased in volume; and so
with
each successive 1,000 cubits, until at the end of 4,000 (about a
mile
and a half) they have become a river no longer fordable, or, in
other
words, comparable to the
accessory
streams, is clearly not natural. Beyond all this, the descrip-
tion of the waters
themselves clearly marks them as ideal. They are
life-giving
and healing; trees of perennial foliage and fruit grow upon
their
banks, the leaves being for "medicine," and the fruit, although
for
food, never wasting. The reader cannot fail to be reminded of
"the
pure river of water of life" in Rev. xxii. I, 2. " on either
side"
of
which was " the tree of life," with " its twelve manner of
fruits"
and
its leaves " for the healing of the nations." The author of the
Ayocalypse evidently had
this passage in mind; and just as he has
seized
upon the description of Gog and Magog in chaps.
xxxviii.,
xxxix.,
as an ideal description, and applied it to the events of the
future,
so he has treated this as an ideal prophecy, and applied it to
the
Church triumphant.
Finally, it should be remembered that
this whole vision is inti-
mately bound together,
and all objections which lie against a literal
interpretation
of any one part, lie also against the whole. Additional
reasons
for spiritual interpretation will incidentally appear in the fol-
lowing
pages.
If it is now asked--and this seems to
be the chosen ground of the
*This is true with any possible
location of the "oblation"; for the
central
point between the
western
water-shed at every locality from the head waters of the
to
the extremity of the
180 JOURNAL.
literal
interpreters--why then is this prophecy given with such a
wealth
of minute material detail? the answer is obvious, that this is
thoroughly
characteristic of Ezekiel. The tendency to a use of con-
crete imagery,
strongly marked in every part of his book, merely cul-
minates in this closing
vision. The two previous chapters, especially,
have
abounded in definite material details of the attack of a great host
upon
the
show
that they were not meant to be literally understood, and that
the
whole prophecy was intended to shadow forth the great and final
spiritual
conflict, prolonged through ages, between the power of the
world
and the
set
forth the glory, the purity, and the beneficent influence of the
church
of the future, clothes his description in those terms of the past
with
which his hearers were familiar. The use of such terms was a
necessity
in making himself intelligible to his contemporaries; just as
to
the very close of the inspired volume it is still necessary to set forth
the
glory and joy of the church triumphant under the figures of earthly
and
familiar things, but no one is misled thereby to imagine that the
heavenly
1,500
miles high (Rev. xxi, 16, 18), or that its 12 gates shall be each
of
an actual pearl. At the same time the prophet is careful to intro-
duce
among his details so many impossible points as to show that his
description
must be ideal, and its realisation be sought for
beneath
the
types and shadows in which it is clothed. It may be as impossi-
ble to find the symbolical meaning
of each separate detail as it is to
tell
the typical meaning of the sockets for the boards of the tabernacle
although
the tabernacle as a whole is expressly said to have been a
type.
This is the case with every vision, and parable, and type, and
every
form of setting forth truth by imagery; there must necessarily
be
much which has no independent signification, but is merely sub-
sidiary to the main
point. Ezekiel's purpose was so far understood
by
his contemporaries, that they never made any attempt to carry out
his
descriptions in the rebuilding of the temple and the reconstruct
tion of the State.
The idea of a literal interpretation of his words was
reserved
for generations long distant from his time, from the forms of
the
church under which he lived, and from the circumstances and
habits
of expression with which he was familiar, and under the
influence
of which he wrote.
With this unavoidably prolonged
discussion the ground is cleared
for
a comparison of the cultus
set forth in this vision of Ezekiel with
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 181
that
commanded in the Mosaic law, and an examination of the rela-
tion between them.
This discussion is embarrassed by the difficulty
of
finding any historical data which will be universally accepted. If
we
might assume that any of the older historical books of the Old
Testament
were as trustworthy as ordinary ancient histories making
no
claim to inspiration, or that the books of most of the prophets
were
not pious frauds, the task would be greatly simplified. As it is,
I
shall endeavor to conduct the examination on the basis of such
obvious
facts as would abe admitted by the authors of what
seem to
the
writer such strange romances as Kuenen's
"Religion of Israel"
and
"Prophets and Prophecy in
The first point to which attention may
be called is the landed prop-
erty of the priests
and Levites. According to the Mosaic law, they
had
no inheritance of land like the other tribes, but merely scattered
cities
for residence; and were to depend for support, partly upon their
portion
of the sacrifices, and chiefly upon the tithes of the people.
While
the payment of these tithes was commanded, there was abso-
lutely no provision
for enforcing their payment. This rested entirely
upon
moral obligation, and the condition of the whole Levitical
tribe
was thus dependent upon the conscientiousness of the Israelites.
When
the sense of religious obligation was strong, they would be
well
provided for; when it was weak, they would be in want. And
this
is exactly what appears from the general course of the history, as
well
as from such special narratives as are universally admitted to be
of
great antiquity. (See Judg. xvii. 7-18, &c.) Now, after the
exile,
at a time when there can be no question in regard to the facts,
we
find the priests and Levites similarly unprovided
with landed
property.
The Mosaic law, the condition of things before the exile
and
after, agree together; but Ezekiel represents a totally different
state
of things. He assigns two strips of territory, one to the priests
and
the other to the Levites, each of nearly the same size as the
allotment
to any of the tribes (xlviii. 9-14). This very small tribe
would
thus have had almost twice as much land as any other; and
such
a provision would obviously have profoundly modified the whole
state
and relations of the priestly order and of the subordinate Levites.
In
this point, therefore, we find that if any process of development
was
going on in the ecclesiastical system of
*Substantially the same views,
especially in relation to Ezekiel, are
taken
by Graf (Die Gesehichtl.
Bucher des alien Test.), Smend (Der
Prophet Ezechiel), and others, with sundry variations in
detail; but as
Kuenen is the author
most widely known, and presents his theories in
the
most favorable point of view, the references of this paper will be
confined
to his works.
182 JOURNAL.
leave
the final result just what it had been before, while the system of
Ezekiel,
which, on that supposition, should be a middle term be-
tween the two, is
entirely foreign to both of them.
There are other noteworthy points
involved in the same provision.
According
to Deut. xix. 2-9 three cities, and conditionally another
three,
and according to Num. xxxv. 9-15 the whole six, were to be
selected
from the cities of the Levites and appointed as cities of refuge
in
case of unintentional manslaughter. The same provision is
alluded
to in Ex. xxi. 13, 14, and it plainly forms an essential feature
of
the whole Mosaic law in regard to manslaughter and murder.
After
the conquest, according to Josh. xxi. this command was exe-
cuted and the cities
were distributed as widely as possible in different
parts
of the land, three of them on either side of the
ern side being considered as an
extension of the land not included in
the
original promise and therefore bringing into force the conditional
requirement
of Deuteronomy.* But by the arrangement
of Ezekiel,
the
Levites were not to have cities scattered through the land, and their
central
territory could not afford the necessary ease of access from the
distant
parts. There is here therefore an essential difference in regard
to
the whole law in reference to manslaughter and murder, and it is
plain
that the Mosaic law in this point could not have been devised
from
Ezekiel.
But besides this obvious inference, it
is in the highest degree im-
probable
that this provision of the Mosaic law could have originated
after
the captivity, when it would have been entirely unsuited to the
political
condition of the people. Still more, it is inconceivable
that
the record of the execution of this law by Joshua could have been
invented
after the time of Ezekiel; for neither in his vision is any such
selection
of cities indicated, nor in the actual territorial arrangement
of
the restoration was there any opportunity therefor.
Yet the same
account
which records the selection (incidentally mentioned in con-
nection with each city
as it is reached in the list) clearly recognizes
the
distinction between the priests and the Levites (Josh. xxi.) This
distinction
then must have been older than Ezekiel.
In quite another point Ezekiel's
assignment of territory, taken in
connection
with Numbers and Joshua, has an important bearing upon
the
antiquity of the distinction between priests and Levites. Accord-
ing to the Mosaic law the priests
were a higher order ecclesiastically
*Deuteronomy was indeed written after
the conquest of the trans-
Jordanic territory; but
it was immediately after, and when this territory
was
yet hardly considered as the home of the tribes. Some writers
prefer
to consider the number of six cities as fixed and the three con-
ditional, which in their
view were never set apart, as making nine.
