PRIESTS AND LEVITES
1. THE PRIESTHOOD
Num 3:1-10
In the opening verse of this chapter, which relates to the
designation of the priesthood, Moses is named, for once, after his
brother. According to the genealogy of Exodus 6, Aaron was the
elder; and this may have led to the selection of his as the priestly
house-which again would give him priority in a passage relating to
the hierarchy. If Moses had chosen, his undoubted claims would have
secured the priestly office for his family. But he did not desire
this; and indeed the duties of administrative head of the people
were sufficiently heavy. Aaron was apparently fitted for the
sacerdotal office, and without peculiar qualifications for any
other. He seems to have had no originating power, but to have been
ready to fall in with and direct the routine of ceremonial worship.
And we may assume that Moses knew the surviving sons of Aaron to be
of the stamp of their father, likely to inaugurate a race of steady,
devoted servants of the altar.
Yet all Aaron’s sons had not been of this quiet disposition. Nadab
and Abihu, the two eldest, had sinned presumptuously, and brought on
themselves the doom of death. No fewer than five times is their fall
referred to in the books of Leviticus and Numbers. Whatever that
strange fire was which they put in their censers and used before the
Lord, the judgment that befell them was signal and impressive. And
here reference is made to the fact that they died without issue, as
if to mark the barrenness of the sacrilegious. Did it not appear
that inherent disqualification for the priesthood, the moral
blindness or self-will which was shown in their presumptuous act,
had been foreseen by God, who wrote them childless in His book? This
race must not be continued. Israel must not begin with priests who
desecrate the altar.
Whether the death of those two sons of Aaron came by an unexpected
stroke, or was a doom inflicted after judgment in which their father
had to acquiesce, the terrible event left a most effectual warning.
The order appointed for the incense offering, and all other sacred
duties, would thenceforth be rigidly observed. And the
incident-revived continually for the priests when they studied the
Law-must have had especial significance through their knowledge of
the use and meaning of fire in idolatrous worship. The temptation
was often felt, against which the fate of Nadab and Abihu set every
priest on his guard, to mingle the supposed virtue of other
religious symbols with the sanctities of Jehovah. Who can doubt that
priests of Israel, secretly tempted by the rites of sun-worship,
might have gone the length of carrying the fire of Baal into
Jehovah’s temple, if the memory of this doom had not held back the
hand? Here also the degradation of the burnt offering by taking
flame from a common fire was by implication forbidden. The source of
that which is the symbol of Divine purity must be sacredly pure.
Those who minister in holy things have still a corresponding danger,
and may find here a needed warning. The fervour shown in sacred
worship and work must have an origin that is purely religious. He
who pleads earnestly with God on behalf of men, or rises to
impassioned appeal in beseeching men to repent, appearing as an
ambassador of Christ urged by the love of souls, has to do not with
symbols, but with truths, ideas, Divine mysteries infinitely more
sacred than the incense and fire of Old Testament worship. For the
Hebrew priest outward and formal consecration sufficed. For the
minister of the New Testament, the purity must be of the heart and
soul. Yet it is possible for the heat of alien zeal, of mere
self-love or official ambition, to be carried into duties the most
solemn that fall to the lot of man; and if it is not in the Spirit
of God a preacher speaks or offers the sacrifice of thanksgiving, if
some other inspiration makes him eloquent and gives his voice its
tremulous notes, sin like that of Nadab and Abihu is committed, or
rather a sin greater than theirs. With profound sorrow it must be
confessed that the "strange fire" from idolatrous altars too often
desecrates the service of God. Excitement is sought by those who
minister in order that the temperament may be raised to the degree
necessary for free and ardent speech; and it is not always of a
purely religious kind. Those who hear may for a time be deceived by
the pretence of unction, by dramatic tones, by alien fire. But the
difference is felt when it cannot be defined; and on the spiritual
life of the ministrant the effect is simply fatal.
