Period of pre-exilic prophecy

1. After the disruption under Rehoboam, the two kingdoms went each its own way in matters of religion, and, as time went on, these ways always deviated more and more. Not indeed that there was no longer a consciousness of what was common to all the tribes—the one God and His former mighty acts. That the opposite was the case is shown by the almost complete identity of the conceptions and the institutions found in the two kingdoms. Image worship and the localizing of Jahweh at different sanctuaries had the same vogue in Israel as in Judah, and, if Judah repudiated the bull worship, it sacrificed, down to the time of Heze- kiah, to a brazen serpent, even if the latter had not its place in the temple. Both kingdoms are reproached with over-zealous—only, indeed, exter- nal—practice of the sacrificial cult (Am 5”, Is 1"), In both kingdoms priests and prophets of Jahweh are at oak The high appreciation of Israel for her priests is sufficiently attested by the eulogistic language of Dt 338, which shows that in their claims they were not a whit behind their brethren at Jerusalem. When, again, Je- hoshaphat (1 K 22"), dissatisfied with the bearing of the 400 prophets of Ahab, asks, ‘Is there not yet a prophet of Jahweh here, whom we may consult?’ he assumes that even in Israel there are genuine prophets of Jahweh, and his expectation is not dis- appointed. In short, Israel as well as Judah con- tinues to be the people of Jahweh, and that in the estimation not merely of Hosea, who himself be- longed to the Northern kingdom, but of Amos the Judahite (Am 75), and of all the later prophets. Otherwise, it would be unintelligible that the ex- pectation of a return of Israel from exile and of its reunion with Judah under one king should have persisted so tenaciously, and that far beyond the time of Ezekie!, whose strong emphasizing of “It would of course be a gross exaggeration to deny any individualistic traits to the religion of Israel prior to the time of Jeremiah. Such an assertion would be contradicted by such notices of individual prayer as we find in 1S 110f etc. But, on the other hand, we are not entitged, with Sellin (Beitrdge zur israel. und jd. Batemonngcea tote Heft 1, ‘ Jahwes Verhaltnis zum israel Volk und Individuum nach altisrael. Vorstellung,’ Leipzig, 1896), to deny the salah’ position and that w! rofound difference between Jere- ich was maintained prior to his 69& RELIGION OF ISRAEL this expectation (375") is strange enough when we take into account his sternly condemnatory judg- ment of Samaria in chs. 16 and 23. 2. But, in spite of all this, it cannot be over- looked that a difference between the two kingdoms showed itself early and sank deep. The Northern kingdom had inherited, along with the name of Israel, the claim to represent the proper continua- tion of the Davidic-Solomonic empire—a claim which finds drastic expression in the words of king Joash in 2 K 149, as well as in Dt 33’. In the political sphere it might be to a large extent justi- fied: the strength of the whole nation was, above all, represented by Israel, whereas Judah—notwith- standing the silence of its historians—was in all probability a vassal of Israel, not only in the time of Jehoshaphat, but on other occasions as well. But in the religious sphere it was only in a very precarious sense that Israel could be called the heir of the ancient traditions. Everything indicates that the religious conceptions as well as the cultus of the Northern kingdom were far more strongly permeated with relics of the once prevailing nature-religion than was the case in Judah. Thesyncretism between Baal and Jahweh, which Hosea still found it necessary to denounce so sharply, proves how far removed the people were (only a generation before the fall of Samaria !) from a consistent henotheism, not to speak of a real monotheism. We find also in Amos and Hosea abundant indications of the extent to which the ritual customs in Israel were full of imitations of Canaanite practices. But yet another element entered into the situa- tion. Israel was drawn earlier than Judah into the vortex of the great world of politics, which turned mainly on the question of Assyria’s supre- macy in Western Asia and its designs upon Egypt. Now, the tendency of political experience was to produce, not indeed leanings towards the gods of the world-powers as the stronger, but—as could hardly happen otherwise from the standpoint of a purely national religion—an involuntarily depre- ciatory judgment of the power of the God of the land, as compared with the immense superiority of Assyria, and a consequent depreciation of this God himself. However much in the narrower sphere men might still look to Him for all kinds of blessing and aid, His power appeared inadequate to meet the needs of the people at large, struggling