Journal of Biblical
Literature 1 (1881) 172-205.
Public Domain
The Relation of
Ezekiel to the Levitical Law.
BY PROF. FREDERIC GARDINER,
In the discussions which have arisen
of late years about the origin
and
date of the Mosaic legislation it has been generally recognized
that
the book of Ezekiel, especially in its later chapters, has a peculiar
importance.
The traditional view regards the laws of the Pentateuch
as
having been given through Moses to the Israelites soon after their
Exodus
from
their
more or less perfectly observed standard of ecclesiastical law and
religious
ceremonial; the view of several modern critics, on the other
hand,
is that this legislation was of gradual development, having its
starting
point, indeed, quite far back in the ages of
but
reaching its full development only in the times succeeding the
Babylonian
exile. Especially, the exclusive limitation of the func-
tions of the priesthood to the Aaronic
family, and the distinction
between
the priests and their brethren of the tribe of Levi, as well as
the
cycle of the feasts and other like matters, are held by these critics
to
be of post-exilic origin.
The writings of a priest who lived
during the time of the exile, and
who
devotes a considerable part of his book to an ideal picture of the
restored
theocracy, its temple, its worship, and the arrangement of
the
tribes, cannot fail to be of deep significance in its bearing upon
this
question. Certain facts in regard to Ezekiel are admitted by all:
he
was himself a priest (i. 3); he had been carried into
captivity not
before
he had reached early manhood; and, whether he had himself
ministered
in the priest's office at
asserts,
Relig. of Israel, vol. ii. p. 105) or not, he
was certainly thor-
oughly conversant with the ceremonial as there
practiced and with the
duties
of the priesthood; further, he began his prophecies a few years
after
Zedekiah was carried into captivity, and continued them until
near
the middle of the Babylonian exile, the last nine chapters being
dated
"in the 25th year of our captivity," which corresponds with the
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 173
33d
of Nebuchadrezzar's reign. If any development of
gion, therefore, were going on during the captivity,
it must have been
already
well advanced at the time of this vision. So far there is a
general
agreement. The main point necessarily follows:--that in
such
case Ezekiel's vision must present an intermediate stage on the
line
of progress from that which we certainly know to have existed
before
to that which we know, with equal certainty, was practiced
afterwards.
It is indeed theoretically
conceivable that in the course of this
development
of religion Ezekiel may have been a strange, erratic
genius,
who was both regardless of the traditions of his fathers and
was
without influence upon the course of his successors; but such
strange
estimation of him is entertained by no one, and needs no
refutation.
It would be contradicted by his birth, his position as a
prophet,
his evident estimation among his contemporaries, and his
relations
to his fellow prophet-priest, Jeremiah. It may be assumed
that
his writings were an important factor in whatever religious devel-
opment actually occurred.
This argument is the more important
on account of the great
weight
attached by some critics to the argument e
silentio. This argu-
ment can be only of limited application in regard to
historical books,
fully;
occupied as they are with other matters, and only occasionally and
incidentally
alluding to existing ecclesiastical laws and customs; but it
is
plainly of great importance in this prophetical setting forth of quite
a
full and detailed ecclesiastical scheme. The omission of references
to
any ritual law or feast or ceremony in the historical books can occa-
sion no surprise, and afford no just presumption
against the existence
of
such rites and ceremonies, unless some particular reason can be
alleged
why they should have been mentioned; but a corresponding
omission
from the pages of Ezekial is good evidence either
that the
thing
omitted was too familiar to require mention, or else that he
purposely
excluded it from his scheme. In other words, it shows
that
what he omits, as compared with the mosaic law, was either
already
entirely familiar to him and to the people; or else that the
law
he sets forth was, in these particulars, different from the Mosaic
law.
