| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Introduction
to Leviticus
This summary of the book of Leviticus provides information about
the title, author(s), date of writing, chronology, theme, theology, outline, a
brief overview, and the chapters of the Book of Leviticus.
See Introduction to Genesis: Author and Date of Writing.
Leviticus receives its name from the Septuagint (the pre-Christian
Greek translation of the OT) and means "relating to the Levites." Its
Hebrew title, wayyiqra',
is the first word in the Hebrew text of the book and means "And he [i.e.,
the Lord] called." Although Leviticus does not deal only with the special
duties of the Levites, it is so named because it concerns mainly the service of
worship at the tabernacle, which was conducted by the priests who were the sons
of Aaron, assisted by many from the rest of the tribe of Levi. Exodus gave the
directions for building the tabernacle, and now Leviticus gives the laws and
regulations for worship there, including instructions on ceremonial cleanness,
moral laws, holy days, the sabbath year and the Year of Jubilee. These laws
were given, at least for the most part, during the year that Israel camped at
Mount Sinai, when God directed Moses in organizing Israel's worship, government
and military forces. The book of Numbers continues the history with
preparations for moving on from Sinai to Canaan.
Leviticus is a manual of regulations enabling the holy King to set
up his earthly throne among the people of his kingdom. It explains how they are
to be his holy people and to worship him in a holy manner. Holiness in this
sense means to be separated from sin and set apart exclusively to the Lord for
his purpose and for his glory. So the key thought of the book is holiness (see
notes on 11:44; Ex
3:5) -- the holiness of God and his people (they must revere him in
"holiness"). In Leviticus spiritual holiness is symbolized by
physical perfection. Therefore the book demands perfect animals for its many
sacrifices (chs. 1 - 7)
and requires priests without deformity (chs. 8
- 10). A woman's hemorrhaging after giving birth
(ch. 12); sores, burns or baldness (chs. 13 - 14); a man's bodily discharge (15:1-18); specific activities during a woman's
monthly period (15:19-33) -- all may be signs of blemish (a lack
of perfection) and may symbolize human spiritual defects, which break spiritual
wholeness. The person with visible skin disease must be banished from the camp,
the place of God's special presence, just as Adam and Eve were banished from
the Garden of Eden. Such people can return to the camp (and therefore to God's
presence) when they are pronounced whole again by the examining priests. Before
they can reenter the camp, however, they must offer the prescribed, perfect
sacrifices (symbolizing the perfect, whole sacrifice of Christ).
After the covenant at Sinai, Israel was the earthly representation
of God's kingdom (the theocracy), and, as its King, the Lord established his
administration over all of Israel's life. Israel's religious, communal and
personal life was so regulated as to establish them as God's holy people and to
instruct them in holiness. Special attention was given to Israel's religious
ritual. The sacrifices were to be offered at an approved sanctuary, which would
symbolize both God's holiness and his compassion. They were to be controlled by
the priests, who by care and instruction would preserve them in purity and
carefully teach their meaning to the people. Each particular sacrifice was to
have meaning for the people of Israel but would also have spiritual and
symbolic import.
For more information on the meaning of sacrifice in general see
the solemn ritual of the Day of Atonement (ch. 16; see note on 16:1-34). For the meaning of the blood of the
offering see 17:11; Ge
9:4 and notes. For the emphasis on substitution see 16:21.
Some suppose that the OT sacrifices were remains of old
agricultural offerings -- a human desire to offer part of one's possessions as
a love gift to the deity. But the OT sacrifices were specifically prescribed by
God and received their meaning from the Lord's covenant relationship with
Israel -- whatever their superficial resemblances to pagan sacrifices may have
been. They indeed include the idea of a gift, but this is accompanied by such
other values as dedication, communion, propitiation (appeasing God's judicial
wrath against sin) and restitution. The various offerings have differing
functions, the primary ones being atonement (see note on Ex 25:17) and worship.
The subjects treated in Leviticus, as in any book of laws and
regulations, cover several categories:
I.
The Five Main Offerings (chs. 1-7)
A.
The Burnt Offering (ch.
1)
II.
The Installation and Ministry of Aaron and His Sons (chs. 8-10)
III.
The Distinction Between Clean and Unclean (chs. 11-15)
IV.