for their existence, and it was thought necessary to look around for other resources and allies. We understand now why Hosea displays such holy zeal, above all, against his people’s wooing the favour sometimes of Assyria, sometimes of Egypt: such conduct amounted to a flat denial of the God of Israel, even to a species of blasphemy. And it is easy to comprehend that a religion and a cultus with such a notion of God could be no source of moral renewal to the life of the people. One dynasty after another fell a prey to assassination and the bloody strife of factions; terrible corrup- tion prevailed among the heads of the people and the priests ; and even among the lower classes the last relic of loyalty and trust, reverence for any kind of authority, not to speak of regard for the holy will of God, had disappeared. We hear no longer of 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal (which is now the same thing as reposing fleshly confidence in worldly resources). The rottenness to which the body of the nation had fallen a prey wrought its effects without intermission. In 722 Israel, after a protracted struggle of despair, fell before the conquering might of Sargon. The cir- cumstance that the name of not a single leader has come down to us from the period of the fall of the kingdom can be explained only on the ground that the religious factor was completely over- RELIGION OF ISRAEL shadowed at this crisis in Israel’s history. Had it been otherwise, the Judahite historical narra- tive, which still shows a religious interest in the remnant of the inhabitants of Samaria (2 K 17*-), would surely have preserved for us one name. 3. As a matter of course, the fall of the Northern kingdom was bound to exercise a very powerful influence on the condition of things in Judah, The immediate result, indeed, was simply to strengthen the national religion. Samaria had fallen, Jerusalem remained. Conseqhe. it waa felt, Jahweh had rejected the Northern yep ee the apostate from Judah (Is 7!7), whereas Judah was now ‘the people of Jahweh,’ the continuation of the totality of Israel, and henceforward it, too, came readily to be called ‘Israel.’ But, above all, the course of events raised the prestige of the temple in the eyes of the people. Although primarily only the palace-sanctuary of Solomon, the possession of the temple must have served, after the disruption of the kingdom, to give a great advantage to Judah, so that Jeroboam IL descried in the halo that surrounded it a danger to the permanence of his monarchy (1 K 12”), To the sacred Ark, which now stood in the temple in mysterious darkness, attached the most sacred recollections of the Heroic Age of the nation; while the proud building of Solomon, with its giant substructures, was associated with the most | glorious recollections of the Golden Age of united Israel; and the Northern kingdom could only re- | flect with envy that it had no share left in this pride of the whole nation. But was not this advantage of Judah, after all, only an outward, not to say a purely imaginary and unreal, one? And did not the prophets find it necessary, even in Judah, to complain bitterly of crass image worship, crude faith in opera operata in the cultus, disregard of justice, and carn but equally justified is the assertion that in Judah | things were different from what they were in Israel. — In the first place, the continuity of the Davidie | dynasty, the legitimate heir of the monarchy in- stituted by Jahweh Himself, was a powerful bul- | wark against political disorder, however, the continuance of the dynasty being thereby affected. The extirpation of the family of David by ‘Athaliah (2 K 11) is the work of a | foreigner, but the latter is overthrown with all | possible speed by the chief priest Jehoiada, in favour | of a prince of David’s line. Similarly, in 2 K 21% | the murder of Amon is quickly expiated by the } putting to death of his assassins an of Josiah on the throne. well-disposed rulers like Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, } and Hezekiah. Again, the priesthood at the temple of Jeru- — salem must have ranked considerably higher than that at Bethel and Dan. Its hereditary character from early times, as well as the not infrequent marriages which there are various indications that — it contracted with the Rel bos family, gave it high standing and political influence; while the care of literary and, above all, of spiritual interests was, without doubt, almost exclusively in its hands. J 4, In this way, by means of kings and priests, at least during certain considerable periods, all the conditions were present in Judah for implanting more deeply the ideas of the prophets concerning — God and His true worship. And, what is the | main point, despite the presence of neoe false prophets there were never wanting