Imagini ale paginilor

I pass

the Israelites, and that it was incorporated into the prepatriarchal narrative after the exile?

Ezekiel has three different representations of the cherub: 1. xxviii. 14, which seems to be derived from the figure in Solomon's templethe epithet "covering" being suggested by the fact that the cherubim "covered" the mercy-seat with their wings (1 K. viii. 7; Ex. xxv. 20), the "anointed" either referring solely to the king, or a general epithet of the cherub as a part of the sanctuary which was consecrated by anointing (Ex. xl. 9)—the "holy mountain of God” may be the temple-hill, or it may be specially a designation of the altar with its burning coals or "stones of fire” (cp. Isa. vi. 6); in xlii. 15 the altar is called "mountain of God” (

597) and "hearth of God” (6828 or 5928) as being the center and essence of the sacrificial service; in the midst of this hearth the cherub is said to walk as the representative of God himself or of his ideally perfect creature and minister. It does not appear what the form of this cherub was except that it was winged, and the Babylonian monuments present nothing similar to it. it by, therefore, with the single remark that, as a Phenician was the designer of Solomon's temple, it is not likely that its cherub-figure came from Egypt, it was more probably Babylonian in its origin, though we are unable to give proofs of such an origin, and that, as to the cherub of Exodus in the Tabernacle, our opinion of its form will depend on our view of the date and historical value of the descriptions of that book. 2. In Ezekiel's opening vision the cherub-face is identified in one place (x. 14) with that of the ox, though in the same connection the name cherub is given to the complex living creature with its four faces of ox, man, lion and eagle (ver. 1, 3, &c.)—the feet were those of a calf, but the general appearance was human. 3. In the description of the temple (xli. 18, 19) the cherub carved on the walls had only two faces, lion and human, and this is all that is said of it. It may be assumed that these last two forms were of Babylonian origin; Lenormant gives satisfactory proof of this in his "Origines de l'histoire," ch. iii. It is not necessarily true that the cherub-forms were bodily copies of Babylonian figures—the prophet may have got from these only the suggestion of composite creatures, and fashioned his material to suit the symbolism he had in mind. But the whole conception of this symbolism seems to be Babylonian in form, though the lofty moral and religious ideas attached to it by the prophet are the product of Israelitish thought.

4. One other point may be suggested--whether Ezekiel got a hint or impulse towards a more completely organized religious cultus and ritual from the Babylonians. There is extant no codification of the

priestly ritual before the exile—we are left to gather its details from the rare and brief statements of the historical books and the psalms. While in the book of Deuteronomy we have the Tora as it was conceived by the prophets in the early part of Josiah's reign or perhaps a half-century before, and in Leviticus the fully developed priestly ritual of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and later, we find only in Ezekiel any formal statement of temple-ritual in the times preceding Ezra's visit to Jerusalem from Babylon. That there was such a ritual we may take it for granted, and we may be equally sure that Ezekiel's sketch was not inferior in fulness of elaboration to what existed before him. What led him to draw up this complete scheme of templeservice, found in chs. xliii. -xlvi. of his book ? Jeremiah, in whom, however, the priest seems to have been sunk in the prophet, thought of nothing of this sort. Hilkiah, who was high-priest under Josiah when the book of the Tora was found in the temple, attempted no codification--this was left to the priest-prophet of the Babylonian exile.

Now there was undoubtedly a good deal in the circumstances of the time to force on Ezekiel's attention the necessity of some such rigid ritual scheme of national life as he gives in the last chapters of his book. The nation seemed to him going to pieces politically, and morally and religiously; the main reason of this was their faithlessness to their God, their neglect of his worship, and this worship would be secured by a strict temple-law. The restored nation must be guided by a more definite rule of service than had hitherto existed.

This is true. Yet it is worth while to ask whether the idea of presenting this better defined scheme was not fostered and brought to maturity by the ecclesiastical system of the people among whom he, was living. We have already seen reason to believe that he was in somewhat close contact with them, that he had opportunity of knowing their customs, that he possibly admired and honored this nation whose dread king was so potent an instrument in the hands of the God of Israel for carrying out his designs, The Jews were never in these early times, as they have never since been, averse to getting suggestions from their neighbors. In Ezekiel's time the Babylonian cultus was not only elaborate, but was recorded in books. The numerous and splendid ceremonies, the offerings, the interpretation of omens, the celebration of feast-days of deities required the constant care of a host of priests, who were supported by the gifts of the worshipers and from the property attached to the temples. It was a religious organization far in advance of that which existed in Israel, and it would not be strange if acquaintance with so well arranged a

system suggested to the prophet the desirability of something like it for his own people.

There are not data for a detailed comparison between Ezekiel's scheme and the Babylonian temple-organization, nor is it likely that he took from the latter much more than the general idea. The materials were already at hand in existing customs, which he had merely to develop and systematize. The provision that would most naturally suggest a borrowing is the assignment of land near the temple to the priests—an arrangement that then existed in Babylon, but seems not to have existed in Israel up to that time.