To illustrate by an example: There can be no question that
circumcision
was a fundamental rite of the religion of the Israelites,
practiced
in all ages of their history; yet, after the Pentateuch and
the
few first chapters of Joshua, there is no mention of it, and the
words
circumcise, circumcised, circumcision,
do not occur in the sacred
literature
down to the time of Jeremiah; neither does the word fore-
skin, except in connection
with David's giving the foreskins of the
174 JOURNAL.
Philistines
as dowry for Michal (I Sam. xviii. 25, 27; 2 Sam.
iii. 14).
Even
uncircumcised, as a designation of
the enemies of
only
nine times (Judg. xiv. 3; xv. 18; I Sam. xiv. 6;
xviii. 26, 36;.
xxxi.
4; 2 Sam. i. 20; i Chron. x. 4; Isa. lii. 1) in the interval,
and
several of these passages are considered by the critics to be of
later
date; neither is there any allusion to circumcision in Ezekiel,
except
the mention of the stranger “uncircumcised in heart and un-
circumcised
in flesh" (xliv. 7, 9). Of course, the reason for this, in
both
cases, is that the law of circumcision was so familiar and the
practice
so universal that there was no occasion for its mention. On the
other
hand, the fast of the day of atonement is not mentioned either in
the
historical books or in Ezekiel. We are not surprised at its omis-
sion from the former, nor "can this cast any
shade of doubt on its
observance,
unless some passage can be shown in which it would have
been
likely to bespoken of; but we can only account for its being
passed
over in the cycle of the festivals in Ezekiel on the supposition
that
it formed no part of his scheme, while yet, as will be shown
farther
on, there, are indications that he recognizes it, in his other
arrangements,
as existing in his time.
While abundant references to the Mosaic law may
be found in
every
part of Ezekiel,* it has seemed best to confine the present
investigation
to the last nine chapters, both because these are by far
the
most important in this connection, and also because these have
been
chiefly used in the discussion of the subject.
Unfortunately,
there
is a difference of opinion in regard to the general interpretation
of
these chapters. Some will have them to be literally understood as
the
expression of the prophet's hope and expectation of what was
actually
to be; more generally the vision is looked upon as a figur-
ative description of the future glory of the church,
clothed, as all
such
descriptions must necessarily be, in the familiar images of the
past.
A determination of this question is not absolutely necessary to
the
present discussion, but is so closely connected with it, and the
argument
will be so much clearer when this has first been examined
that
it will be well to give briefly some of the reasons for considering
Ezekiel's
language in this passage to be figurative. †
It is evident that Ezekiel's
description differs too widely from the
past
to allow of the supposition that it is historical; and written at a
*For a very ample list of quotations
and allusions to the law in Eze-
ing, &c. By Rufus P. Stebbins,
†
This question is treated more fully in my notes upon these chapters
in
Bp. Ellicott's Commentary for English
Readers.
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 175
time
when the temple lay in ashes and the land desolate, it cannot
refer
to the present. It must then have reference to the future. The
presumption
is certainly that it portrays an ideal future, because the
whole
was seen “in the visions of God” (xl. 2), an expression which
Ezekiel
always applies to a symbolic representation rather than to an
actual
image of things (cf. i. I; viii. 3; also xi. 24, and
xliii. 3).
Moreover,
if it is to be literally understood, it must portray a state of
things
to be realized either in the near future, or else at a time still in
advance
of our own day. If the former, as is supposed by a few
commentators,
it is plain that the prophecy was never fulfilled, and
remains
a monument of magnificent purposes unaccomplished. The
attempt
to explain this by the theory that the returning exiles found
themselves
too few and feeble to carry out the prophet's whole designs,
and
therefore concluded to postpone them altogether to a more con-
venient season, must be regarded as an entire
failure. For one of
two
suppositions must be adopted, both of them leading to the same
result:
either that of the negative critics--that certain great features of
the
Mosaic law, such as the distinction between the priests and
Levites
and the general priestly legislation, had their origin with
Ezekiel;
and in this case it is inconceivable that, while adopting this,
no
attention should have been paid to the authority of this great
prophet
in other matters; or else we must accept the commonly
received
view, that the Mosaic law was earlier, and is here profoundly
modified
by Ezekiel. In the latter case, however much the returning
exiles
might have been disappointed in their circumstances, yet if they
understood
the prophet literally, they must have looked forward to
the
accomplishment of his designs in the future, and would naturally
have
been anxious to order the restored theocracy on his plan, as far
as
they could, from the first, to avoid the necessity of future changes;
and
a large part of the scheme, such as the cycle of the feasts, the
ordering
of the sacrifices, &c., was quite within their power. In
either
case, if the vision is to be taken literally, it is inexplicable that
there
should be no reference to it in the historical books of Ezra and
Nehemiah
and the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, which all
relate
to this period, and describe the return and settlement in the
land,
and the rebuilding of the temple.