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 183
than
the Levites and in accordance with this position, were provided
with
a more ample income; for being much less than a tenth of the
tribe,
the priests received a tenth of the income of all the other Levites
(Num.
xviii. 25-28). Both these facts are in entire accordance with
the
relations of the priests and Levites in post-exilic times; but they
are
at variance with those relations as set forth in Joshua, if that be
post-exilic,
and also with Ezekiel considered as a preparatory stage of
the
legislation of the Pentateuch. Of course, the whole body of the
Levites
must have been originally many times more numerous than
the
members of the single family of Aaron, and if Joshua xxi. be very
ancient
we need not be surprised that the 48 Levitical cities
provided
for
in Numbers (xxxv. 1-7) should have been given, 13 to the priests
and
35 to the other Levites (Josh. xxi.); for this gave to the priests
individually
a much larger proportion than to the Levites. The same
thing
is true of the provision made by Ezekiel. The equal strips of
land
given to the priests collectively and to the Levites collectively,
gave
much more to the former individually. But all this would have
been
entirely untrue after the exile. In the census of the returning
exiles,
given in both Ezra and Nehemiah, the number of priests is set
down
as 4289 (Ezra ii. 36-38; Neh. vii. 39-42), while that of the
Levites--even
including the Nethinim--is
733, or but little more than
one-sixth
of that number (Ez. ii. 40-58; in Neh. vii, 43-60 the
number
is 752).* It may indeed be argued that
Ezekiel has no re-
gard to the actual
numbers of the two bodies, but writing at an early
stage
of the process of separation between the priests and the Levites,
intends
to put them upon a precise equality; and that only at a later
period
was the pecuniary provision for the Levites made inferior to
that
of the priests. If this be so, then Joshua xxi, must be post-
exilic;
for in its whole arrangement it clearly recognizes the distinc-
tion and the
superiority of the priests. Yet this gives 35 cities to the
very
few Levites and only 13 to the comparatively numerous priests-
*Kuenen (Relig. of Isr. Vol. II. p. 203, 204) and his
school undertake
to
explain this disparity of numbers by the supposition that the Levites
were
" degraded priests " of which he thinks he finds evidence in Ezek.
xliv.
10-16. For the present point this is quite immaterial; all that is
here
required is admitted by him--the fact of the great disparity in num-
bers. But the
supposition itself is quite gratuitous, and rests upon two
unfounded
assumptions: (I) that "the Levites" in ver. 10 cannot be
used
kat ] e]coxh<n for the priests--a
point to be spoken of elsewhere; and
(2)
that the "sons of Zadok " ver. 15, is
synonymous with "sons of
Aaron,"
which is not true. The simple and natural explanation of the
passage
in Ezekiel is that the prophet means to degrade the priests who
have
been guilty of idolatry. (See Curtiss' The
Levitical Priests p.
74-77.)
184 JOURNAL.
in
other words is self-contradictory. In this respect the bearing of
Ezekiel
is plain; it makes the Mosaic law and the history of Joshua,
consistent
if they were ancient, but inconsistent and self-contradictory
if
Ezekiel's vision was a stage in the late differentiation of the priests
from
the Levites.
We are now prepared to go a step
further. It is agreed on all sides,
that
Ezekiel recognizes a distinction between the priests and the
Levites.
To an ordinary reader of his book it appears that he makes
this
recognition incidentally and as a matter of course, as of an old,
familiar,
and established distinction. He nowhere states that -there
shall
be such a distinction, nor gives any grounds upon which it shall
rest,
nor describes who shall be included in the one body and who in
the
other, except that he confines the priests to "the sons of Zadok",
(xl.
46; xliii. 19; xliv. 15; xlviii. 11), of which more will be said
presently.
Certainly this does not look, upon the face of it, like the
original
institution of this distinction. But Kuenen (Relig. of Isr.
vol.
2 p. 116) asserts that at the time of Josiah's reformation, "all,
the
Levites, without exception, were considered qualified to serve as
priests
of Jahweh," and that "Ezekiel is the first
to desire other rules
for
the future;" and that the priestly laws of the Pentateuch, of which
he
had no knowledge, were subsequent. Again he says (ib,
p. 153)
Ezekiel,
in uttering his wishes as to the future, made a beginning
of
committal to writing of the priestly tradition. The priests in Bab-
ylonia went on in, his
footsteps. A first essay in priestly legis-
lation--remains of
which have been preserved to us in Lev. xviii-xxvi.
--was
followed by others, until at last a complete system arose, con-
tained in an
historical frame. Possessed of this system, the priestly
exiles,
and among them Ezra in particular, could consider themselves
entitled
and called upon to come forward as teachers in
to
put in practice the ordinances which hitherto had been exclusively
of
theoretical interest to them."* These passages are cited from
Kuenen simply to bring
distinctly before the mind the theory which
has
recently gained acceptance with an intelligent school of critics;
it
is the bearing upon this of the vision of Ezekiel which we are to
consider.
The question to be asked is whether the more careful ex-
amination of this vision
bears out the prima facie impression produced
by
it, or confirms the somewhat elaborate theory of Kuenen.
There can be no manner of doubt that
in Ezekiel's time they
already
existed two classes of persons known respectively as “priests”
* He admits that the distinction is
recognized in 1 Kings viii. 4, but
says
this is merely in consequence of a clerical error." Relig. Isr.
vol.
II. p. 301.)
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 185
and
as "Levites." Whatever may have been the ground of the dis-
tinction, and whether or
not all were equally entitled to offer sacri-
fices, Ezekiel
certainly recognizes the two classes as existing, since he
could
not otherwise have used the terms without defining them. The
Levites,
of course, may be considered already well known as the
descendants
of the tribe of Levi; but why not the priests in a similar
way?
How could he have used the term in distinction from the
Levites,
if no such distinction had been hitherto known?
But further: Ezekiel assigns to the
priests the functions of offering
the
sacrifices and of eating the sin offering, while to the Levites he
gives
the duty of "ministering in the sanctuary." Of course the
mere
expression "minister" (xliv. 11) might, if it stood alone, be
understood
of any sort of service; but the whole context shows it is
meant
of a service inferior to the priests, and the existence here of the
same
distinctions as those of the Mosaic law has been so universally
recognized
as to lead some scholars to argue that the provisions of this
law
must have been derived from this prophet. It is found however,
that
precisely the same distinction appears, and precisely the same
duties
are assigned respectively to the priests and to the Levites in the
ages
before Ezekiel. There is no occasion to speak of the functions
of
the priests since there is no dispute about them; in regard to the
Levites,
I will refer only to a single passage already cited by Kuenen
(ubi sup. p. 304) as pre-exilic, and of
especial interest because it is
taken
from Deuteronomy (xviii. I-8), and is partly in the same words
as
those used by Ezekiel. At first sight it appears to join the two
classes
together, but on closer examination is found to make a clear
distinction
between them. "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of
Levi,
shall have no part nor inheritance with
the
offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance" (vs. 1).
This
statement has been thought to show that the whole tribe was
here
treated as a unit, with no distinction between its members. If it
stood
alone it might be so regarded; but the lawgiver immediately
goes
on to speak separately of the two parts of the tribe: "And this
shall
be the priests' due from the people, from them that offer a sac-
rifice,"
specifying the parts of the victim and also the first fruits; "for
the
Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes to stand to
minister
in the name of the Lord, him and his sons forever." So far
about
the priests. Then follows, "And if a Levite come from any of
thy
gates out of all
the
desire of his mind unto the place which the Lord shall choose,
then
he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his
brethren
the Levites do, which stand before the Lord. They shall
186 JOURNAL.
have
like portions to eat, besides that which cometh of the sale of his
patrimony."