The surviving sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, were anointed and
"consecrated to minister in the priest’s office." The form of
designation is indicated by the expression, "whose hand he filled to
exercise priesthood." This has been explained as referring to a
portion of the ceremony described Lev 8:26 f. "And out of the basket
of unleavened bread, that was before the Lord, he took one
unleavened cake, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and
placed them on the fat, and upon the right thigh: and he put the
whole upon the hands of Aaron, and upon the hands of his sons, and
waved them for a wave offering before the Lord." The explanation is
scarcely satisfactory. In the long ceremony of consecration this
incident was not the only one to which the expression "filling the
hand" was applied; and something simpler must be found as the source
of an idiomatic phrase. To fill the hand would naturally mean to pay
or hire, and we seem to be pointed to the time when for the
patriarchal priesthood there was substituted one that was official,
supported by the community. In Exo 28:41 and in Lev 8:33, the
expression in question is used in a general sense incompatible with
its reference to any particular portion of the ceremony of
consecration. It is also used in Jud 1:17., where to all appearance
the consecration of Micah’s Levite implied little else than the
first payment on account of a stipulated hire. The phrase, then,
appears to be a mark of history, and carries the mind back to the
simple origin of the priestly office.
Eleazar and Ithamar "ministered in the priest’s office in the
presence of Aaron their father." So far as the narrative of the
Pentateuch gives information, there were originally, and during the
whole of the wilderness journey, no other priests than Aaron and his
sons. Nadab and Abihu having died, there remained but the two
besides their father. Phinehas the son of Eleazar appears in the
history, but is not called a priest, nor has he any priestly
functions: What he does is indeed quite apart from the holy office.
And this early restriction of the number is not only in favour of
the Pentateuchal history, but partly explains the fact that in
Deuteronomy the priests and Levites are apparently identified.
Taking at their very heaviest the duties specially laid on the
priests, much must have fallen to the share of their assistants, who
had their own consecration as ministers of the sanctuary. It is
certain that members of the Levitical families were in course of
time admitted to the full status of priests.
The direction is given in Num 3:10, "Thou shalt appoint Aaron and
his sons, and they shall keep their priesthood; and the stranger
that cometh nigh shall be put to death." This is rigorously
exclusive, and seems to contrast with the statements of Deuteronomy,
"At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark
of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister
unto Him and to bless in His name unto this day"; {Deu 10:8} and
again, "The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall
have no portion nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the
offerings of the Lord made by fire, and His inheritance"; {Deu 18:1}
and once more, "Moses wrote the law and delivered it unto the
priests, the sons of Levi, which bore the ark of the covenant of the
Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel". {Deu 31:9} Throughout
Deuteronomy the priests are never called sons of Aaron, nor is Aaron
called a priest. Whether the cause of this apparent discrepancy is
that Deuteronomy regarded the arrangements for the priestly service
in a different light, or that the distinction of priests from
Levites fell into abeyance and was afterwards revived, the variation
cannot be ignored. In the book of Joshua "the children of Aaron the
priest" appear on a few occasions, and certain of the duties of high
priest are ascribed to Eleazar. Yet even in Joshua the importance
attached to the Aaronic house is far less than in Exodus, Leviticus,
and Numbers; and the expression "the priests the Levites" occurs
twice. If we regard the origin of the Aaronic priesthood as
belonging to the Mosaic period, then the wars and disturbances of
the settlement in Canaan must have entirely disorganized the system
originally instituted. In the days of the judges there seems to have
been no orderly observance of those laws which gave the priesthood
importance. Scattered Levites had to do as they best could what was
possible in the way of sacrifice and purification. And this
confusion may have begun in the plain of Moab. The death of Aaron,
the personal insignificance of his sons, and still more the death of
Moses himself, would place the administration of religious as well
as secular affairs on an entirely different footing. Memoranda
preserved in Leviticus and Numbers may therefore be more ancient
than those of Deuteronomy; and Deuteronomy, describing the state of
things before the passage of Jordan, may in regard to the priesthood
reflect the conditions of new development, the course of which did
not blend with the original design till after the captivity.