It is scarcely necessary to speak of
a literal fulfilment still in the
future.
Ordinarily it is difficult to say that any state of things may
not
possibly be realised in the future; but here there
are features of
the
prophecy, and those neither of a secondary nor incidental charac-
ter, which enable us to assert positively that
their literal fulfilment
would
be a plain contradiction of the Divine revelation. It is impos-
176 JOURNAL.
sible to conceive, in view of the whole relations
between the old and
new
dispensations, that animal sacrifices can ever be restored by
Divine
command and with acceptance to God. And, it may be added,
it
is equally impossible to suppose that the church of the future, pro-
gressing in the liberty wherewith Christ has made
it free, should ever
return
to "the weak and beggarly elements" of Jewish bondage here
set
forth.
Having thus alluded to these general
presumptions, we are pre-
pared
to look at those particular indications which have been intro-
duced into the prophecy itself as if to show that it
is to be under-
stood
ideally. I do not propose to speak of those more general
indications,
such as the regularity of proportions and forms, the sym-
metry of measurements &c., which here, as in the
later chapters of
the
apocalypse, give to almost every reader a somewhat indefinable
but
very strong impression of the ideality of the whole description;
but
will confine myself to statements which admit of definite tests in
regard
to their literalness.
In the first place, the connection
between the temple and the city
of
the
thought of every pious Israelite, is so close that, a prophecy inci-
dentally
separating them, without any distinct statement of the fact or
of
the reason for so doing, could hardly have been intended, or have
been
understood literally. Yet in this passage the temple is described
as
at a distance of nearly nine and a half miles from the utmost
bound
of the city, or about fourteen and a quarter miles from its centre.*
A temple in any other locality than
the
temple of Jewish hope and association. The location of Ezekiel's
temple
depends upon whether the equal portions of land assigned to
*This holds true, however the tribe
portions of the land and the
“oblation”
are located; for the priests' portion of the "oblation," in the
midst
of which the sanctuary is placed, (xlviii. 10) is 10,000 reeds, or
about
nineteen miles broad; to the south of this (xlviii. 15-17) is a strip
of
land of half the width, in which the city is situated, occupying with
its
"suburbs " its whole width. These distances, in their exactness,
depend
upon the length of the cubit which is variously estimated. For
the
purposes of this discussion it is taken at a convenient average of the
conflicting
estimates, viz: 20 inches. If it were a little more
or a little
less
the general argument would remain the same. There should
also
be noticed the view of a few writers (Henderson on xlv. 1; Hengs-
tenberg on xlv. 1, and a few others) that the
dimensions given in this
chapter
are to be understood of cubits and not of reeds; but this is so
generally
rejected, and is in itself so improbable that it seems to require
no
discussion. Even if adopted, it would only change the amount of
the
distance and would still leave the temple quite outside the city and
separated
from it by a considerable space.
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 177
each
of the tribes in ch. xlviii. were actually equal in
area, or were
only
strips of equal width. The latter view is, so far as I know,
adopted
by all commentators. On this supposition Ezekiel's city
would
be several miles north of
of
that, would be well on the road to
supposition,
it would fall nearly in the latitude of
In either case, the temple, with its
precincts, is described as a mile
square,
or larger than the whole ancient city of
12
it is expressly said "that the whole limit thereof round about" is
"upon
the top of the mountain." But without pressing this, it is
hardly
possible that the precincts of any actual temple could be in-
tended
to embrace such a variety of hill and valley as would be
involved.