There is here nothing, as in the case of the priests,
about
sacrifice; but the Levites appear to be inferior ministrants, just
as
in the Book of Numbers; and it is provided that any of the tribe,
wherever
he has before lived, may come and join himself to their
number
and share in the provision for their support, without regard
to
his private property. The supposition that the Levites referred to
in
these last verses were also priests, i. e. entitled
to offer sacrifice,
would
be exegetically inadmissible; for they are said to "come from
any
of thy gates out of all
of
the priests (described also as the sons of Aaron) are confined to the
tribes
of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon. Consequently those who
were
to offer sacrifice could not "come from any of thy gates out of
all
in
Deuteronomy with their duties, then afterwards the Levites sepa-
rately with their
duties, which are not the same; and the point would
require
to be otherwise most clearly proved before it could be admit-
ted
that the persons were the same. Of course Ezekiel's vision,
while
it separates clearly the priests from the Levites, yet in assigning
to
each of them a compact territory, looks to an entirely different
state
of things from that contemplated in Numbers or fulfilled in
Joshua.
Again: the expression "the
priests the Levites" used seven times
in
Deuteronomy (xvii. 9, 18; xviii. i; xxi. 5; xxiv: 8;
xxvii. 9;
xxxi.
9) and twice in Joshua (iii. 3; viii. 33) has been relied upon as
a
proof that the two classes were not distinguished when these books
were
written. That this argument will not apply to Joshua has
already
appeared, and Curtiss in his "Levitical
Priests"† has shown
that
the same expression is used in the post-exilic books of Chroni-
cles; but our concern
is with Ezekiel. He has the expression twice
(xlii.
19; xliv. 15) and each time with an addition which leaves no
possible
doubt of his meaning: "that be of the seed of Zadok"
and
"sons
of Zadok." Hence the same reasoning which would
make all
Levites
into priests in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Chronicles, would
make
them all into "sons of Zadok" in Ezekiel.
But this leads to another fact in the
prophet's description of the
priesthood.
As already said, he recognizes as the priests of the future
*This difficulty might be avoided by
supposing Joshua to be later than
Deuteronomy;
but it has already been shown that this would only involve
other
and no less formidable difficulties on the other side.
†"The Levitical
Priests, a contribution to the criticism of the Penta-
teuch." By S. J.
Curtiss, jr., Ph. D. with a preface by Franz Delitzsch,
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 187
only
"the sons of Zadok (xl. 46; xliii. 19; xliv. 15;
xlviii. 11).
Kuenen indeed seems to
assume (ubi sup. p. 116) that "sons of
Zadok " and “sons
of Aaron” are synonymous terms; it needs no
argument
to show that they are really very different. By universal,
agreement,
the priesthood was not of old restricted to the "sons of
Zadok," and it
may be added, I suppose by the same universal
agreement,
it was not so restricted afterwards. The return of other
priests
is mentioned by Ezra (ii. 36-39) and Nehemiah (vii. 39-42),
and
I do not know that there has ever been any question that priests
of
other families served in the temple in later ages. Here then the
prophet
is found, as in so many other cases, to be at variance alike
with
the earlier and the later practice and with the Mosaic law, instead
of
constituting a link between them. If it be alleged that he pro-
posed
to restrict the priesthood to the family of Zadok,
but that this
was
found impracticable and his successors carried out his plan as
far
as they could, by restricting it to the wider family of Aaron, it may
well
be asked, where is the proof of this? Where is the thought or
suggestion
anywhere outside of Ezekiel that such a narrower restric-
tion was ever
desired or attempted? If we look upon the prophet's
description
as ideal, the whole matter is plain enough. "The sons
of
Zadok," in view of the facts of history, are the
faithful priests, and
only
such would Ezekiel have to minister; but as a scheme for a
change
in the actual and literal priesthood, the whole matter is inex-
plicable.
Another point in which Ezekiel differs
from the Mosaic ritual is in
regard
to the persons who were to slay the ordinary sacrificial victims.
According
to Lev. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13; iv. 4 (cf. 15), 24,
29, 33,
the
victim was to be killed by the one who made the offering, and
according
to Ex. xii. 6, the same rule was to be observed with regard
to
the Passover. This was apparently the custom in all ages. The
language
of Josephus (
favors
this supposition, and the record in 2 Chron. xxix. 20, ss., 34;
xxx.
17 seems decisive. In this post-exilic book, in the account of
the
purification of the sanctuary under Hezekiah, the exceptional
sacrifices
of the purification are said to be slain by the priests, and the
assistance
of the Levites in flaying the victims is expressly excused on
account
of the insufficiency in the number of the priests, while at the
subsequent
Passover it is said "the Levites had the charge of the
killing
the Passovers for everyone that was not clean." These excuses
for
these acts imply that, in the time of the Chronicler, it was still the
custom
for the people to kill their own sacrifices and for the priests to
flay
them. The Levitical law and the post-exilic custom
(as well as
188 JOURNAL.
the
pre-exilic) here agree as usual; but Ezekiel, is quite apart from
them
and provides (xliv. 11) that the Levites "shall slay the burnt
offering
and the sacrifice for the people." Here again he is not at all
in
the line of a developing system. It may be added incidentally that
the
Samaritan Pentateuch shows what would have been the actual
progress
of development if it had existed in these matters in
for,
by changing the number of the pronouns and verbs in Leviticus,
it
makes the priests the slayers of the victims in all cases.
It has often been noticed that the
office of high-priest is ignored in
this
vision, and an argument has been based on this fact to show that
the
writings of Ezekiel mark an early stage in the development of the
Jewish
hierarchy, when the precedence of the high-priest had not yet
been
established. The fundamental statement itself is not strictly
true,
and it will appear presently that the prophet, in several different
ways,
incidentally recognizes the existence of the high-priest and of
some
of the principal laws in relation to him. But the high-priest
fills
a prominent and important place in the Mosaic legislation, and
if
it could be shown on the one hand that there was no high-priest
before
the captivity, and on the other, that Ezekiel knew of none, it
would
certainly create a presumption that the laws of the priesthood
might
be of later origin. But the facts are so precisely opposite, that
the
maintenance of such propositions seems very strange. It may be
well
to refer again to Kuenen, as a fair exponent of this
school of
critics,
to show that the non-existence of the high-priesthood before
the
captivity is distinctly maintained by them. He
admits, indeed,
“that
one of the high-priests, who bore the title of Kohen hagadol
[‘the
high-priest’] or Kohen rosch [‘the
head-priest’], at any rate
from
the days of Jehoash; stood at the head of the
but
he associates him in honor and rank only with the three door-
keepers,"
and tells us that the various passages cited "teach us that
one
of the priests superintended the temple, or, in other words, kept
order
there, in which duty he was of course assisted by others"; and
that
"it follows, from 2 Kings xi. 18; xii. 12; Jer. xxix. 26, that
this
post was instituted by Jehoiada, the contemporary of
King
Jehoash" (Relig. of Isr. vol. II. p. 304). Again he
marks emphat-
ically, as one of the
evidences of the late origin of the high-priesthood,
that
"the distinction between the duties of the priests and the high-
priest,
Lev. xxi. 1-9 and verses 10-15, does not occur at all in
Ezekiel"
(ib. p. 190). And still again (ib. p. 214), he represents that,
even
in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the duties and authority of
the
high-priest were still in a vague and unsettled condition.
The point here to be determined is
whether we have evidence of
PROF.
GARDINER ON, EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 189
the
existence before the captivity of a high-priesthood as an import-
ant,
regular office, transmitted by inheritance, and forming one of the
fundamental
features of the Israelitish polity. Of course, we
could
not
expect to find in such histories as have been preserved other than
meagre and incidental
allusions to the details of the high-priest's
duties,
his dress, and such matters. Such allusions do occur, as in
the
case of Ahimelech at the time of David's flight (I
Sam. xxi. 1-9).
and
of the ephod of Abiathar (I Sam. xxiii. 6, 9--observe
that in
ver.
9 it is rOpx,hA
with
the definite article), in connection with David's
enquiry
of the Lord. (Comp. also the charge against Ahimelech
that
he "enquired of the Lord" for David. I Sam. xxii. 10, 15).
But
the question is not about these matters of detail; the main point
is,
that in
have
had, especially in the times before the monarchy, an authorita-
tive and real head,
as was the case with other nations of antiquity.