powerful repre: — trust | in outward politics? Such questions are justified, | Once (2 K 14), | indeed, we hear of a conspiracy against king | Amaziah, which issued in his murder, without, the placing | If, owing to the prestige | of the dynasty, even worthless kings like Ahaz | were tolerated, how much more must a distinct | blessing have emanated from able and religiously } Diet.) ead rae piwik. ie elie 4 ‘ RELIGION OF ISRAEL RELIGION OF ISRAEL 699 sentatives of true Jahweh prophecy. It is true that outside the ranks of the writing prophets only a few isolated names have come down to us, but at least we have evidence in Is 816 of the existence of a band of disciples gathered about Isaiah ; and to these, as guardians and champions of the thoughts of the master, we must ascribe @ far-reaching influence on future times. This passage conveys the distinct impression that Isaiah at that time, despairing of any improvement in religious conditions under an Ahaz, resolved to retire completely into the inner circle of his dis- ciples and give himself to esoteric teaching. It is accordingly not without reason that Robertson Smith writes: ‘The formation of this little com- munity was a new thing in the history of religion. ... It was the birth of a new era in the Old Testament rel. on, for it was the birth of the conception of the Church, the first step in the emancipation of spiritual religion from the forms of political life.’ Still, even for Isaiah there was left in the times of Hezekiah occasion enough to make his influence felt in favour of a truly theo- cratic scheme of politics. It is another question how far Isaiah succeeded in carrying through the Prophetic demands even in the matter of the cultus, and, above all, of the outward form in which the Jahweh religion ex- pressed itself. According to the Deuteronomic narrative of 2 K 18, Hezekiah had already entirely abolished the worship on the high places, shattered the mazzébéth, and-cut down the ’dshérah (1.e. here the sacred pole beside the altar); and it is usual to trace this ‘cultus reform of Hezekiah’ in a general way to the influence of Isaiah. But the following period knows nothing of such reforms by Hezekiah.t This is explained, indeed, by a late gloss in 2 K 215% as due to the circumstance that Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh, rebuilt the de- stroyed high places and set up a new ‘dshérah. But the whole description contained in 2 K 22 and 23 permits of no doubt that the state of things which was finally put an end to by Josiah’s cultus reform had been for centuries regarded as quite unobjectionable, and had accordingly maintained itself without any opposition. Nay, as we see from 2 K 23%, this held good even of the ‘high places,’ i.e. places of sacrifice, which Solomon once erected on the Mount of Olives for the convenience of his heathen wives. But if in this respect the influence of Isaiah upon Hezekiah cannot be maintained, especially as nowhere in Isaiah do we hear a word against the high places or the mazzébéth, such influence is very probable in another direction. We have seen that Isaiah, owing to his conception of God, felt himself called to a fiery polemic against the images of Jahweh. And so it was he, doubtless, that in- spired Hezekiah’s destruction of the brazen serpent made by Moses (2 K 184),+ and brought about—at least in circles favourably disposed to the teaching of the prophets—a general abandonment of images of Jahweh. This supposition is favoured especi- ally by the circumstance that in after-times Jere- miah found occasion, indeed, to inveigh vigorously against heathen idols, but not, to all appearance, against images of Jahweh. In what has been said above we do not mean to affirm that the idea of centralizing the cultus, which was first realized in 621 through the law- book of Hilkiah, was wholly remote in the time of The Prophets of Israel, Edinburgh, 1882, p. 274 f. . + The attempt of W. Erbt (Die Sicherstellung des Monothetsmus, Géttingen, 1903), notwithstanding, to trace the concentration of the cultus to Hezekiah must be pronounced a failure. t The note on this subject cannot, like the rest of the nar- rative, be the work of the Deuteronomist, but must have been taken from the so-called Great Book of Kings used by him as a source. Isaiah, or altogether foreign to that prophet’s own mind. Not that, after the fashion of the ancient national religion, he reposed a carnal confidence in the continuance of the temple, as a place which Jahweh could not under any circumstances give over to the enemies of His people. But the idea that Jahweh, or at least a form of manifestation of Jahweh, dwelt upon Zion, was familiar even to Isaiah. Even he sees in Zion—although in an infinitely deeper, spiritual sense—a bulwark of the theocracy (281%), the dwelling-place and hearth