Moreover, the description of the
"oblation" itself is physically
impossible.
The boundaries of the land are expressly said to be the
15-2
1). The eastern boundary is not formed by an indefinite exten-
sion into the desert, but is distinctly declared to
be the
above
that, the boundaries of Hauran and
tially the same with that given in Num. xxxiv. 10-12,
and in both
cases
excludes the trans-Jordanic territory which was not a
part of
half
tribes had been allowed to settle with some reluctance (Num.
xxxii.
). Now, if the portions of the tribes were of equal width, the
"oblation"
could not have been extended so far south as the mouth
of
the
according
to the English "exploration fund" maps, is only 55 miles.
Measuring
northwards from this point the width of the oblation, 47 1/3
miles,
a point is reached where the distance between the river and the
sea
is only 40 miles. It is impossible therefore that the oblation itself
should
be included between them, and the description requires that
there
should also be room left for the prince's portion at either end.
It
has been suggested that the prophet might have had in mind meas-
urements made on the uneven surface of the soil
or along the usual
routes
of travel; but both these suppositions are absolutely excluded
by
the symmetry and squareness of this description.
Again: the city of the vision is
described as the great city of the
restored
theocracy; but, as already said, it cannot be placed geo-
graphically
upon the site of
be
understood ideally, or else a multitude of other prophecies, and
notably
many of Ezekiel which speak of
must
be so interpreted. There is no good reason why both may not
178 JOURNAL.
be
figurative, but it is impossible to take both literally; for some of
them
make statements in regard to the future quite as literal in form
as
these, and yet in direct conflict with them. Such prophecies, both
in
Ezekiel and in the other prophets, in regard to
familiar
to need citation; yet one, on a similar point, from a prophet
not
much noticed, may be given as an illustration. Obadiah (accord-
ing to some authorities, a contemporary of Ezekiel)
foretells (ver. 19)
that
at the restoration "Benjamin shall possess
ing to Ezekiel,
Benjamin's
territory is to be immediately south of the " oblation."
Again,
Obadiah (ver. 20) says, "The captivity of
in
distinction from "the captivity of the host of the children of
must
refer to the two tribes) " shall possess the cities of the south";
but
according to
tral "oblation," and four other tribes are
to have their portions south
of
them. Such instances might easily be multiplied. It must surely
be
a false exegesis which makes the prophets gratuitously contradict
each
other and even contradict themselves (as in this case of Obadiah)
almost
in the same sentence.
The division of the land among the
twelve tribes; the assignment
to
the priests and the Levites of large landed estates, and to the
former
as much as to the latter; the enormous size of the temple
precincts
and of the city, with the comparatively small allotment of
land
for its support, are all so singular, and so entirely destitute of
either
historical precedent or subsequent realization, that only the
clearest
evidence would justify the assumption that these things were
intended
to be literally carried out. No regard is paid to the differ-
ing numbers of the tribes, but--as if to set forth
an ideal equality-
an
equal strip of land is assigned to each; and, the trans-Jordanic
territory
being excluded and about one-fifth of the whole land being
set
apart as an "oblation," the portion remaining allows to each of
the
tribes only about two-thirds as much territory as, on the average,
they
had formerly possessed. The geographical order of the tribes is
also
extremely singular, and bears all the marks of ideality. More-
over,
nearly the whole territory assigned to Zebulon and Gad is
habitable
only by nomads.
A further difficulty with the
literal interpretation may be found in
the
description of the waters which issued from under the eastern
threshold
of the temple (xlvii. 1-1 2). This difficulty is so great that
some
commentators, who have adopted generally a literal interpreta-
tion, have found themselves constrained to resort
here to the figurative;
but
on the whole, it has been recognized that the vision is essentially
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 179
one,
and that it would be unreasonable to give a literal interpretation
to
one part of it and a figurative to another. The waters of the vision
run
to the "east country," and go down "'to the sea," which can
only
be
the
without
changes in the surface of the earth, since the location of the
temple
of the vision is on the west of the water-shed of the country.*
They
had, moreover, the effect of "healing" the waters of the sea,
an
effect which could not be produced naturally without providing an
outlet
from the sea, and Ezekiel (xlvii. 11) excludes the idea of an
outlet.