The tribe of Levi is, according to Num 3:6 ff, appointed to minister
to Aaron, and to keep his charge and that of the congregation before
the "tent of meeting," to do the service of the tabernacle. For all
the necessary work connected with the sanctuary the Levites are
"wholly given unto Aaron on behalf of the children of Israel." It
was of course in accordance with the patriarchal idea that each clan
should have a hereditary chief. Here, however, an arbitrary rule
breaks in. For Aaron was not by primogeniture head of the tribe of
Levi. He belonged to a younger family of the tribe. The arrangements
made by Moses as the representative of God superseded the succession
by birthright. And this is by no means the only case in which a law
usually adhered to was broken through. According to the history the
high-priesthood did not invariably follow the line of Eleazar. At a
certain point a descendant of Ithamar was for some reason raised to
the dignity. Samuel, too, became virtually a priest, and rose higher
than any high-priest before the captivity, although he was not even
of the tribe of Levi. The law of spiritual endowment in his case set
the other aside. And is it not often so? The course of providence
brings forward the man who can guide affairs. While his work lasts
he is practically supreme. It is useless to question or rebel.
Neither in religion nor in government can the appeal to Divine right
or to constitutional order alter the fact. Korah need not revolt
against Moses; nor may Aaron imagine that he can push himself into
the front. And Aaron, as head of the tribe of Levi, and of the
religious administration, is safe in his own position so long only
as his office is well served. It is to responsibility he is called,
rather than to honour. Let him do his duty, otherwise he will surely
become merely a name or a figure.
2. THE FIRST-BORN
Num 3:11-13; Num 3:40-51
These two passages supplement each other and may be taken
together. Jehovah claims the first-born in Israel. He hallowed them
unto Himself on the day when He smote all the firstborn in the land
of Egypt. They are now humbered from a month old and upward. But
instead of their being appointed personally to holy service, the
Levites are substituted for them. The whole account supplies a
scheme of the origin of the sacerdotal tribe.
It has been questioned whether the number of the first-born, which
is 22,273, can in any way be made to agree with the total number of
the male Israelites, previously stated at 603,550. Wellhausen is
specially contemptuous of a tradition or calculation which, he says,
would give an average of forty children to each woman. But the
difficulty partly yields if it is kept in view that the Levites were
separated for the service of the sanctuary. Naturally it would be
the heir-apparent alone of each family group whose liability to this
kind of duty fell to be considered. The head of a household was,
according to the ancient reckoning, its priest. In Abraham’s family
no one counted as a first-born but Isaac. Now that a generation of
Israelites is growing up sanctified by the covenant, it appears fit
that the presumptive priest should either be devoted to sacerdotal
duty, or relieved of it by a Levite as his substitute. Suppose each
family had five tents, and suppose further that the children born
before the exodus are not reckoned, the number will not be found at
all disproportionate. The absolute number remains a difficulty.
Dr. Robertson Smith argues from his own premises about the sanctity
of the first-born. He repudiates the notion that at one time the
Hebrews actually sacrificed all their first-born sons; yet he
affirms that "there must have been some point of attachment in
ancient custom for the belief that the Deity asked for such a
sacrifice." "I apprehend," he proceeds, "that all the prerogatives
of the first-born among Semitic peoples are originally prerogatives
of sanctity; the sacred blood of the kin flows purest and strongest
in him." {Gen 49:3} Neither in the case of children nor in that of
cattle did the congenital holiness of the first-born originally
imply that they must be sacrificed or given to the Deity on the
altar, but only that if sacrifice was to be made, they were the best
and fittest because the holiest victims. The passage in Numbers may
be confidently declared to be far from any such conception. The
special fitness for sacrifice of the firstborn of an animal is
assumed: the fitness of the heir of a family, again, is plainly not
to become a sacrifice, but to offer sacrifice. The first-born of the
Egyptians died. But it is the life, the holy activity of His own
people, not their death, God desires. And this holy activity, rising
to its highest function in the firstborn, is according to our
passage laid on the Levites to a certain extent. Not entirely
indeed. The whole congregation is still consecrated and must be
holy. All are bound by the covenant. The head of each family group
will still have to officiate as a priest in celebrating the passover.