of God (8% 29! [if Sx in the latter passage= ‘hearth’] 319). This idea of the ‘house of Jahweh’ was, however, clearly opposed to the partitioning of Jahweh among a number of sanctuaries; and, if Isaiah himself did not yet press for a concen- tration of the cultus, this may have been simply because he attached no importance at all to the external cultus, especially in the then prevailing forms. On the other hand, they may be right who discover in Isaiah’s band of disciples the forces we have to thank for the first preliminary steps towards the law-book of Deuteronomy. Meanwhile, however, things had taken quite a different course. After the death of Sargon (705), Hezekiah, manifestly with the strong disapproval of Isaiah, had allowed himself to be drawn into the vortex of the rebellion of Western Asia against Sennacherib. It is not improbable that the king himself would have Pores to listen to the counsels of the prophet, but that he was not strong enough to withstand the veritably intoxi- cated war-party. Isaiah (cf. especially 301 311%) declared with the utmost frankness how the alliance with Egypt against Assyria, which was promoted at first secretly and then openly, was to be judged from Jahweh’s point of view. But when the catastrophe had befallen, when the land was frightfully ravaged by the Assyrians, and (as we now know from the cuneiform inscriptions) over 200,000 of the inhabitants had been carried captive, Isaiah comes forward to announce that Jahweh intends, not the destruction but the deliver- ance of the sorely beset capital. Without doubt, this change of opinion on the part of the prophet was due, above all, to the perfidy with which Sennacherib, in spite of the submission of Hezekiah and the payment of an enormous tribute by Judah (2 K 18#-), insisted upon the surrender of the city. 5. The incredible happened. The Assyrians were compelled by pestilence to beat a hasty retreat ; Jerusalem saw itself saved in the course of a night. The prophetical insight of Isaiah had achieved a great triumph. But the practical application of these occurrences, which was made by popular opinion and, if not by Hezekiah him- self, soon afterwards by his son Manasseh, was to the following effect. The deliverance was attri- buted, not to the God of the prophets, with His inexorable demands, but to the ancient national God of the land, Jahweh, who, from regard to His own honour, could never give over city and temple to the heathen, provided only that there was no lack of offerings—in extreme cases, even child- sacrifices—presented to Him. That this fancy as to the certain efficacy of child-sacrifice—a notion which was the offspring of a naturalistic concep- tion of God—had not died out even in Judah, is proved by the unimpeachable note of 2 Ch 28 regarding the offering of his own sons by Abaz (in all probability in the year 735, during the stress of the Syro- Ephraimitic war). But what happened then as an isolated occurrence in the extremity of need, what was a relapse to a stage of religion that had been overcome through the prophets, became to all appearance the rule under Manasseh : | the old naturalism revived, the whole life-work of 700 an Isaiah and a Micah seemed to have been in vain. Regarding the varied and gross idolatry of Manasseh, all that we can learn is on the authority of a late addition (2 K 21*) to the older narrative of the Deuteronomic writer. It is quite possible, however, that Manasseh did not shrink from an amalgamation of the cult of Jahweh with that of the host of heaven. But the child-sacrifice with which he is charged, as well as the magic and sorcery and necromancy, and no less the dshérah at which the Deuteronomic compiler takes such umbrage (217), are certainly to be put down to the account, not of a disposition to idolatry but of a radically mistaken view of the kind of worship that was pleasing to God. . When, again, tlie shedding of much innocent blood is attributed (v.1%) to him, this may refer to nothing more than outbreaks of hatred and cruelty in general. But we shall probably not be wrong in thinking, above all, of the blood of martyrs, of prophets, and pro- phets’ disciples, who in holy indignation withstood the abominations that were creeping in, and who aid for their opposition with their life. As is well be: a tradition, which may be more than a pure legend, includes the aged Isaiali among the victims of the senseless fury of the king. It is worthy of note that since the time of Micah, whose swan-song, full of the bitterest com- plaints, may be preserved in the fragment Mic 716, the voice of Jahweh prophecy had been, so far as we know, completely hushed. The oracle of Nahum against N ere (dating probably about 660), lies, in view of its contents, outside our sphere of consideration; while the next prophet, Zephaniah (c. 630), already