Even
the exception here proves the rule, and we find that temporarily,
in
one anomalous period of the history, during the reign of David,
there
were two heads or high-priests, Zadok and Abiathar. The
latter,
after the slaughter of his father and kinsman by Saul, had fled
to
David in his outlawry and had become, as he was entitled to
become
by inheritance, his high-priest. Meantime the office could
not
be left in abeyance under the, regular government, and when
David
ascended the throne he found the high-priesthood occupied by
Zadok. He did not
presume to displace him, and neither would he
displace
the faithful sharer of his own adversity; so it came about that
both
were recognized. This anomalous state of things was the more
tolerable
because at the same time, according to the history, the ark
and
the tabernacle were separated, while the duties of the high priest
were
connected with both of them. The high priest, or during the
period
just mentioned, the two high priests, are mentioned in the fol-
lowing
passages which are expressly cited by Kuenen (Relig. of Isr.
Note
II. on ch. viii. Vol. II., p. 304) as pre-exilic: 2
Sam. viii. 17;
xx.
25; 1 Ki. iv. 4; ii. 22, 26, 27; 2 Ki. xii. 10; xxii. 4, 8; xxiii. 4;
xxv.
18; Jer. xx. I. It is well known how greatly this list might be
extended,
and also how often the high priest is mentioned in the
books
of Joshua and I Samuel, the names of Eleazar, Phinehas, Eli
or
Ahiah, being often given in connection with the
office, besides
those
of Ahimelech, Abiathar, Zadok, and Ahitub. It would be
hard
to find any single fact in the whole compass of Israelitish
his-
tory in itself more
probable or more abundantly attested than the
existence
of the office of a real high priest, an important functionary
190 JOURNAL.
in
the kingdom, the counsellor of the rulers, and whose
especial
office
it was to "enquire of the Lord" and communicate His com-
mands at important
national emergencies. There is also perfectly
clear
and ample evidence of the continued existence of the same
office
after the captivity. Jeremiah (lii. 24-27) and the
author of the
second
book of Kings (xxv. 18-21) give the name of the person who
held
the office at the time of the destruction of
who
was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar; while Ezra (ii. 2; iii. 2,
8,
g; iv. 3; v. 2; x. i8) and Nehemiah (vii. 7; xii. I, 7, 10, 26)
unite
with Haggai (i. 1, 12, 14; ii., 2, 4) and Zechariah
(iii. I, 3,
6,
8, 9; vi. 11) in mentioning Joshua, or Jeshua, the
son of Josedeck,
as
the high priest of the restoration. But Ezekiel's vision, it is said,
recognizes
no such office, and as will be seen presently, intentionally
excludes
it. Once more then, this vision not only gives no coun-
tenance, but is in
direct opposition to the theory, that Ezekiel origi-
nated or was a direct
link in the development of the priesthood from
an
earlier to a later differing form.
There is however, one curious point
incidentally occurring in the
vision
which shows that Ezekiel was familiar with the office of high
priest.
In the various measurements of the temple and all its details
given
in chaps. xli., xlii., the prophet everywhere accompanies the
measuring
angel until he comes to the holy of holies. There the
angel
enters alone, as is shown by a sudden change in the language
(xli.
3). This certainly has the appearance of a consciousness on
the
part of Ezekiel, the priest, that he might not enter there, and (since
it
cannot be supposed that this part of the temple was not to be
entered
at all) an allusion to that provision of the law by which
entrance
into the holy of holies was forbidden to all, save to the high
priest
only on the great day of atonement. I do not know of any
other
explanation, and if this be the true one, it shows that not only
the
high priest, but the principal Mosaic law in regard to him and
also
the day of atonement was known to the prophet.
That the omission of the high priest
from this vision is not acci-
dental
but intentional is shown by the laws of the priesthood here set
forth.
These laws treat the priesthood as a single body without dis-
tinction and, considered
only in themselves, admit of either of two
interpretations:
(I) on the development hypothesis, that they are
original
and general laws which were subsequently differentiated into
the
special stricter ones for the high priest, and the less strict for his
brethren;
or (2) that the specific laws were actually older than Ezekiel,
but
when he omitted the high priest from his scheme, he com-
bined them into a
certain mean between the two. The choice
PROP.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 191
between
these two hypotheses is at once determined in favor of the
latter
if, as has already been shown, there was a real high priest in the
previous
ages. All reasonable ground of argument from these laws
in
favor of the development hypothesis is thus taken away; and not
only
so, but it is evident from the vision that Ezekiel knew of those
stricter
laws in regard to the high priest which did not apply to the
priesthood
in general. Besides the allusion already mentioned, the
peculiarity
of the prophet's laws appears especially in two points: in
regard
to marriage, and in regard to mourning. For the former,
the
Levitical law allowed the marriage of the ordinary
priest to any
but
a profane or divorced woman, laying no restriction upon the
marriage
with a widow (Lev. xxi. 7); but it restricted the high priest
to
marriage with "a virgin of his own people " (ib. 14). Ezekiel
makes
a general compromise law for all, allowing Marriage with a
widow
in case her former husband had been a priest (xliv. 22). The
same
thing is true of mourning. Ezekiel in general repeats literally
the
law of Lev. xxi. 1-3, 11-14, but while there is there a distinction
between
the high-priest and the ordinary priest, here there is one
intermediate
regulation. In Leviticus the ordinary priest might be
"defiled
for the dead" "for his kin that is near unto him," while
this
is in all cases whatever forbidden to the high-priest; in Ezekiel
(xliv.
25-27) such defilement for the dead that "is near of kin" is
allowed
to all, but must be followed not only by the ordinary cleansing
after
contact with a dead body (see Num. xix. 11-17), but also by a
second
special period of seven days closed by a sin offering before the
priest
again enters upon the discharge of his duties. It will be noticed
that
there is here not only allusion to the laws of Leviticus, but also
to
a cleansing, apparently that prescribed in Numbers.
The regulations for the priests' dress
(xliv. 17-19) require no
especial
notice. They are very brief; and as far as they go, are a simple
reproduction
of the provisions of Lev. xxviii. They have altogether
the
air of presupposing a knowledge of that law and specifying only a
few
particulars to recall the whole. As far as any inference is to be
drawn
from them, it is decidedly in favor of a recognition of the
detailed
precepts of Leviticus as already familiar.
We may now pass to the feasts and
sacrifices and under this gen-
eral head two points
are to be considered: 1st, the changes
in the
ritual
of the particular feasts and sacrifices, and 2d, the changes in
the
cycle of the feasts themselves. Under the former head the change
which,
if literally carried out, would have been the most striking one
to
the Israelite because most constantly before his mind, was that in
the
daily burnt offering. Ezekiel requires that there shall be a burnt
192 JOURNAL,
offering
every morning; he says nothing whatever of an evening sac-
rifice and his
language is justly thought to exclude the idea of one
(xlvi.
13-15). The Mosaic law commanded that there should be a
burnt
offering both morning and evening (Ex. xxix. 38, 39; Num.
xxviii.
3, 4; cf. also Lev vi. 8, 9). Is this an enlargement of, and
therefore
later than Ezekiel's prescription? Of course this will depend
upon
whether there is evidence of the custom of evening sacrifice
before
the time of the exile. There are two passages which, as they
stand
in our version, are clear and decisive upon this point. In 1
Ki. xviii. 36 it is said in
connection with the controversy between
Elijah
and the prophets of Baal on
the
time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah" &c.
Here
this is evidently regarded as so fixed a custom as to suffice in
itself
to make the hour. Again, in 2 Ki. xvi. 15, when Ahaz had
introduced
his own idolatrous altar and yet wished the legal sacri-
fices to go on as
usual, he "commanded Urijah the priest, saying,
upon
the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening
meat
offering" &c. Either of these passages, much more both of
them,
would be entirely decisive were it not for the fact that the word
used
for the evening sacrifice in both cases is hHAn;mi and it is urged
that
this
means an unbloody sacrifice. After the restoration
also, when
Ezra
on one occasion "sat astonied until the evening
sacrifice" (Ezra
ix.
4) the word is the same. It is therefore suggested by some in-
terpreters that before and
after the exile, as far as the time of Ezra, the
custom
may have been to offer a burnt offering in the morning and
an
unbloody oblation in the evening; and this
interpretation is
thought
to be confirmed by Ps. cxli. 2, "Let my prayer
be set before
thee
as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening hHAn;mi".