Certain duties, however, are transferred for the better protection
of the sanctities of worship.
The first-born are found to exceed the number of the Levites by two
hundred and seventy-three; and for their redemption Moses takes
"five shekels apiece by the poll; after the shekel of the
sanctuary." The money thus collected is given unto Aaron and his
sons.
The method of redemption here presented, purely arbitrary in respect
of the sum appointed for the ransom of each life, is fitly
contrasted by the Apostle Peter with that of the Christian
dispensation. He adopts the word redeem, taking it over from the old
economy, but says, "Ye were redeemed not with corruptible things,
with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from
your fathers." And the difference is not only that the Christian is
redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, but this also, that,
while the first-born Israelite was relieved of certain parts of the
holy service which might have been claimed of him by Jehovah, it is
for sacred service, "to be a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual
sacrifices," Christians are redeemed. In the one case exemption, in
the other case consecration is the end. The difference is indeed
great, and shows how much the two covenants are in contrast with
each other. It is not to enable us to escape any of the duties or
obligations of life Christ has given Himself for us. It is to make
us fit for those duties, to bring us. fully under those obligations,
to purify us that we may serve God with our bodies and spirits which
are His.
A passage in Exodus {Exo 13:11 f.} must not be overlooked in
connection with that presently under consideration. The enactment
there is to the effect that when Israel is brought into the land of
the Canaanites every first-born of beasts shall be set apart unto
the Lord, the firstling of an ass shall be redeemed with a lamb or
killed, and all first-born children shall be redeemed. Here the
singular point is that the law is deferred, and does not come into
operation till the settlement in Canaan. Either this was set aside
for the provisions made in Numbers, or these are to be interpreted
by it. The difficulties of the former view are greatly increased by
the mention of the "shekel of the sanctuary," which seems to imply a
settled medium of exchange, hardly possible in the wilderness.
Num 8:18-19, the subject of redemption is again touched, and the
additions are significant. Now the service of the Levites "in the
tent of meeting" is by way of atonement for the children of Israel,
"that there be no plague among the children of Israel when the
children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary." Atonement is not
with blood in this case, but by the service of the living
substitute. While the general scope of the Mosaic law requires the
shedding of blood in order that the claim of God may be met, this
exception must not be forgotten. And in a sense it is the chief
instance of atonement, far transcending in expressiveness those in
which animals were slaughtered for propitiation. The whole
congregation, threatened with plagues and disasters in approaching
God, has protection through the holy service of the Levitical tribe.
Here is substitution of a kind which makes a striking point in the
symbolism of the Old Testament in its relation to the New. The
principle may be seen in patriarchal history. The ten in Sodom, if
ten righteous men could have been found, would have saved it, would
have been its atonement in a sense, not by their death on its behalf
but by their life. And Moses himself, standing alone between God and
Israel, prevails by his pleading and saves the nation from its doom.
So our Lord says of His disciples, "Ye are the salt of the earth."
Their holy devotion preserves the mass from moral corruption and
spiritual death. Again, "for the elect’s sake," the days of
tribulation shall be shortened. {Mat 24:22}
The ceremonies appointed for the cleansing and consecration of the
Levites, described in Num 8:5-26, may be noticed here. They differ
considerably from those enjoined for the consecration of priests.
Neither were the Levites anointed with sacred oil, for instance, nor
were they sprinkled with the blood of sacrifices; nor, again, do
they seem to have worn any special dress, even in the tabernacle
court. There was, however, an impressive ritual which would produce
in their minds a consciousness of separation and devotion to God.