The Annual Day of Atonement (ch. 16)
VI.
Regulations for Offerings Vowed to the Lord (ch. 27)
──《New International Version》
Introduction to Leviticus
God ordained divers kinds of oblations and
sacrifices, to assure his people of the forgiveness of their offences, if they
offered them in true faith and obedience. Also he appointed the priests and
Levites, their apparel, offices, conduct, and portion. He showed what feasts
they should observe, and at what times. He declared by these sacrifices and
ceremonies, that the reward of sin is death, and that without the blood of
Christ, the innocent Lamb of God, there can be no forgiveness of sins.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Leviticus》
00 Overview
LEVITICUS
INTRODUCTION
The importance of the book
The historical importance of the Book of Leviticus is very great.
One might as well expect to understand the history of Greece, while remaining
in ignorance of philosophy and art, or of England, while knowing nothing
whatever of parliament and the constitution as to understand the history of
Israel without a knowledge of the Hebrew ritual. Think how much labour is spent
in the study of the classical mythology at our schools and universities, not
for any value there is in itself, but for the light it throws upon classical
literature; and yet how little do Christian people realise the importance of
studying the modes of worship among the Jews, in order to understand their
literature, which is our Bible! And besides, not only is the knowledge of the
Tabernacle worship necessary in order to understand the sacred literature, but
it is of real value in itself; not merely of antiquarian and psychological
value, like the ancient mythologies, but of present practical value, as
throwing light upon the New Testament and illustrating that gospel on which our
hopes are founded. This Book of Leviticus, like the Tabernacle itself, is rough
and unattractive on the outside, and may even provoke the sneers of the mere
passers-by; but it is all glorious within, and to those who with reverent feet
enter its portal, there will be unfolded no inconsiderable amount of “the
unsearchable riches of Christ.” There are the rough “badgers’ skins” without;
but within there
is the glory of gold and the beauty of “the fine twined linen, with blue and
purple and scarlet, and cherubims cunningly wrought.” (J. M. Gibson, D. D.)
The unity, design, and contents of the book
This Book is marked on the surface with these elements of unity;
it is all centred in the newly-erected Tabernacle; and only a few weeks passed
away between its beginning and its close. There is necessarily much variety in
so considerable a collection of laws, and something of historical narrative in
connection with the immediate application of those laws; but the main purpose
is everywhere apparent and controlling--the arrangements whereby a sinful
people may approach, and remain in permanent communion with a holy God. This
will better appear in the following table of contents. The arrangement of the
Book is as systematic as the nature of its contents allowed. In regard to one
or two alleged instances of repetition (Leviticus 11:39-40
compared with Leviticus 22:8;
and Leviticus 19:9
with Leviticus 23:22)
it is sufficient to say that they were intentional; and in regard to several
chapters supposed to be placed out of their natural connection (as, e.g.,
chaps. 12 and 15), it simply does not appear that the thread of connection in
the mind of Moses was the same as in that of the critic. In fact, in the
instances alleged, the great Legislator seems to have taken especial pains to
break that connection which is now spoken of as the natural one, and has thus,
for important reasons, separated the purification after child-birth from all
other purifications which might otherwise have seemed to be of the same
character. Nevertheless, it is to be remembered that Leviticus was given at
Sinai in view of an immediate and direct march to Canaan, which should have
culminated in the possession of the Promised Land. When this had been prevented
in consequence of the sin of the people, a long time--above thirty-eight
years--passed away before the encampment
on the plains of Moab. During this period the law was largely in abeyance, as
is shown by the fact that its most imperative requirement, circumcision, was
entirely omitted to the close (Joshua 5:5-8).
After this long interval it is not unreasonable to suppose that the writings of
Moses would have been revised before his death, and such clauses and
exhortations added as the changed circumstances might require. These passages,
however, if really written at that time, so far from being in any degree
incongruous with the original work, do but fill out and emphasise its
teachings. The contents of Leviticus are arranged in the following table in
such a way as to show something of the connection of its parts:
BOOK I. Of approach to
god (Leviticus 1-16).--
First part. Laws of sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7).--
1. General rules for the sacrifices (Leviticus 1-6:7).
2. Special instructions chiefly for the priests (Leviticus 6:8-30;
Leviticus 7:1-38).
Second part. Historical (Leviticus 8-10).--
1. The consecration of the priests (Leviticus 8:1-36.).
2. Entrance of Aaron and his sons on their office (Leviticus 9:1-24).
3. The sin and punishment of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-20.).
Third part. The laws of purity (chaps, 11-15).--
1. Laws of clean and unclean food (Leviticus 11:1-47).
2. Laws of purification after child-birth (Leviticus 12:1-8).
3. Laws concerning leprosy (Leviticus 13:1-59;
Leviticus 14:1-57).
4. Sexual impurities and cleansings (Leviticus 15:1-33).
Fourth part. The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1-34).
BOOK II. Of continuance
in communion with god (Leviticus 17-26).--
First part. Holiness on the part of the people (Leviticus
17-20).--
1. Holiness in regard to food (Leviticus 17:1-16).
2. Holiness of the marriage relation (Leviticus 18:1-30).
3. Holiness of conduct towards God and man (Leviticus 19:1-37).
4. Punishment for unholiness (Leviticus 20:1-27).
Second part. Holiness on the part of the priests, and holiness of
the offerings (Leviticus 21:1-24;
Leviticus 22:1-33).
Third part. Sanctification of feasts (Leviticus 23-25).--
1. Of the sabbaths and annual feasts (Leviticus 23:1-44).
2. Of the holy lamps and shewbread (Leviticus 24:1-9).
3. Historical. The punishment of a blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-23).
4. Of the sabbatical and jubilee years (Leviticus 25:1-55).
Fourth part. Conclusion.--Promises and threats (Leviticus 26:1-46).
Appendix.--Of vows (27). (Prof. F. Gardiner.)
The relation of the levitical code to heathen usages
Widely divergent views have been held by different writers upon
this subject. Spencer was disposed to find an Egyptian origin for almost every
Mosaic institution. Baehr has sought to disprove all connection between them.
The a priori probability seems well expressed by Marsham: “We know from
Scripture that the Hebrews were for a long time inhabitants of Egypt; and we
may suspect, not without reason, that they did not wholly cast off Egyptian
usages, but rather that some traces of Egyptian habit remained. Many laws of
Moses are from ancient customs. Whatever hindered the cultus of the true
Deity he strictly forbad. Moses abrogated most of the Egyptian rites, some he
changed, some he held as indifferent, some he permitted, and even commanded,”
Yet this legislation by its many additions and omissions, and the general
remoulding of all that remained, became, as Rosenmueller remarks, peculiarly
and distinctively Hebrew, adapted to their needs, and sharply separating them
from all other people. It can scarcely be necessary to speak of what the Mosaic
Law taught in common with the customs of all people at this period of the
world’s history. The aim of the law was to elevate the Israelites to a higher
and better standard, but gently, and as they were able to bear it. Certain
essential laws were given, and these were insisted upon absolutely and with
every varied form of command which could add to the emphasis. The unity of God
and His omnipotence, were taught with a distinctness which was fast fading out
from the world’s recollection, and which we scarcely find elsewhere at this
period except in the Book of Job, which may itself have been modified in Mosaic
hands. So, too, the necessity of outward sacramental observance for the whole
people, whereby communion with God through His Church should be maintained,
were strongly insisted upon, as in Circumcision and the Passover, and other
sacrifices. But when we come to consider the conduct of the ordinary life, we
find the universally received customs of the times not abrogated, but only
restrained and checked according to the capacity of the people. All these
checks and restraints were in the direction of, and looking towards, the higher
standard of the morality of the gospel, as may be seen in the law of revenge, where
unlimited vengeance was restricted to a return simply equal to the injury
received; in the laws of marriage, which imposed many restrictions on the
freedom of divorce and of polygamy; in the laws of slavery, which so greatly
mitigated the hardships of that condition. But in these, as in many other
matters, their Heavenly Father dealt tenderly with His people, and “for the
hardness of their hearts” suffered many things which were yet contrary to His
will. The same general principles apply to the retention among them of very
much of Egyptian custom and law. It is more important to speak of these because
the Israelites lived so long
and in such close contact with the Egyptians from the very time of their
beginning to multiply into a nation until the eve of the promulgation of the
Sinaitic legislation. It is only necessary here to point out on the one hand
how apparent lacuna in the Mosaic teaching may thus be explained, and on
the other how largely the Egyptian cultus itself had already been
modified, in all probability, by the influence of the fathers of the Jewish
people. By consideration of the former it is seen, e.g., why so little
should have been said in the Mosaic writings of immortality and the future
life. This doctrine was deeply engraven in the Egyptian mind, and interwoven as
a fundamental principle with their whole theology and worship. It passed on to
the Israelites as one of those elementary truths so universally received that
it needed not to be dwelt upon. The latter is necessarily involved in more
obscurity; but when we consider the terms on which Abraham was received by the
monarch of Egypt; the position occupied at a later date by Jacob; the rank of
Joseph, and his intermarriage with the high-priestly family; and remember at
the same time that the priesthood of Egypt was still in possession of a higher
and purer secret theology than was communicated to the people--we see how
Israel could have accepted from the land of the Pharaohs an extent of customs
(to be purified, modified, and toned by their own Sinaitic legislation) which
it might have been dangerous to receive from any other people. Yet plainly,
whatever of detail may have been adopted from Egyptian sources, it was so
connected and correlated in the Mosaic legislation that the whole spirit of the
two systems became totally unlike. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The spiritual meaning of the book
That so
elaborate a ritual looked beyond itself we cannot doubt. It was a prophecy of
things to come; a shadow whereof the substance was Christ and His Kingdom. We
may not always be able to say what the exact relation is between the type and
the antitype. Of many things we
may be sure that they belonged only to the nation to whom they
were given, containing no prophetic significance, but serving as witnesses and
signs to them of God’s covenant of grace. We may hesitate to pronounce with
Jerome, that “every sacrifice, nay, almost every syllable--the garments of
Aaron and the whole Levitical system--breathe of heavenly mysteries.” But we
cannot read the Epistle to the Hebrews and not acknowledge that the Levitical
priests “served the pattern and type of heavenly things”--that the sacrifices
of the law pointed to and found their interpretation in the Lamb of God--that
the ordinances of outward purification signified the true inner cleansing of
the heart and conscience from dead works to serve the living God. One idea,
moreover, penetrates the whole of this vast and burdensome ceremonial, and
gives it a real glory even apart from any prophetic significance. Holiness is
its end. Holiness is its character. The Tabernacle is holy--the vessels are
holy--the offerings are most holy unto Jehovah--the garments of the priests are
holy. All who approach Him whose name is “Holy,” whether priests who minister
unto Him or people who worship Him, must themselves be holy. It would seem as
if, amid the camp and dwellings of Israel, was ever to be heard an echo of that
solemn strain which fills the courts above, where the seraphim cry one unto
another, Holy, Holy, Holy. (Bp. Perowne, in Smith’s Dict. of Bible.)
It shadows forth the gospel
Sometimes in a shadow we may see details of workmanship which
otherwise in the substance we might have missed. One of the most wonderful
achievements of the present day is sun-photography, by which photographs are
obtained of the sun-disc, under certain conditions. And it is obviously much
easier to investigate the nature of the sun from such photographs than to study
it amid the unbearable glory of his presence. The eye may quietly pursue its
investigations undazzled and unabashed. So we may better understand some of the
details of Christ’s work, as we study Leviticus, than when we stand with the
apostles amid the marvels of the Cross, or with the seer amid the supernal
blaze of Apocalyptic vision. Turn not lightly, then, from the Book of
Leviticus, which shadows forth the gospel; and, indeed, gives much of the
terminology, the phrases and symbols, to be afterwards employed. And beneath
the teaching of the same Holy Spirit as taught Moses of old, explore the sacred
meanings which underlie ark and propitiatory; fine twined linen and blue; candlestick
and table; altar of incense and altar of burnt-offering; basin and vessel and
snuffer. Each is like a hook in the Divine household, to which God has attached
a sacred meaning, and which will yield up its secret to those who reverently
ask, and seek, and knock. Adapting some memorable words we may say: “The
invisible things of God from the construction of the Tabernacle are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that were made, even His eternal purpose
of redemption.” (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
Was the religion of Israel a revelation or a merely human development?
What were
the salient features of the religion of Israel as compared with other religions
of the ancient world? Nowhere else is there the same recognition at once of the
unity of the Supreme Being, of His separation from and yet constant government
over His creation, and of the consequent relations of duty and love on the part
of man towards Him. Single philosophers in various nations and at various
times, as Confucius or Buddha, Zoroaster or Plato, in some of these points rose
to higher and better conceptions than their contemporaries; but confessedly,
the religion proclaimed with authority to the whole people of Israel was
immeasurably superior to that made known to any other ancient nation. For this
fact there must be a cause. A theory proposed for acceptance is this: Some
germs of this higher religion were handed down from very ancient times, here
and there accepted and improved by the wiser and more spiritual among the
people, gradually worked over by the enlightened prophets of Israel in the face
of much opposition, and finally adopted by the people in the erroneous belief
that such had been the faith of their fathers. We need not stop to ask how it
happened that, among this particular people, so obstinately given, like their
contemporaries, to polytheism and idolatry, such a long succession of
enlightened prophets, teaching as with one voice, should have arisen. The
theory itself does not meet the facts. The tradition that the religion of Amos
and Isaiah was, in all its essential features, the religion also of Abraham and
Moses was deeply imbedded in all the literature of Israel, and, what is,
perhaps, still more important, in all their “folk-lore.” Assign what dates we
please to the narratives of Genesis and Exodus, make even the reality-breathing
stories of Abraham and Joseph and Moses mere legends and myths, if one can,
there yet remains in these very legends and in every record by which we may
look into the deepest convictions of the people, the consciousness that they
were a nation chosen out of the whole earth by the Lord to receive certain
revelations and promises from Him, bound to Him by peculiar ties, intended to
fulfil certain purposes of His, and under the obligation of certain duties
towards Him. How is this to be accounted for? Again, another difficulty with
this theory is, that the essential basis of the religion of Israel is not one
which admits of the sort of growth supposed. We might imagine a worship of the
separate powers of nature gradually superseded by a recognition of the unity of
nature, and so of one universal,
underlying force, although historically such a process has tended rather to
pantheism than to monotheism. But in Israel the first notes that are heard at
all are of solitary supremacy. The fundamental utterance alike of command, of
history, of popular song, through all the previous ages, is summed up in the
words of Isaiah (Isaiah 42:8),
“I am the Lord My glory will I not give to another.” The ten commandments form
the very gist and kernel of the Hebrew religion, and are acknowledged by all
critics to be a part of its most ancient statutes. They belonged to Israel when
just emerging from a servile condition and when bent upon having a golden calf
for their god; yet they open with the absolute and uncompromising command: “I
am the Lord thy God: thou shalt have none other gods but Me?’ Other nations
were more powerful, more numerous, more wealthy, more advanced in the arts; but
in religion they stood on a lower plane. The only escape from the enormous
difficulties of supposing such an evolution among the ancient Israelites is in the recognition of
a revelation, and such revelation is entirely in accordance with the character
of a loving and Almighty Father. The religion of Israel did not stop with the
bare assertion of the unity of God. It insisted equally upon His absolute
holiness and His benevolence. Here it was still more widely separated from
other religions of antiquity. Is it probable that the Israelites, of all people
in the world, developed this conception unaided? It is alleged that even among
them this conception was very imperfect, that the sacred books attribute to God
human passions and imperfections unworthy of this ideal, and put into His mouth
commands of savage cruelty and revenge. The simple answer to this allegation
is, that it is not true. God did indeed allow slavery, while greatly mitigating
its hardships. He suffered divorce and polygamy, while imposing many restraints
upon its license. He tolerated revenge, and even required a penalty equal to
the injury in judicial judgments. But in all these things the same Scriptures
taught that this was suffered for the time because of the hardness of men’s
hearts. Man cannot be suddenly lifted from a very low to a high spiritual
level. He must be raised little by little, as children are trained. But it is
further said that men were “raised up by the Spirit of the Lord” for the
deliverance of Israel, like Ehud, Samson, and others, who did very strange and
very wicked things. These men were raised up for a noble purpose, but in the
execution of it they were guided by their own imperfect light and erring
judgment, and perhaps often swayed far more than they knew by human passion.
But besides these there were men
“after God’s own heart,” whom He loved and blessed, and yet who were guilty of
very abominable crimes. “What,” it is asked, “was the holiness which could bear
with such things?” But is God to be held responsible for every ill-advised or
even wrong act which a man may do who has set out with an earnest desire to
serve Him? Do we now reduce our conception of the holiness of our Heavenly
Father to the level of the imperfect lives of those who profess to serve Him?
Then why should we do so in judging of those far-away ages? There is really no
difficulty in any of the things alleged when the story is read in the light of
the times to which it belongs. The difficulties only become insoluble when the
narratives and commands are supposed to have been written in a later and more
enlightened age. But however these things may be, and whatever difficulties may
arise from the lives Of the saints of old, or from things suffered or commanded
in dealing with the hardness of men’s hearts, everywhere in the sacred books
God Himself appears in unutterable and perfect holiness. Only in Israel is the
first and greatest of all the commandments, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deuteronomy 6:5);
and nowhere else do we find failure in this authoritatively recognised as a
moral offence, as sin. Is it more probable that the sages of Israel worked out
this deepest of all relations from their own understanding and embodied it in
their earliest law, or that they were taught it from on high? Closely related with
the idea of sin was the practice of sacrifice. This practice, whencesoever
derived, was substantially universal in the ancient world. The Hebrew sacrifices, however, are
so distinguished from those of
other nations in two points as to make them an essentially different
institution.
1. Elsewhere sacrifice might be offered by any one, without regard to
his character;
and--
2. It was customary to increase the value of the offering--even to
the extent
sometimes of providing human victims--in proportion to the magnitude of the
offence. The underlying idea, therefore, of these sacrifices, was the offering to the
offended Deity an equivalent for the offence--a quid pro quo, a compensation
for the wrong done--so that no further penalty could justly be exacted. Hence
there was very little of a moral character about the transaction. In Israel it
was far otherwise. Sacrifices were allowed by the law only for “sins of
ignorance”--rather of inadvertence, of carelessness, of being led away by
temptation and passion;
for sins committed with a “high hand,” with a full knowledge of their wrongfulness and the
defiance of a proud heart, no sacrifice was allowed (Numbers 15:30;
Deuteronomy 17:12).
This fact alone gives a totally different character to sacrifice in the two cases, because it
introduces a moral element, and makes their acceptance depend upon motive and character. The
second point is, if possible, still more distinctive. While the idea of sacrificial
compensation was carried out among the heathen by proportioning the number and
value of the victims to the greatness of the offence, nothing of this kind was
so much as allowed by the Hebrew law. The sin-offering in every case must be
the same, the she-goat--the commonest and cheapest of the domestic animals.
Whole burnt-offerings might be increased, and peace-offerings, those feasts of
communion with God, might be indefinitely-multiplied; but for the atoning
sin-offering only and always the same simple victim. The lesson hereby taught
is plain: sacrifices in themselves had no compensatory value. The value of
sacrifices therefore could be but symbolic. Now, to suppose such a system of
sacrifice, so unlike that of any other nation, so far-reaching in its meaning,
and yet so adapted to a spiritually debased people, keeping alive in them the
sense of sin and yet pointing to something better as the true atonement for
sin--to suppose such a system to have been evolved by the philosophers of Judea
and adopted by the Jews, seems by many degrees more improbable than that it was
given them from on high. In the Hebrew religion the ground of man’s acceptance
with God was neither sacrifice nor ceremonial observance, though these were
required, but faith--a trust in God, bringing the whole heart and life into
dependence upon Him and harmony with His will. The gospel teaches that this is
the essential principle of all true religion; but how did Israel know it? Here
and there the truth was more or less clearly seen by ore and another of the
sages of antiquity; in Israel it was the fundamental teaching by the most
varied teachers during more than a millennium of most changing fortune. How
were those rude ages and those rough men of action able to grasp that principle
which, even in our times, it has ever proved so difficult to keep alive in the
hearts of men? It seems almost an insult to the understanding to ask whether it
could have been a merely human ,development. It does not matter how little or
how much the ordinary Hebrew may have recognised and acted upon this principle.
It avails nothing to say that the men who illustrate it were remarkable and
exceptional. The point is, that whether the people heard, or whether they
forbore, this was the teaching of their religion. And there is no parallel to
it elsewhere in the world. It may be objected that this must be a partial
representation, since the religion of Israel was confessedly so largely
ceremonial. But there was certainly no ceremonial law down to the time of Moses;
and if (which the objectors deny)it was given then, it could have been but
slightly observed during the wanderings in the wilderness, since even its
fundamental rite of circumcision was neglected during this whole period (Joshua 5:2-7);
further, it must have been largely in abeyance during the troubled time of the
Judges; and it certainly could not have been carried out during the separation
of the ark and the Tabernacle in the reigns of Saul and David. Thus its full
observance only became possible after the building of Solomon’s temple,
leaving, at the most, but two centuries before the voice of the prophets begins
clearly to exalt the inward disposition of the heart above the outward forms of
the ritual. It is impossible, chronologically, that the ceremonial law could,
for any great length of time, have obscured the higher teaching of faith; and
during this short period there were, on the one hand, some spiritual leaders,
and on the part of the people continual opposition and revolt against the law.
The general result, therefore, cannot have been very deeply affected in those
early times by ,the ceremonial law; and even the law itself, as has been seen
in regard to the sacrifices and as is equally true in other points, was but a
guard arranged to prevent apostasy from the principle of faith. The ceremonial
law has formed the gist of ,recent controversies about the antiquity of the
religious system of the Israelites. “If;” it is asked, “the fundamental
principle of that system was so true and spiritual, how came it to he overlaid
by a mass of detailed and often petty precepts, by a rigid and elaborate
ritual, and by a sternly fixed priestly hierarchy?” Two answers have been
given. One is that of St. Paul, that the “law was added because of
transgressions” (Galatians 3:19),
and that it “was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24);
the other, put forward by certain recent critics, is, that it was a gradual
growth of ordinances under the influence of men who had usurped priestly power
and functions. They maintain that while certain germs of it may have been
handed down from very ancient times, it had its formal beginning about the
reign of Josiah, and received its great development during the Babylonian
captivity, especially under the influence of the prophet-priest, Ezekiel, but
did not take its final shape until the remnant of the people had returned and
been settled again in their ancestral land. Without here entering irate the
question of the reliability of the history, it is sufficient to say that while
St. Paul’s statement gives a clear and satisfactory view of the whole matter,
an examination of the theory f the critics will show it to be improbable and
self-destructive. In the first place, with what purpose in view could men have
worked out such an elaborate system as the Levitical law? There are many
instances of arrogant hierarhical systems among ancient nations as well as in
corrupt forms of Christianity; but in all the system has ministered to the
wealth or to the power of the priesthood by whom it is upheld. Now the fact stares
us in the face that at no period of history, until long after the captivity,
were the priests of Israel either a wealthy or a powerful body. At the outset,
it was not Aaron, but Moses who was chosen to be the leader and lawgiver of the
people; and Aaron, though high priest, was in a wholly subordinate position, he
and his descendants, and the whole tribe of Levi, were cut off from inheritance
with their fellow tribes in the division of laud, except mere cities of
residence scattered among the other tribes. For their support the tithes of the
increase of the other tribes was assigned to the Levites, and from them in turn
the priests were to receive their tithes and also certain portions of the
sacrifices. This seems, at first sight, an ample provision, and to have given
the Levites a larger income than their brethren. But how was the collection of
these tithes to be enforced? For this there was no other provision whatever
than the influence of moral obligation. What would be the revenue of a modern
state and the salaries of its officers if the payment of taxes rested only upon
men’s sense of duty? In truth, all the incidental notices of the Levites, down
to the time of David, represent them as poor, and as easily tempted to
sacrifice the purity of their religion for the merest support, and they are
spoken of in the law as objects for the charity of the people. If, then, the
Levitical law was devised by the priests, it was so devised in opposition to
all experience of human nature as to bring to themselves neither wealth nor
power. They exerted a certain moral influence, and sometimes were advisers of
the kings, as, e.g., Abiathar was to David, under very peculiar
circumstances; yet even in this case the prophets Nathan and Gad appear to have
had more influence, and Abiathar was at last deposed altogether from the high
priesthood by Solomon. Peculiar circumstances gave Jehoiada great power over
the youthful Joash, but when the old high priest died his successors could not keep Joash from
apostasy (2 Chronicles 24:17,
&c.), and it was no to the priests but to the prophet Zachariah that the fatal duty was
entrusted of remonstrating with him for his sin (2 Chronicles 24:20;
2 Chronicles 24:22).
When we come down to the times of the writing prophets, represented on the
theory of the critics as teachers of a more spiritual religion which the
priests were perverting to ceremonialism, two of the greater of them, Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, and we know not how many of the minor, were themselves priests.
Further, in all the charges brought against the priests for their sins, the
acquisition of power is not mentioned. On the return from the captivity Ezra is prominent in the
organisation of the restored state; but it is more in his capacity as a scribe,
learned in the law, than as a priest, and even so, he is entirely subordinate
to Nehemiah, the civil governor. The theory, then, that the Levitical law was
gradually developed by the priests for their own benefit, is plainly
insufficient and not in accordance with the facts. Before taking up the other
answer, given by St. Paul, a rapid glance must be taken at the prominent
features of the law itself. Many of its precepts were simply intended to make
Israel a peculiar people and prevent their too close mingling with men of other
religions. Were these more likely to have been given at the outset, when there
was no insuperable difficulty in their observance, or is it more probable that
they grew up after Israel had been for centuries inextricably involved in the
political struggles of her more powerful neighbours? A very large part of the
detailed precepts of the law may be classed as educational--rules designed to
train for a time spiritual children until they should be able to receive the
principles on which they rested. If we compare the principles of morality and virtue
as they are set forth in Christianity and in the various heathen religions, it
is evident that the training provided by the precepts of the Mosaic Law was a
preparation for the former and not for the latter. This relation of Judaism to
Christianity is amply recognised by all the teachers of the latter, and it is
historically abundantly evident that the gospel arose out of Judaism, as it
could not have arisen out of any form of heathenism. Can it be supposed that a
system of legislation should have been gradually evolved, providing petty
precepts for a narrow-minded nation and seeking to isolate them from all other
people, and yet, as shown by the result, designed to prepare them for the broad
principles of a world-wide religion in the future? We may now turn to St.
Paul’s answer to the question, “Wherefore then the law?” He had been
maintaining that “the gospel was preached before unto Abraham,” to which this
question came as an
objection. He gives a twofold reply:
The force of the first
reason is plain, and the whole history of Israel is an illustration of it. The
nation who could worship a golden calf in the shadow of Sinai, and commit
themselves to the abominations of the Canaanites, and could again and again
apostatise, surely needed some stringent law “because of transgressions,” lest
the knowledge of God should altogether perish from the world. The other answer,
that “it was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,” is involved in the whole
preparatory office of the Hebrew religion, and is historically true. It did
lead to Christ all that portion of the people who “looked for redemption,”
“many myriads of the people,” and “a great company of the priests.” A glance
must now be given to the completing elation of Christianity to Judaism.
Throughout the New Testament, in every form of utterance, teaching, narrative,
exhortation, argument, it is constantly reiterated by our Lord Himself and by
all those whom He commissioned, that the gospel was the intended fulfillment
and culmination of the law. It were hard to conceive of a greater contrast to
the outward eye and to the superficial thought than was presented between the
Judaism and the Christianity of apostolic days. So the unbelieving Jews
regarded it, and persecuted to the death those who, they considered, had
apostatised from the ancestral faith. Nevertheless, all the earlier
promulgators of Christianity with one view steadfastly affirmed that the
religion was essentially the same, and that the gospel was but the designed
culmination of the law and the realisation of the “new covenant” which the God
of Israel had promised to make with His people. They started in their preaching
from the synagogue, and the Old Testament was everywhere the foundation of
their reasoning. Now if all this was an entire error in the men who made the
mistake and in the circumstances under which it was made, it was one of the
most wonderful illusions of history, and an illusion shared by substantially
all believers in Christianity to the present day. It is a phenomenon without
parallel and requires explanation. But if they were right, then the law and the
gospel must have proceeded from the same source, and that source could have
been none other than Divine. (Prof. Gardiner.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》