From
this it is argued that the Mosaic law, being at variance with this
custom,
and also with Ezekiel, must be of later origin; but if so, it
must
be also later than the book of Daniel, (which these critics place
at
165 B. C.) for he also describes the hour of evening sacrifice as
"the
time of the evening hHAn;mi (ix. 21). As far as Ezekiel is
concerned,
this argument is seen, on a moment's reflection, to have
no
force; for it is just as difficult to account for his omission of a reg-
ular evening
oblation as of a burnt offering. But the matter cannot
be
left here, for the whole interpretation is wrong. The technical
meaning
of hHAn;mi as an unbloody oblation belongs to the Levitical
law,
and if this law be of later origin, as is claimed by some critics,
this
sense cannot be carried back to an earlier time. Besides, this
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 193
oblation
was never offered alone except in certain peculiar cases which
do
not bear upon the question;* it was always an accompaniment of
the
bloody sacrifice. If, therefore, it could be proved--which it can-
not--that
in I and 2 Kings and Ezra the unbloody oblation was
meant,
it would yet remain that the mention of it implies and
involves
also the animal sacrifice. But the sense of the word outside
of
the technical language of the law is very general, being applied to
an
ordinary present (Gen. xxxii. 13 [14], 18 [19], 20 [21], 21 [22];
xxxiii.
10; xliii. I1, and frequently), or to tribute (Judg. iii. 15-18,
and
frequently); and when this is a present to God, or sacrifice, it is
applied
indifferently to the unbloody or to the animal
sacrifice.
Thus
it is used of the animal sacrifice of Abel as well as of the
unbloody offering of
Cain (Gen. iv. 3-5); in I Sam. ii. 29 it is clearly
meant
to include all sacrifices, but with especial reference to those of
animals;
in I Sam. iii. 14 it is used with Hbaz, of a
propitiatory sacri-
fice; in Mal. i. 13 it clearly refers to an animal sacrifice, since the
"torn,
and the lame, and the sick" are mentioned. In fact, it is a
general
word for sacrifice of any kind, and while, following the
technical
language of the law, it is often used specifically, and applied
to
the unbloody, as distinguished from the animal
sacrifice, yet it is
also
used of sacrifice in general in such a way that it must be sup-
posed
to include the animal sacrifice. (see I Sam. ii. 17; xxvi. 19;
I
Chr. xvi. 29; Ps. xcvi. 8; Zeph. iii. 10; Mal. i. 10; ii. 12, 13;
iii.
3, 4). There is therefore no ground for the theory that the eve-
ning hHAn;mi of 1 Kings xviii. 29; 2 Kings xvi. 15;
and Ezra ix. 4,
refers
to an unbloody offering. In fact, the argument would
prove
too
much; for the same expression is used also of the morning sacri-
fice in 2 Kings iii.
20, "it came to pass in the morning, when the
hHAn;mi
was
offered." It remains, therefore,
that here, as elsewhere,
Ezekiel's
provisions stand quite apart from the law and the custom,
and
give no indication of being a step in the development of a cultus.
*The only certain exception is the
offering of jealousy (Num. v. 15-26).
In
addition, the unbloody oblation was allowed (Lev. 11.
1-9; vii. 9, 10)
as
a voluntary offering, although this was probably in connection with
the
other sacrifices. Also it was a special offering of Aaron and his
sons
in the day of their consecration" (Lev. vi. 20-23 [13-16]) in con-
nection with their
other offerings. Further, an offering of the first
fruits
of vegetable products was allowed (Lev. ii. 12--16; vi. 14-18 [7, 8] ),
but
in so far as this was "the first fruits of the harvest" it was to be
accompanied
with a lamb for a burnt offering (Lev. xxiii. 10-12, 17, 18).
The
sin offering of fine flour of the very poor (Lev. v. 20-13) is expressly
distinguished
from the hHAn;mi.
194 JOURNAL.
We
regard these divergences, on the contrary, as intentional and
designed
to show the people, familiar with the Mosaic law, that his
vision
was to be understood ideally and not literally.
There is another point in connection
with this daily offering.
According
to the law (Num. xxviii. 3-5) with each of the lambs,
morning
and evening, a meat and drink offering was to be made of
1-10
of an ephah of flour, 1/4 of a hin
of oil, and 1/4 of a hin of strong
wine.
As Ezekiel speaks of but one offering he increases the accom-
panying meat offering
to 1-6 of an ephah of flour, and to 1/3 of a hin
of
oil. This is the same sort of change as in the case of the priests'
marriage
and mourning: the omitted provision is compensated for by
an
increase in what remains. And in this case also, the omitted
provision
having been certainly customary before the time of Ezekiel,
this
compensation has a manifest reference to the familiar, and there-
fore
previously existing provisions of the Mosaic law.
An objection may be here interposed
that the non-observance of
the
detail of Ezekiel's ritual in the subsequent ages is no more sur-
prising than the
corresponding non-observance of many particulars in
the
detail of the Mosaic ritual, which is very evident in the time of
the
judges and the early monarchy. There is really no parallel be-
tween the two cases.
The times of the judges and of the early
monarchy
were a period of disorder and anarchy, in which the gen-
eral confusion of
society forbids the inference that such laws did not
exist;
but the times after Ezekiel were times of over-scrupulous and
even
superstitious observance of the minutest details of ritual, when
it
is inconceivable that his scheme should have been neglected through
mere
inadvertence and carelessness.
The ritual of the great feasts is
considerably changed. Pentecost
and
the Day of Atonement are entirely omitted. In regard to the
comparative
value of these omissions in the historical books and in
Ezekiel,
the same thing is to be said as before: the omission in the
former
may have been merely accidental, and proves nothing; in
Ezekiel
it must have been intentional. It will appear presently,
however,
that while omitting the Day of Atonement from his scheme,
he
does probably allude to it in a way that shows familiarity with its
observance.
There remain to be considered the Passover, the feast of
Tabernacles,
and the "New Moons."
The Passover, according to Ezek. xlv.
21-23, is to be kept at the
same
time and for the same number of days, as in the Mosaic law,
but
there is no mention of the Paschal lamb itself; the sin-offering
by
the Mosaic law (Num. xxviii. 17, 22) was to be a he-goat for each
day,
here (vs. 23) a bullock for the first day and a he-goat for each of
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 195
the
other days; the burnt offering for each day by the law was to be
two
bullocks, a ram and seven yearling lambs, here seven bullocks
and
seven rams; the meat offering by the law was to be 3-10 of a
ephah of meal mixed
with oil for each bullock, 2-10 for each ram,
and
1-10 for each lamb, or in all 1 1/2 ephahs daily--here
a whole
ephah for each
victim, or in all 14 ephahs daily and as many hins of
oil
(vs. 24). The offerings in Ezekiel therefore are richer than those
required
by the law. The same thing is to be said of the special sac-
rifices for the
Sabbaths. According to the law (Num. xxviii. 9)
these
were to be marked by two lambs for burnt offerings, each with
the
usual meat and drink offering; but according to this vision
(xlvi.
4-5) the Sabbath burnt offering was to be six lambs and a ram,
with
an ephah for a meat offering with the ram, and that
for the
lambs
dependent upon the ability and generosity of the prince, and
in
all cases a hin of oil to each ephah.
(Nothing is said of the drink
offering.)
It is difficult to assign reasons for these details. They
plainly
do not agree with the Mosaic law, and it is well known that
the
custom of later ages was founded upon that law. We have no
data
in history before the exile to determine the custom in these
details
one way or the other; but the presumption is that here as else-
where
the prophet has intentionally varied from the known law and
custom
in order to mark the ideal character of his vision. Certainly
this
is no beginning or early stage in a developing cultus; for other-
wise,
in these details, which could as well be arranged one way as
another,
the authority of the prophet would have been followed; but
there
never was any attempt even, so far as history shows, to realize
his
ideal.
The feast of Tabernacles, which has no
name given to it in Ezekiel,
but
is simply a feast of seven days in the seventh month (xlv. 25), is
greatly
simplified. Here the sacrifices are to be the same as in the
case
of the Passover,--an entire change from the elaborate ritual of the
Mosaic
law (Num. xxix. 12-24)--with, on the whole, a great diminu-
tion in the number
of victims and an omission of the extra eighth
day
added to the feast in Lev. (xxiii. 36, 39) and Num. (xxix. 35),
and
which in the law was expressly characterized as an addition,--
sometimes
included and sometimes not in the mention of the feast.