The water of expiation, literally of sin, was first to be sprinkled
upon them, a baptism not signifying anything like regeneration, but
having reference to possible defilements of the flesh. A razor was
then to be made to pass over the whole body, and the clothes were to
be washed, also to remove actual as well as legal impurity. This
cleansing completed, the sacrifices followed. One bullock for a
burnt offering, with its accompanying meal offering, and one for a
sin offering were provided. The people being assembled towards the
door of the tent of meeting, the Levites were placed in front of
them to be presented to Jehovah. The princes probably laid their
hands on the Levites, so declaring them the representatives of all
for their special office. Then Aaron had to offer the sacrifices for
the Levites, and the Levites themselves as living sacrifices to
Jehovah. The Levites laid their hands on the bullocks, making them
their substitutes for the symbolic purpose. Aaron and his sons slew
the animals and offered them in the appointed way, burning the one
bullock upon the altar, around which its blood had been sprinkled,
of the other burning only certain portions called the fat. Then the
ceremony of waving was performed, or what was possible in the
circumstances, each Levite being passed through the hands of Aaron
or one of his sons. So set apart, they were, according to Num 8:24,
required to wait upon the work of the tent of meeting, each from his
twenty-fifth to his fiftieth year. The service had been previously
ordered to begin at the thirtieth year. {Num 4:3} Afterwards the
time of ministry was still further extended. {1Ch 23:24-27}
Such is the account of the symbolic cleansing and the representative
ministry of the Levites; and we see both a parallel and a contrast
to what is demanded now for the Christian life of obedience and
devotion to God. Purification there must be from all defilement of
flesh and spirit. With the change which takes place when by
repentance and faith in Christ we enter into the free service of God
there must be a definite and earnest purging of the whole nature.
"As ye presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to
iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants
to righteousness unto sanctification" {Rom 6:19}. "Mortify therefore
your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness,
passion, evil desire, and covetousness, the which is idolatry, put
ye also away all these: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful
speaking out of your mouth: lie not one to another; seeing that ye
have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the new
man." {Col 3:5; Col 3:8-9} Thus the purity of heart and soul so
imperfectly represented by the cleansings of the Levites is set
forth as the indispensable preparation of the Christian. And the
contrast lies in this, that the purification required by the New
Testament law is for all, and is the same for each. Whether one is
to serve in the ministry of the Gospel or sweep a room as for God’s
cause; the same profound purity is needful. All in the Kingdom of
God are to be holy, for He is holy.
3. LEVITICAL SERVICE
Num 3:14-39; Num 3:4
The sacred service of the Levites is described in detail. There
are three divisions, the Gershonites, the Kohathites, the Merarites.
The Gershonites, from a month old and upward, numbered 7,500; the
Kohathites, 8,600; the Merarites, 6,200. Eleazar, son of Aaron, is
prince of the princes of the Levites.
The office of the Kohathites is of peculiar sanctity, next to that
of Aaron and his sons. They are not "cut off" or specially separated
from among the Levites; {Num 4:18} but they have duties that require
great care, and they must not venture to approach the most holy
things till preparation has been made by the priests. The manner of
that preparation is fully described. When order has been given for
the setting forward of the camp, Aaron and his sons cover the ark of
the covenant first with the veil of the screen, then with a covering
of sealskin, and lastly with a cloth of blue; they also insert in
the rings the long staves with which the ark is to be carried. Next
the table of shewbread is covered with a blue cloth; the dishes,
spoons, bowls, and cups are placed on the top, over them a scarlet
cloth, and above that a sealskin covering; the staves of the table
are also placed in readiness. The candlestick and its lamps and
other appurtenances are wrapped up in like manner and put on a
frame. Then the golden altar by itself, and the vessels used in the
service of the sanctuary by themselves are covered with blue cloth
and sealskin and made ready for carriage. Finally, the great altar
is cleansed of ashes, covered up with purple cloth and sealskin, and
its staves set in their rings. When all this is done the sons of
Kohath may advance to bear the holy things, never touching them lest
they die.