No supply of fresh water could remove the saltness,
while
this
was all disposed of by evaporation. But, setting aside minor
difficulties,
the character of the waters themselves is impossible, ex-
cept by a perpetual miracle. Without insisting upon
the strangeness
of
a spring of this magnitude upon the top of "a very high moun-
tain" (xl. 2; cf. also xliii. 12), at the
distance of 1,000 cubits from
their
source, the waters have greatly increased in volume; and so
with
each successive 1,000 cubits, until at the end of 4,000 (about a
mile
and a half) they have become a river no longer fordable, or, in
other
words, comparable to the
accessory
streams, is clearly not natural. Beyond all this, the descrip-
tion of the waters themselves clearly marks them as
ideal. They are
life-giving
and healing; trees of perennial foliage and fruit grow upon
their
banks, the leaves being for "medicine," and the fruit, although
for
food, never wasting. The reader cannot fail to be reminded of
"the
pure river of water of life" in Rev. xxii. I, 2. " on either
side"
of
which was " the tree of life," with " its twelve manner of
fruits"
and
its leaves " for the healing of the nations." The author of the
Ayocalypse evidently had this passage in mind; and
just as he has
seized
upon the description of Gog and Magog
in chaps. xxxviii.,
xxxix.,
as an ideal description, and applied it to the events of the
future,
so he has treated this as an ideal prophecy, and applied it to
the
Church triumphant.
Finally, it should be remembered
that this whole vision is inti-
mately bound together, and all objections which lie
against a literal
interpretation
of any one part, lie also against the whole. Additional
reasons
for spiritual interpretation will incidentally appear in the fol-
lowing
pages.
If it is now asked--and this seems
to be the chosen ground of the
*This is true with any possible
location of the "oblation"; for the
central
point between the
western
water-shed at every locality from the head waters of the
to
the extremity of the
180 JOURNAL.
literal
interpreters--why then is this prophecy given with such a
wealth
of minute material detail? the answer is obvious, that this is
thoroughly
characteristic of Ezekiel. The tendency to a use of con-
crete imagery, strongly marked in every part of his
book, merely cul-
minates in this closing vision. The two previous
chapters, especially,
have
abounded in definite material details of the attack of a great host
upon
the
show
that they were not meant to be literally understood, and that
the
whole prophecy was intended to shadow forth the great and final
spiritual
conflict, prolonged through ages, between the power of the
world
and the
set
forth the glory, the purity, and the beneficent influence of the
church
of the future, clothes his description in those terms of the past
with
which his hearers were familiar. The use of such terms was a
necessity
in making himself intelligible to his contemporaries; just as
to
the very close of the inspired volume it is still necessary to set forth
the
glory and joy of the church triumphant under the figures of earthly
and
familiar things, but no one is misled thereby to imagine that the
heavenly
1,500
miles high (Rev. xxi, 16, 18), or that its 12 gates shall be each
of
an actual pearl. At the same time the prophet is careful to intro-
duce
among his details so many impossible points as to show that his
description
must be ideal, and its realisation be sought for
beneath
the
types and shadows in which it is clothed. It may be as impossi-
ble to find the symbolical meaning of each separate
detail as it is to
tell
the typical meaning of the sockets for the boards of the tabernacle
although
the tabernacle as a whole is expressly said to have been a
type.
This is the case with every vision, and parable, and type, and
every
form of setting forth truth by imagery; there must necessarily
be
much which has no independent signification, but is merely sub-
sidiary to the main point. Ezekiel's purpose was
so far understood
by
his contemporaries, that they never made any attempt to carry out
his
descriptions in the rebuilding of the temple and the reconstruct
tion of the State. The idea of a literal
interpretation of his words was
reserved
for generations long distant from his time, from the forms of
the
church under which he lived, and from the circumstances and
habits
of expression with which he was familiar, and under the
influence
of which he wrote.