In
regard to these changes the same remarks are to be made as in the
case
of the Passover, with only this addition, that it appears from
both
1 Kings viii. 65, 66 and 2 Chron. vii. 8-10 that this eighth day
was
always looked upon in the same way--as a part, and yet not a
part,
of the feast. Solomon keeps the feast to
that day inclusive,
196 JOURNAL.
and
then he makes a solemn assembly, and yet on that day dismisses
the
people to their homes.*
In regard to the New Moons, or the
first day of every month, the
Mosaic
law prescribes (in addition to the burnt and meat offerings)
a
he-goat for a sin offering (Num. xxviii. 15). In Ezekiel's scheme
of
the feasts, these new moons are entirely omitted, except for the
first
month, though afterwards incidentally alluded to. The Mosaic
law
also provided on the tenth of the seventh month for a day of
atonement,
with special and very peculiar sacrifices (Lev. xvi. ). All
this
is condensed, as it were, in this vision, into two sacrifices, each
of
a young bullock, one upon the first and one upon the seventh day
of
the first month, with particulars in regard to them (to be men-
tioned presently)
which seem to refer to the day of Atonement. Now,
it
is certain from the history of David (i Sam. xx. 5,
18, 24) and
from
other historical records (2 Kings iv. 23; 1 Chron. xxiii. 31; 2
Chron.
ii. 4; viii. 13; xxxi. 3), as well as from allusions in the pre-
exilic
prophets (Isa. i. 13, 14; [lxvi.
23; Ps. lxxxi. 3); Hos. ii. 11;
Amos
viii. 5) that the new moons were kept as sacred feasts in the
ages
before the exile, as it is known that they were also afterwards
(Ezra
iii. 5; Neh. x. 33). The omission of these new moons from
this
description of the feasts is particularly instructive, because Ezekiel
himself,
in other parts of the vision (xliv. 17; x1vi. 3), incidentally,
but
repeatedly, mentions the "new moons" (in the plural) as
days
to be sanctified by special sacrifices, and requires the prince to
provide
the same offerings for them as for the Sabbath (xlvi. 6).†
He
thus shows that he was familiar with them and expects them to
be
continued, but in this setting forth of the cycle of the feasts he
does
not mention them. This cannot be taken then for a part of the
development
of a priestly law.
He differs from the Mosaic law also in
the ritual of the blood of
these
sacrifices on the first and seventh days of the first month. The
Levitical law gives no directions
for the blood of the offerings on
the
first day of the month, doubtless because it followed the ordinary
rule
and was simply sprinkled on the side of the altar; but it required
*The inconsistency which Kuenen (Relig. of Isr.
Note II. on chap.
viii.
Vol. ii. P. 296, 7) thinks he finds between the passages above cited is
wholly
imaginary. Solomon observed seven days for the dedication of
the
altar in imitation of Lev. viii.-x., and then kept the feast for seven
days
after the altar had been consecrated. Hence I Kings viii. 65 speaks
of
"seven days and seven days, even for fourteen days, and then of the
following
“eighth day”; while 2 Chron. viii. 9 explains more fully "they
kept
the dedication of the altar seven days and the feast seven days."
† The word is, in this last case, in the
singular, as is also the Sabbath;
but
both are evidently used collectively.
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 197
the
blood on the day of Atonement to be brought within the
Holy
of Holies and sprinkled before and upon the mercy seat.
Ezekiel
again compromises and directs that the blood of the sin
offering
on the first and seventh days of the first month shall be put
"upon
the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle
of
the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court."
There
may be here a reminiscence of the day of Atonement,
but
nothing like a generic law which could have been specialized into
the
particular observances of the Mosaic law. It is rather a purely
ideal
ritual, which nobody ever thought of reducing to practice.
There
is no such congruity between it and the Levitical
regulations
as
a development hypothesis would require.
We may now consider, in a few words,
the general cycle of the
feasts.
As is well known, the Mosaic law prescribes three great feasts,
that
of the Passover for seven days, preceded by the putting away of
leaven
and the killing of the Paschal lamb; that of "weeks" or
Pentecost,
lasting only one day; and that of Tabernacles, lasting
seven
days, and with an eighth special day added; these three great
annual
festivals are all expressly recognized in Deuteronomy (xvi.
1-16),
which is held by all to be pre-exilic. Besides these, the first
day
of every month, the weekly Sabbath, and the day of atonement
were
to be kept holy and marked by special sacrifices. The observ-
ance of nearly all
of these is recognized in the historic and the older
prophetical
books: The cycle of Ezekiel's vision is very different.
He
omits the feast of weeks, the Day of Atonement, and the new
moons
(except that of the first month,) and inserts a new feast on the
seventh
day of the same month. This last, in connection with that
on
the first day of that month, he seems to intend as a compensation
for
the missing Day of Atonement; for he describes the sacrifices of
the
two (xlv. 20) as "for every one that erreth, and
for him that is
simple:
so shall ye reconcile the house." If this interpretation is
correct,
we have here an incidental recognition of the older observ-
ance of the Day of
Atonement, although it is not mentioned. But
however
this may be, Ezekiel's cycle of feasts accords neither with
what
went before nor with what followed after him. Yet, as already
said,
it is plain from his incidental allusions to the New Moons that,
in
this point at least, he knew of the old order, and expected it to go
on;
and it is noticeable that the sacrifices prescribed for the New
Moons
(xlvi. 3-6) are not the same as the special sacrifices of the first
month
(xliv. 18-20). Those were to be in each case "a young bul-
lock"
for a sin offering; these, six lambs and a ram for a burnt offer-
ing (xlvi. 4). It is clear,
therefore, that he did not intend this vision
198 JOURNAL.
to
form the basis of an actual cultus; but knowing the old observances,
expected
them to continue.
Before leaving this part of the
subject, it may be well to refer briefly
to
a few other places in which Ezekiel evidently recognizes the Mosaic
law,
although either altering or omitting its provisions. In xlii, 13
he
requires the priests to eat in the appropriate "holy chambers"
"the
meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering."
He
says nothing of the peace offerings, though he elsewhere repeat-
edly mentions them
(xliii. 27; xlv. 15, 17; xlvi. 2, 12), nor does he
anywhere
give the ritual for them. On the other hand, in the fol-
lowing
verse (and also in xlvi. 18, 20) the prophet is more explicit
than
the law, requiring that "the priests' " garments wherein they
minister
"shall not be carried" out of the holy place into the outer
court.
There is no such general direction in the Levitical
law; but
the
same thing is required in certain special cases, and may therefore
be
thought to be implied in all (see Lev. vi. 10, 11). Now, whatever
theory
is adopted concerning the relation of Ezekiel to the Mosiac
law
must equally explain this omission and this insertion. The theory
of
the later development of the law does neither; for, in the one
case,
it would be a violent supposition that the ritual of the peace
offerings
and the directions about eating them were evolved from the
prophet's
silence, and in the other case, it would be very strange that
in
such a matter as the care of the priests' robes the later law should
be
the less definite. But the hypothesis of the greater antiquity of
the
law explains both facts satisfactorily; Ezekiel had no occasion to
repeat
important provisions of the law with which both he and the
people
were familiar, but it was natural that in a matter of detail, he
should
express what was probably the common understanding of the
law.
In xliii. 11 it is required that the
priests' sin offering should be
burned
"in the appointed place of the house, without the Sanc-
tuary." This
refers to a building "in the separate place" which is
provided
only in Ezekiel's vision (xli. 12-15; xlii. 1, 10, 13), and of
which
there is no trace either in the Pentateuch or in the temple of
the
restoration. In such cases it was simply required in the law that
the
body of the victim should be burned "without the camp" (Lev.
iv.
12, 13, 21; xvi. 27, &c.). No doubt such a building as Ezekiel
provided
would have been a great convenience; but it was never
erected.
The provision for large landed estates
for the priests has already
been
mentioned; but in view of this the statement in xliv. 28, that
the
priests' office and perquisites "shall be unto them for an inherit-
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 199
ance: I am their
inheritance: and ye shall give them no inheritance
in
sions in the Mosaic
law, without ary nice regard to the other parts of
the
vision.