The question arises, why so great care is considered necessary that
none but the priests should handle the furniture of the sanctuary.
We have learned to think that a real religion should avoid secrecy,
that everything connected with it should be done in the open light
of day. Why, then, is the shrine of Jehovah guarded with such
elaborate precaution? And the answer is that the idea of mystery
appears here as absolutely needful, in order to maintain the solemn
feelings of the people and their sense of the holiness of God. Not
only because the Israelites were rude and earthly, but also because
the whole system was symbolic, the holy things were kept from common
sight. In this respect the worship described in these books of Moses
resembled that of other nations of antiquity. The Egyptian temple
had its innermost shrine where the arks of the gods were placed; and
into that most holy place with its silver soil the priests alone
went. But even Egyptian worship, with all its mystery, did not
always conceal the arks and statues of the gods. When those gods
were believed to be favourable, the arks were carried in procession,
the images so far unveiled that they could be seen by the people. It
was entirely different in the case of the sacred symbols and
instruments of Hebrew worship, according to the ideal of the law.
And the elaborate precautions are to be regarded as indicating the
highest tidemark of symbolised sanctity. Jehovah was not like
Egyptian or Assyrian or Phoenician gods. These might be represented
by statues which the people could see. But everything used in His
worship must be kept apart. The worship must be of faith; and the
ark which was the great symbol must remain always invisible. The
effect of this on the popular mind was complex, varying with the
changing circumstances of the nation; and to trace it would be an
interesting piece of study. It may be remembered that in the time of
most ardent Judaism the want of the ark made no difference to the
veneration in which the temple was held and the intense devotion of
the people to their religion. The ark was used as a talisman in
Eli’s time; in the temple erected after the captivity there was no
ark; its place in the holy of holies was occupied by a stone.
The Gershonites had as their charge the screens and curtains of the
tabernacle, or most holy place, and the tent of meeting or holy
place, also the curtains of the court of the tabernacle. The boards,
bars, pillars, and sockets of the tabernacle and of the court were
to be entrusted to the Merarites.
In the whole careful ordering of the duties to be discharged by
these Levites we see a figure of the service to be rendered to God
and men in one aspect of it. Organisation, attention to details, and
subordination of those who carry out schemes to the appointed
officials, and of all, both inferior and superior, to law-these
ideas are here fully represented. Assuming the incapacity of many
for spontaneous effort, the principle that God is not a God of
confusion but of order in the churches of the saints may be held to
point to subordination of a similar kind even under Christianity.
But the idea carried to its full limit, implies an inequality
between men which the free spirit of Christianity will not admit. It
is an honour for men to be connected with any spiritual enterprise,
even as bearers of burdens. Those who take such a place may be
spiritual men, thoughtful men, as intelligent and earnest as their
official superiors. But the Levites, according to the law, were to
be bearers of burdens, menials of the sanctuary from generation to
generation. Here the parallel absolutely fails. No Christian,
however cordially he may fill such a place for a time, is bound to
it in perpetuity. His way is open to the highest duties and honours
of a redeemed son of God. In a sense Judaism even did not prevent
the spiritual advancement of any Levite, or any man. The priesthood
was practically closed, but the office of the prophet, really higher
than that of the priest, was not. From the routine work of the
priesthood men like Jeremiah and Ezekiel were called by the Spirit
of God to speak in the name of the Highest. The word of the Lord was
put into their mouths. Elijah, who was apparently of the tribe of
Manasseh, Amos and Daniel, who belonged to Judah, became prophets.
The open door for the men of the tribes was into this calling.
Neither in Israel nor in Christendom is priesthood the highest
religious function. The great servants of God might well refuse it
or throw aside its shackles.
|