With this unavoidably prolonged
discussion the ground is cleared
for
a comparison of the cultus
set forth in this vision of Ezekiel with
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 181
that
commanded in the Mosaic law, and an examination of the rela-
tion between them. This discussion is embarrassed by
the difficulty
of
finding any historical data which will be universally accepted. If
we
might assume that any of the older historical books of the Old
Testament
were as trustworthy as ordinary ancient histories making
no
claim to inspiration, or that the books of most of the prophets
were
not pious frauds, the task would be greatly simplified. As it is,
I
shall endeavor to conduct the examination on the basis of such
obvious
facts as would abe admitted by the authors of what
seem to
the
writer such strange romances as Kuenen's
"Religion of Israel"
and
"Prophets and Prophecy in
The first point to which attention
may be called is the landed prop-
erty of the priests and Levites. According to the
Mosaic law, they
had
no inheritance of land like the other tribes, but merely scattered
cities
for residence; and were to depend for support, partly upon their
portion
of the sacrifices, and chiefly upon the tithes of the people.
While
the payment of these tithes was commanded, there was abso-
lutely no provision for enforcing their payment. This
rested entirely
upon
moral obligation, and the condition of the whole Levitical
tribe
was thus dependent upon the conscientiousness of the Israelites.
When
the sense of religious obligation was strong, they would be
well
provided for; when it was weak, they would be in want. And
this
is exactly what appears from the general course of the history, as
well
as from such special narratives as are universally admitted to be
of
great antiquity. (See Judg. xvii. 7-18, &c.) Now,
after the
exile,
at a time when there can be no question in regard to the facts,
we
find the priests and Levites similarly unprovided
with landed
property.
The Mosaic law, the condition of things before the exile
and
after, agree together; but Ezekiel represents a totally different
state
of things. He assigns two strips of territory, one to the priests
and
the other to the Levites, each of nearly the same size as the
allotment
to any of the tribes (xlviii. 9-14). This very small tribe
would
thus have had almost twice as much land as any other; and
such
a provision would obviously have profoundly modified the whole
state
and relations of the priestly order and of the subordinate Levites.
In
this point, therefore, we find that if any process of development
was
going on in the ecclesiastical system of
*Substantially the same views,
especially in relation to Ezekiel, are
taken
by Graf (Die Gesehichtl.
Bucher des alien Test.), Smend (Der
Prophet Ezechiel), and others, with sundry variations in detail;
but as
Kuenen is the author most widely known, and presents
his theories in
the
most favorable point of view, the references of this paper will be
confined
to his works.
182 JOURNAL.
leave
the final result just what it had been before, while the system of
Ezekiel,
which, on that supposition, should be a middle term be-
tween the two, is entirely foreign to both of them.
There are other noteworthy points
involved in the same provision.
According
to Deut. xix. 2-9 three cities, and conditionally another
three,
and according to Num. xxxv. 9-15 the whole six, were to be
selected
from the cities of the Levites and appointed as cities of refuge
in
case of unintentional manslaughter. The same provision is
alluded
to in Ex. xxi. 13, 14, and it plainly forms an essential feature
of
the whole Mosaic law in regard to manslaughter and murder.
After
the conquest, according to Josh. xxi. this command was exe-
cuted and the cities were distributed as widely as
possible in different
parts
of the land, three of them on either side of the
ern side being considered as an extension of the
land not included in
the
original promise and therefore bringing into force the conditional
requirement
of Deuteronomy.* But by the arrangement
of Ezekiel,
the
Levites were not to have cities scattered through the land, and their
central
territory could not afford the necessary ease of access from the
distant
parts. There is here therefore an essential difference in regard
to
the whole law in reference to manslaughter and murder, and it is
plain
that the Mosaic law in this point could not have been devised
from
Ezekiel.