The provision for the Sabbatical year
was distinctly pre-exilic, since
it
is given at length in Deut. xv.; yet there is no trace of its observ-
ance before the
exile, and its non-observance is given by the Chron-
icler (2 Chron.
xxxvi. 21) as the determining reason for the length of
the
captivity. We know that it was observed after the restoration
(I
Mace. vi. 49; Jos. Ant. xiv. io, § 6; Tacitus, Hist.
lib. v. 2, § 4).
Here
again is an important and characteristic institution, certainly
forming
part of the Hebrew legislation before the captivity, neglected
until
that period, and observed afterwards. Exodus (xxiii. 10, 11)
and
Leviticus (xxv. 2-7) contain the commands for it, but Ezekiel
does
not mention it. He certainly is not in this respect a bridge
between
Deuteronomy and Leviticus, betweeen pre- and
post-exilic
legislation.
The omission of all mention of tithes
in Ezekiel, a provision cer-
tainly in force from
the earliest to the latest times, can only be
accounted
for on the supposition of its familiarity.
In the Mosaic law all the males of the
people were required to pre-
sent
themselves at the sanctuary at the great annual festivals (Ex. xxiii.
14,
17; xxxiv. 23; Deut. xvi. 16); there is no such command in
Ezekiel,
doubtless because it was already entirely familiar. But in
xlvi.
9, while speaking of the gate by which the prince shall enter,
he
incidentally recognizes the custom, "But when the people of the
land
shall come before the Lord in the solemn feasts," &c. He has
made
no provision for this, but recognizes it as a matter of course.
The
omission in ch. xliii. is not only very striking in
itself, but is
of
especial importance in its bearing upon the main question under
discussion.
In vs. 18-27 a detailed order is given for the seven days
consecration
of the newly erected altar, at once recalling the similar
consecration
of the altar in Lev. viii. But in that case the consecra-
tion was a double
one,--of the altar and of the priests; here the
priests
are entirely omitted. Why? Evidently because the altar only
was
new and required to be consecrated; the priests had been conse-
crated
of old.
But the question may be asked in
regard to the changes of ritual,
Why
could there not have been deviations by the later priests from
the
scheme of Ezekiel, just as well as by Ezekiel from the laws of
Moses?
Simply because there is a good reason for them in one case
and
none at all in the other. If Ezekiel wished his description to be
200 JOURNAL.
understood
ideally, it was important that he should introduce arbi-
trary variations from
the recognized law and custom; but if he
intended
to set forth a scheme of actual future worship, there is no
known
reason why his successors should have deviated from it.
Passing
now to what may be called the economic, or political fea-
tures of the vision,
there are only three points which call for especial
attention,
and even these but briefly; the provision for the cost of the
sacrifices,
the division of the land, and the regulations respecting the
prince.
There is no distinct provision in the
Mosaic law for defraying
the
cost of the general sacrifices, and we are told that this was
still
one of the many questions in dispute between the Pharisees
and
the Sadducees at a much later date. But it is fully and clearly
settled
in Ezekiel's vision. The cost is to be wholly borne by the
prince
(xliv. 17, 21-26; xlv. 4-7), who is to be provided with ample
territorial
possessions (xlv. 7, 8; xlviii. 20-22). As far as we have
any
record, this arrangement was quite new, and it was never followed
out.
It was, however, so wise and excellent a solution of the diffi-
culty that we can
only wonder at its never having been adopted, if any
Israelite
had ever looked upon this vision as a basis for theocratic
legislation.
The division of the land has already
been spoken of in connection
with
the evidence of the ideal character of this vision; but there are
one
or two other points which require mention. A striking feature
of
it is the ample provision here made for the prince with the pro-
viso that it shall
belong inalienably to him and his sons (xlvi. 17-
18);
for in connection with this assignment it is said (xlv. 18) "And
my
princes shall no more oppress my people," and again (xlvi. 18)
"the
prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression."
A
vivid remembrance of the exactions and oppressions of former
kings
was evidently in the prophet's mind, and he provides a new and
wise
remedy. It was unfortunate for his people that they never
thought
of making this the basis for actual legislation, and so avoid-
ing once for all the evils under
which they continued to suffer.
Another very curious provision is that
at the southern end of the
“oblation”
a strip of land is reserved, 5, 000 by 25,000 reeds (xlviii.
15-19),
in the midst of which is to be the city with its "suburbs"
5,000
reeds square. The remainder, i. e., two pieces of
land, each
5,
000 by 10,000 reeds, is set apart that "the increase thereof shall
be
for food unto them that serve the city. And they that serve the
city
shall serve it out of all the tribes of
sary to point out
the purely Utopian character of such an arrange-
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 201
ment in actual life;
it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that
neither
this nor any other of these economic regulations ever formed
a
part of the Mosaic law, or were ever in any degree attempted to be
carried
out.
The law of the tenure of the Levites'
land is considerably changed
from
that of the Mosaic legislation. According to Lev. xxv. 32-34
the
Levites might sell their houses and even their cities (only retain-
ing the right of redeeming them at
any time, and their reversion in
the
year of jubilee)--but they might not sell at all the fields of their
suburbs.
This last provision is here (xlviii. 15) extended to all
their
landed property in the most emphatic way, and changes the
whole
tenure of the Levitical land. It is certain that it
was never
carried
into effect, for there never was any such territory assigned to
the
Levites. It is remarkable that nothing of this kind is mentioned
in
connection with the priestly territory.
One other particular must be noticed
in connection with the
division
of the land. Under the Mosaic law this was to be wholly par-
celled
out among the tribes of
is
made to the "sojourning" of strangers among them, no provision is
made
for allowing them any interest in the soil of the holy land.
Ezekiel,
on the other hand, expressly commands (xlvii. 22, 23),
"Ye
shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance unto you and the
strangers
that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among
you;
and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the
children
of
tribes
of
stranger
sojourneth, there shall ye give him his
inheritance." Both
these
provisions were adapted to their different times: in that of
Moses,
the land was looked upon as the sole and peculiar possession
of
the chosen people, and if strangers came among them it should
be
as "sojourners" only; in the time of Ezekiel matters were greatly
changed,
and large numbers of foreigners had long had their per-
manent residence among
the tribes of
permanent
residents "which shall beget children among you" that
Ezekiel
provides. It is very difficult to suppose that the Mosaic
legislation
should have been subsequent to his arrangements.
But
by far the most important laws of this vision in political mat-
ters are those
concerning the relation of the prince to the temple
worship.
A brief mention of these will close this paper. It is plain
that
under the old theocracy the monarch had no properly ecclesiasti-
cal
standing. He had great influence of course, either like David in
advancing
and improving the worship, or like Ahaz in corrupting
and
202 JOURNAL.
injuring
it. But he was not recognized at all in the laws of the
Pentateuch
except that, in Deut. xvii. 14-20, it is declared that, in
case
a king should be afterwards desired, his otherwise arbitrary
power
must be checked by various limitations. Quite in accordance
with
the supposition of the great antiquity of that legislation, it is
found
that the monarch never had any other than a purely political
position.
This obvious fact is certainly very remarkable if the
Mosaic
law was subsequent to the introduction of the monarchy;
indeed
it is almost inconceivable that the laws of a theocratic state,
if
written when there was a monarch upon the throne, and prescrib-
ing the duties of all other
officers, should take no notice of the
monarch
himself. But the difficulty is still greater if it could be
supposed
that these laws were inaugurated or largely developed by
Ezekiel
who gives such a prominent place in his scheme "to the
prince."
It is certain that the arrangements here suggested were
never
carried out, even when such an excellent prince as Zerubbabel
was
the leader of the restoration. At a subsequent time the offices
of
prince and priest were indeed combined in the Maccabees,
but this was in
virtue
of their priestly descent and ended with their family; it has nothing to
do
with the vision of Ezekiel who, while he makes the prince very prominent
in
his ecclesiastical system, yet assigns to him no priestly functions.
Let what Ezekiel says of "the
prince" be carefully noted. His
large
landed estate, given expressly to prevent oppressive exactions
from
the people,* and to enable him to furnish all the victims and
* In this connection general provision
is made (xlv. 10, 11) for just
weights
and measures among the people. No one can read the passage without
observing
a connection between it and Lev. xix. 36 and Deut. xxv. 13. The question of
priority is indicated by the terms employed. The words used here and in various
parts of the Pentateuch are: (i) Ephah. This occurs in all ages of
Hebrew
literature
from Exodus to Zechariah. (2) Homer,
in the sense of a measure, found
in
the law (3 times), in Isaiah and Hosea (each once), and in Ezekiel (7 times).