So far as appears, the movement for a stricter ritual, which culminated in Ezra's visit to Jerusalem, originated with Ezekiel. Its influence on the succeeding history of the Jews is familiar—it gathered up the formal elements of the nation's religious life into a mass, and carried it on to the point that called for the prophetic protest of John the Baptist, and the completion of Israel's spiritual development in Jesus Christ.

It is hardly necessary to remark that such a borrowing as this in no wise detracts from the true religious originality of Israel. The nation cast the materials thus gained from other peoples into the crucible of its own thought, and thence produced ideas, whose superiority to those of the Babylonians is demonstrated by the history of the world. To trace the genesis of Jewish religious forms and ideas is to follow the guidance of God by which the Jews became the religious teachers of the world and prepared the way for Jesus of Nazareth. Whatever the seed, and whatever the soil into which it was cast, the fruit was no less the creation of the Divine maker of all things, in whose hands all the experiences of Israel were fashioned into a form destined to be one of the great educating influences of the race.

On the Use of and Kapồia in the Old and New



The word », with its cognates, »ş?, &c, designates the heart, in the first place, of course, as the physical organ, the centre of life; and one is tempted to suspect some genetical relation to the German Leben and our English word “life.” Then, it stands for the central part in general, the inside, and so for the interior man as manifesting himself in all his various activities, in his desires, affections, emotions, passions, purposes, his thoughts, perceptions, imaginations, his wisdom, knowledge, skill, his beliefs and his reasonings, his memory and his consciousness. It is not especially confined to the feelings and moral acts in distinction from the intellectual, except as there is more frequent occasion for its use in the former application than in the latter. It designates the central basis for the functions of the whole inner man.

These words, 35, 25, &c., are more frequently translated “mind” in our received version of the Old Testament than any other word, including such cases as “dead man out of mind,” “ bring to mind," “remember or come to mind,” “this I recall to mind,” &c. For this purpose, wɔ, and come next in frequency.

Under 25 are included such expressions as “imagination of the thoughts of his heart," "imagination of man's heart," Gen. vi. 5; viii. 21; also in Zechariah and in Jeremiah many times; "said in his heart,” Gen. xvii. 17; “speaking in my heart,” xxiv. 45; “wisehearted,"i. e. skilful, Exod. xxxi. 6; “wisdom of heart,” xxxv. 35; "in whose heart the Lord hath put wisdom,” i. e. skill, xxxvi. 2 ;


"an heart to perceive," Deut. xxix. 4 ; "in the imagination of mine heart," xxix. 19; "told all his heart," i. e. all he knew, Jud. xvi. 17; "an understanding heart,” yow a5, 1 Kings iii. 9; "I have given thee a wise heart," ii. 12 ; "feignest them out of thine own heart," Neh. vi. 8; "meditation of my heart, ”Ps. xix. 14; xlix. 3; "thoughts of his heart,” xxxiii. II; “heart inditing a good matter," xlv. I; “write on the table of thine heart,” Prov. iii. 3 ; "thine heart retain my words,” iv. 4 ; “ heart seeketh knowledge,” xv. 14 ; "a man's heart deviseth his way,” xvi. 9; "my heart had great experience of wisdom," Eccles. i. 16; "a wise man's heart discerneth both time,” &c., viii. 5; "consider in his heart,” Isa. xliv. 19.

295 is used in such cases as "consider in thine heart,” Deut. iv. 39; “thought in thy heart,” xv. 9; "ye know in all your hearts," Josh. xxiii. 14; “understand with their heart,” Isa. vi. 10; "heart of the rash shall understand,” xxxii. 4 ; "thoughts of thy heart," Dan. ii. 30; “beast's heart given,” iv. 16: V. 21 : and vii. 4; “shut their hearts (fem. pl.) that they cannot understand," Isa.. xliv. 18.

who is used for the affections quite as familiarly as , and, in that sense, is translated sometimes" heart," but generally "soul."

If it be said, as to the connection of >> with wisdom, that, in the Proverbs and elsewhere, wisdom is a moral quality, and so in the sense of the affections is appropriately used with it ; let it be observed

>, dom, and that in the most striking cases, as (1'3,)“Oye simple, understand wisdom,” Prov. viii. 5; (D) “Get understanding, “with all thy getting, get understanding," iv. 5 and iv. 7 ; "counsel is mine, I am understanding,” viii. 14 ; "the knowledge of the holy is understanding,” ix. 10; (70) "bow thine ear to my understanding,” v. 1 ; "and understanding put forth her voice,” viii. 1; “a man of understanding hath wisdom," (note that it is not the converse), x. 23; "a man of understanding walketh uprightly,” xv. 21 ; “is of an excellent spirit,” xvii. 27. So Isa. xi. 2, of wisdom and understanding” (727); and "ye fools, be of an understanding heart," (39), Prov. viii. 5.

-are also used in connection with this wis תְבוּנָה and ,בִּינָה בין that

" the spirit

« ÎnapoiContinuați »