But besides this obvious inference,
it is in the highest degree im-
probable
that this provision of the Mosaic law could have originated
after
the captivity, when it would have been entirely unsuited to the
political
condition of the people. Still more, it is inconceivable
that
the record of the execution of this law by Joshua could have been
invented
after the time of Ezekiel; for neither in his vision is any such
selection
of cities indicated, nor in the actual territorial arrangement
of
the restoration was there any opportunity therefor.
Yet the same
account
which records the selection (incidentally mentioned in con-
nection with each city as it is reached in the
list) clearly recognizes
the
distinction between the priests and the Levites (Josh. xxi.) This
distinction
then must have been older than Ezekiel.
In quite another point Ezekiel's
assignment of territory, taken in
connection
with Numbers and Joshua, has an important bearing upon
the
antiquity of the distinction between priests and Levites. Accord-
ing to the Mosaic law the priests were a higher
order ecclesiastically
*Deuteronomy was indeed written
after the conquest of the trans-
Jordanic territory; but it was immediately after,
and when this territory
was
yet hardly considered as the home of the tribes. Some writers
prefer
to consider the number of six cities as fixed and the three con-
ditional, which in their view were never set
apart, as making nine.
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 183
than
the Levites and in accordance with this position, were provided
with
a more ample income; for being much less than a tenth of the
tribe,
the priests received a tenth of the income of all the other Levites
(Num.
xviii. 25-28). Both these facts are in entire accordance with
the
relations of the priests and Levites in post-exilic times; but they
are
at variance with those relations as set forth in Joshua, if that be
post-exilic,
and also with Ezekiel considered as a preparatory stage of
the
legislation of the Pentateuch. Of course, the whole body of the
Levites
must have been originally many times more numerous than
the
members of the single family of Aaron, and if Joshua xxi. be very
ancient
we need not be surprised that the 48 Levitical cities
provided
for
in Numbers (xxxv. 1-7) should have been given, 13 to the priests
and
35 to the other Levites (Josh. xxi.); for this gave to the priests
individually
a much larger proportion than to the Levites. The same
thing
is true of the provision made by Ezekiel. The equal strips of
land
given to the priests collectively and to the Levites collectively,
gave
much more to the former individually. But all this would have
been
entirely untrue after the exile. In the census of the returning
exiles,
given in both Ezra and Nehemiah, the number of priests is set
down
as 4289 (Ezra ii. 36-38; Neh. vii. 39-42), while that
of the
Levites--even
including the Nethinim--is
733, or but little more than
one-sixth
of that number (Ez. ii. 40-58; in Neh.
vii, 43-60 the
number
is 752).* It may indeed be argued that
Ezekiel has no re-
gard to the actual numbers of the two bodies, but
writing at an early
stage
of the process of separation between the priests and the Levites,
intends
to put them upon a precise equality; and that only at a later
period
was the pecuniary provision for the Levites made inferior to
that
of the priests. If this be so, then Joshua xxi, must be post-
exilic;
for in its whole arrangement it clearly recognizes the distinc-
tion and the superiority of the priests. Yet this
gives 35 cities to the
very
few Levites and only 13 to the comparatively numerous priests-
*Kuenen (Relig. of Isr. Vol.
II. p. 203, 204) and his school undertake
to
explain this disparity of numbers by the supposition that the Levites
were
" degraded priests " of which he thinks he finds evidence in Ezek.
xliv.
10-16. For the present point this is quite immaterial; all that is
here
required is admitted by him--the fact of the great disparity in num-
bers. But the supposition itself is quite
gratuitous, and rests upon two
unfounded
assumptions: (I) that "the Levites" in ver.
10 cannot be
used
kat
] e]coxh<n for the priests--a point to be spoken of
elsewhere; and
(2)
that the "sons of Zadok " ver. 15, is synonymous with "sons of
Aaron,"
which is not true. The simple and natural explanation of the
passage
in Ezekiel is that the prophet means to degrade the priests who
have
been guilty of idolatry. (See Curtiss' The Levitical
Priests p.
74-77.)
184 JOURNAL.
in
other words is self-contradictory. In this respect the bearing of
Ezekiel
is plain; it makes the Mosaic law and the history of Joshua,
consistent
if they were ancient, but inconsistent and self-contradictory
if
Ezekiel's vision was a stage in the late differentiation of the priests
from
the Levites.
We are now prepared to go a step
further. It is agreed on all sides,
that
Ezekiel recognizes a distinction between the priests and the
Levites.
To an ordinary reader of his book it appears that he makes
this
recognition incidentally and as a matter of course, as of an old,
familiar,
and established distinction. He nowhere states that -there
shall
be such a distinction, nor gives any grounds upon which it shall
rest,
nor describes who shall be included in the one body and who in
the
other, except that he confines the priests to "the sons of Zadok",
(xl.
46; xliii. 19; xliv. 15; xlviii. 11), of which more will be said
presently.
Certainly this does not look, upon the face of it, like the
original
institution of this distinction. But Kuenen (Relig. of Isr.
vol.
2 p. 116) asserts that at the time of Josiah's reformation, "all,
the
Levites, without exception, were considered qualified to serve as
priests
of Jahweh," and that "Ezekiel is the first
to desire other rules
for
the future;" and that the priestly laws of the Pentateuch, of which
he
had no knowledge, were subsequent. Again he says (ib,
p. 153)
Ezekiel,
in uttering his wishes as to the future, made a beginning
of
committal to writing of the priestly tradition. The priests in Bab-
ylonia went on in, his footsteps. A first essay in priestly legis-
lation--remains of which have been preserved to us in
Lev. xviii-xxvi.
--was
followed by others, until at last a complete system arose, con-
tained in an historical frame. Possessed of this
system, the priestly
exiles,
and among them Ezra in particular, could consider themselves
entitled
and called upon to come forward as teachers in
to
put in practice the ordinances which hitherto had been exclusively
of
theoretical interest to them."* These passages are cited from
Kuenen simply to bring distinctly before the mind the
theory which
has
recently gained acceptance with an intelligent school of critics;
it
is the bearing upon this of the vision of Ezekiel which we are to
consider.
The question to be asked is whether the more careful ex-
amination of this vision bears out the prima facie
impression produced
by
it, or confirms the somewhat elaborate theory of Kuenen.
There can be no manner of doubt that
in Ezekiel's time they
already
existed two classes of persons known respectively as “priests”
* He admits that the distinction is
recognized in 1 Kings viii. 4, but
says
this is merely in consequence of a clerical error." Relig. Isr.
vol.
II. p. 301.)
PROF.
GARDINER ON EZEKIEL AND THE LAW. 185
and
as "Levites." Whatever may have been the ground of the dis-
tinction, and whether or not all were equally
entitled to offer sacri-
fices, Ezekiel certainly recognizes the two classes
as existing, since he
could
not otherwise have used the terms without defining them. The
Levites,
of course, may be considered already well known as the
descendants
of the tribe of Levi; but why not the priests in a similar
way?
How could he have used the term in distinction from the
Levites,
if no such distinction had been hitherto known?
But further: Ezekiel assigns to the
priests the functions of offering
the
sacrifices and of eating the sin offering, while to the Levites he
gives
the duty of "ministering in the sanctuary." Of course the
mere
expression "minister" (xliv. 11) might, if it stood alone, be
understood
of any sort of service; but the whole context shows it is
meant
of a service inferior to the priests, and the existence here of the
same
distinctions as those of the Mosaic law has been so universally
recognized
as to lead some scholars to argue that the provisions of this
law
must have been derived from this prophet. It is found however,
that
precisely the same distinction appears, and precisely the same
duties
are assigned respectively to the priests and to the Levites in the
ages
before Ezekiel. There is no occasion to speak of the functions
of
the priests since there is no dispute about them; in regard to the
Levites,
I will refer only to a single passage already cited by Kuenen