(3)
Hin. This
is found only in the middle books (Ex.-Num.) of the
Pentateuch
(16 times) and in Ezekiel (6 times). (4) Omer,
rm,fo, in the
sense
of measure, in Exodus only (6 times). (5) Gerah, in the sense of
a
measure of value, only in Ex.-Num. (4 times) and in Ezekiel (once).
(6)
Chronicles
(3 times), Isaiah (once), but in Ezekiel 7 times. (7) Cor.
In
Kings and Chronicles 7 times, in Ezekiel once. That is to say, all
these
terms which are used in the law, with the exception of Omer, are
also
used in Ezekiel, while Hin
and Gerah
appear to have gone out of
use
and are found afterwards only in this vision, and Homer only else-
where
once each in Isaiah and Hosea; on the other hand,
Cor, which came
into use at a comparatively late date, are not found
in
the law, but are used by Ezekiel.
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 203
other
offerings for the national sacrifices, have already been men-
tioned. Besides these
things he is to take a very active and peculiar
part
in the cultus
of his people. The east gate of the court of
the
temple had been, according to this vision, peculiarly sancti-
fied by the entrance
through it of the glory of the LORD (xliii,
It may not be amiss to give here--a
list of other words found only in the
Pentateuch
and in Ezekiel: bybixA; Md,xo; HpaFo; Hpew;yA; lpaKA; hWArAOF;
Nymi, in the sense
of species. (Stebbins,--A Study in the
Pentateuch,
p.
169,--has noticed that it occurs in this sense 30 times in the Penta-
teuch.); Mysan;k;mi;
hlamA; tp,n,c;mi; HaOHyni; hkane; j`P,no; the word wp,n, is a
very
common one, occurring nearly 800 times, but in the sense of lower
animals
it is found only in the Pentateuch (about 18 times) and in Ezek.
xlvii.
9 except once in Isaiah (xix. 10); hOBsaUF (Hoph. part
from bbAsa);
lygifA; Mroyfe (this occurs 4
times in the Pentateuch and 6 times in Eze-
Pentateuch
and not at all in Ezekiel, though the more common word in
the
later books); hFAlAfE, a very
peculiar word for darkness; NOmr;fa;
rF,P, ; HaUrPA; j`r,P, ; frap, ; (kal part. pass.); hxAce a peculiar word
for
which
other derivatives of xcAyA are commonly
used; hvAcA in the Pual;
qHc; ; tciyci; dymicA; rco; fcqA; NBAr;qA (in the Pent.
56 times); wr,q, (in the
Pent.
50 times); tW,q,W;qa (this occurs
also in i Sam. xvii. 5 but in a dif-
ferent sense); dybirA; hz,rA; wHaTa; Nb,to. To these should be added such
words
as occur elsewhere only in passages referring to the Pentateuch,
as;
hbAyrim; (3 times in the
Ps.); CrawA (Ps. cv. 30).
There are also a
number
of words found only once elsewhere, as: hlAk;xA, Pent. 7 times,
Ezek.
11 times and Jer. xii. 9; MyliUtB; (Judg. x.i. 37, 38); rKAm;mi (Neh.
xiii.
20); hTane
(Judg.
xix. 29); lytiPA (Judg. xvi. 9);
Cq,w, (Isa. lxvi. 17).
The
usage of two different words for prince should be noted in this
connection:
xyWinA
occurs
70 times in the Pentateuch, 13 times in
Joshua,
34 times in Ezekiel, and only 13 times in all the other books put
together;
while the more general word for prince, dyginA (occurring in
all
43
times) is used but once in Ezekiel and not at all in the Pentateuch.
Delitzsch has noted
(Pref. to The Lev. Priests, p. xiii.,
xiv.) that the
word
ryPisA which occurs
elsewhere, is used only in Ex. xxiv. 10; Ezek.
i. 26; x. 1 to indicate that blue
of the heavens of which there is such
rare
mention in all antiquity. These instances must be considered
numerous
enough to establish some connection between the Pentateuch
and
Ezekiel,--they can hardly be quite independent of each other. The
archaisms
of the former and the aramaisms of the latter mark
their
comparative
antiquity.
204 JOURNAL.
1-7;
xliv. 1, 2); in consequence it was to be forever after shut,
except
for the prince (xliv. 3). He was to enter and go out through
it
on the Sabbaths and the new moons (xlvi. 1-3), and was to wor-
ship
at the threshold, of this gate while the priests were offering his
sacrifices,
"the people of the land" meantime worshipping without
“at
the door of this gate.” On these occasions the gate, although
not
to be used by any one else, is to stand open until the evening. In
these
cases, when few of the people were expected to be present, the
prince
seems to have been looked upon as their representative, and it
was
his duty to be always present and offer the required offerings.
When
the prince saw fit to offer any "voluntary burnt offering or
peace
offerings" the same gate was to be opened for him, but imme-
diately shut when he
had gone out (ib. 12). On occasion of
the
"solemn
feasts," on the other hand, when the mass of the people were
expected
to be present, the prince was to take his place among them,
and
to enter "in the midst of them" by the north or south gate, and
go
out by the opposite one (ib. 9, 10).
There is also another provision which
puts the prince in the same
light
of the religious representative of the people. To enable him to
furnish
the required sacrifices and oblations he is to have not only the
large
and inalienable landed estate already mentioned, but also is to
receive
from the whole people regularly a tax in kind of the things re-
quired for these purposes.
This tax is prescribed in detail in xlv.
13-16,
and was to consist of one sixtieth of the grain, one hundredth
of
the oil, and one two hundredth of the flock. The connection
shows
that it was to be used by him for supplying the offerings. This
is
an entire change from both the older and the later custom whereby
the
people gave directly to the sanctuary, and it again brings forward
"the
prince" as the representative and embodiment, as it were, of
the
people in their duties of public worship.
The argument from all this is clear
and has already been hinted at.
If
Ezekiel thus presents the civil ruler as a representative of the peo-
ple and an important factor in their
temple worship, it is simply im-
possible
that any actual legislation, influenced by his vision, should
have
so totally ignored "the prince" as is notoriously done in the
Levitical laws. It would
seem that even if the priests and the people
had
not insisted upon their sovereign's occupying his proper position
in
their worship, every pious prince would have claimed it for him-
self.
The conclusion is obvious: the Levitical laws are
older than
Ezekiel,
and his vision had no direct effect upon the polity of the
Jewish
people.
All the more important features of the
vision of Ezekiel, so far as
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 205
his
relation to the Mosaic law is concerned, have now been passed in
review.
Others, such as the detailed arrangements of his temple, with
its
various peculiar outbuildings, and its large "precincts," &c.,
would
require too much time to examine in detail, as I have else-
where
done,* and would only add fresh illustrations of the fact which
has
been everywhere apparent. If we compare the customs of the
Jews
as they are known after the exile with those which are known
to
have existed before, they are found perfectly to agree in every-
thing,
except negatively in so far as data are wanting to show in some
respects
what were the customs of the more ancient time. This de-
ficiency was of course
to be expected in dealing with matters of such
antiquity,
where the records we have are almost wholly occupied with
other
matters. Moreover, both the ancient custom as far as it was
regulated
by law and can be traced, (making allowance for some small
difficulties
in understanding such very ancient legislation), and the later
practice
perfectly agree with the Mosaic legislation. But quite late in
the
history of
scheme
of theocratic laws and worship. His scheme presents incident-
ally
many obvious allusions to the Levitical laws, but in
its direct en-
actments is quite at
variance with both former and later custom and
also
with the Mosaic law. It is in no sense, and in no point on the line
of
development from what existed before to what existed afterwards.
Yet
we are asked to believe that the Levitical law only
existed in a very
imperfect
and inchoate form before him, that he gave the great im-
petus to its
development, and that within 40 years afterwards the
nearly
perfect scheme was accepted as their ancient law by his nation.
The
thing required is beyond our power.
*Com.
on Ezekiel in Bp. Ellicott's commentary for English readers.
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium