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 retaining 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 parcelled out among the tribes of Israel; and although frequent reference 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 Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass that in what tribe the 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 permanent residence among the tribes of Israel. It is only for these 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 matters 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 ecclesiastical standing. He had great influence of course, either like David in advancing and improving the worship, or like Ahaz in corrupting and 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 prescribing 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: (1) 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) Ömer, y, 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) Bath, as a measure, does not occur earlier than Kings (twice), 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 elsewhere once each in Isaiah and Hosea; on the other hand, Bath and Cor, which came into use at a comparatively late date, are not found in the law, but are used by Ezekiel. other offerings for the national sacrifices, have already been mentioned. 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 sanctified 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 מִין , 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 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); 2 (Hoph. part from ); (this occurs 4 times in the Pentateuch and 6 times in Ezekiel; but of the other words for naked only is found once in the Pentateuch and not at all in Ezekiel, though the more common word in ; (kal part. pass.); a peculiar word for which other derivatives of are commonly used; in the Pual; עַרְמוֹן ;a very peculiar word for darkness עָלָטָה ;(the later books ;(.kal part. pass) וּפֶרַע וּפֶרֶךְ פָּרוּחַ וּפֶטֶר To these should be added such תכן. תַּחַשׁ וּבָזֶה רָבִיד ;(ferent sense priși marsi moși mai v; (in the Pent. 56 times); wimp (in the Pent. 50 times); pp (this occurs also in 1 Sam. xvii. 5 but in a dif words as occur elsewhere only in passages referring to the Pentateuch, as: (3 times in the P's.); (Ps. cv. 30). There are also a number of words found only once elsewhere, as: Ezek. 11 times and Jer. xii. 9; xiii. 20); (Judg. xix. 29); , Pent. 7 times, (Judg. xi. 37, 38); 7999 (Neh. (Judg. xvi. 9); ↑puj (Isa. Ixvi. 17). The usage of two different words for prince should be noted in this connection: 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, (occurring in all 43 times) is used but once in Ezekiel and not at all in the Pentateuch. 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 worship 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 immediately 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 required 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 people and an important factor in their temple worship, it is simply impossible 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 himself. 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 * 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 elsewhere 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 everything, except negatively in so far as data are wanting to show in some respects what were the customs of the more ancient time. This deficiency 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 Israel, during the captivity in Babylon, the prophet F.zekiel comes forward and in a remarkable vision sets forth a general scheme of theocratic laws and worship. His scheme presents incidentally many obvious allusions to the Levitical laws, but in its direct enactments 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 impetus 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. |