belongs to the time of osiah. This Jacuna of some 60 years in the suc- cession of prophets is surely not to be explained on the ground that cowardly fear of man closed the mouths of those who were raised up by God. Rather may we say, it was only natural that, in RELIGION OF ISRAEL view of the cheerless condition of public religion and the complete purposelessness of any opposi- tion, religious zeal concentrated itself above all on literary work, in order to prepare in this way the dawn of better days. We should probably assign to this period not only the preliminary steps to- wards Hilkiah’s law-book (see above, p. 699”), but in all era also the combining of the early sources, J and E, of the Pentateuch—possibly also other fresh recensions of the earlier Historical books and Prophetical writings. 6. The language of Zeph 1 permits us to look far into the conditions that prevailed prior to Jeremiah’s coming upon the scene. Zephaniah commences with the threat of an annihilating judgment, which is to sweep away man and beast. Judah and Jerusalem are to be affected by it because of their prevailing idolatry. But, along- side of the idolaters, Zephaniah (1° 12) knows also of men who seek not after Jahweh because He can neither bestow happiness nor inflict harm. This conclusion is again characteristic of the stand- point of national religion ; its adherents are com- letely mistaken as to the power of the God of srael. Long experience has taught them that He is no match for the gods of the world-empires. It is not then by any means that they deny His existence, but wey eny that there is any profit in serving Him. Of what use is a God who can render no help? The idea that the seeming in- activity of Jahweh is due to the fault of the people themselves is incomprehensible to them: ‘they are settled upon their lees’ (y.}%), The altars for the whole host of heaven, mentioned in 2 K x5, are derived from 2312, but in the latter passage it may ve well be Jahweh altars that are meant. Are we to hold, with Budde, that Manasseh regarded the Assyrian star-gods as vassals of Jahweh? RELIGION OF ISRAEL 7. Jeremiah, who came upon the scene shortly — after Zephaniah, had to combat first of all the carnal security with which the deluded people shut their eyes to the terrible seriousness of the situation. All signs of approaching ruin, all calls to repent- ance, were unheeded, thanks to the yain notion that, if it came to the worst, Jahweh must snatch | the city and the temple out of the enemy’s hands (cf., especially, 74 5%), In this delusion they were constantly encouraged by false prophets, who _ sought to heal the hurt of the people hastily, saying, ‘ Peace, peace,’ when there was no peace | (84). From these circles naturally emanated after- wards the encouragement to a senseless resistance of the Chaldseans, contrary to the unceasing ex- — hortation of Jeremiah to patient submission, as | what was alone in conformity with the purpose — of Jahweh. But once more it seemed as if that indispensable change in the religious sentiments of the people, — for which the prophets had wrought in vain, was — to be accomplished from another quarter. The contents of the law-book found by Hilkiah had produced an immense impression, at least upon the | pious king Josiah, and had led him to introduce — this code, and, at a solemn gathering in the temple, to bind the whole people to observe it (2 K 23 ie The circumstance that before doing so he too counsel (22!) not with Jeremiah but with the prophetess Huldah, can be explained only on the supposition that Jeremiah happened to be absent — from Jerusalem at the time. For that Jeremiah himself placed great hopes on this law, book is evident from the fact that he still, about the year 605, utters very earnest exhortations to render | obedience to it (11), At a later period, indeed, | the uselessness even of this last attempt appears to — have become quite clear to him ; for while he sharply denounces (34!2#-), about the year 588, the neglect of a Deuteronomic command, he no longer men- tions the law-book as a whole. Hilkiah’s law-book did not fail at first of outward results. Apart from the rigid concentration of the whole of the cultus at Jerusalem,t it led to a radical cultus reform in general. One is astounded in reading 2 K 234 to learn what, up till now, had been possible in and around Jerusalem, under the eyes of so pious a xia as Josiah. But it would be wrong to represent the improvement of outward conditions as the only aim of the law-book in ques- tion. We have already (p. 687{.) seen that the whole of Deuteronomy is inspired with the spirit of true Jahweh prophecy, that the service of God and the moral conduct it requires are based upon truly religious motives, namely, the humble re- cognition of one’s own unworthiness, love to God, and hearty gratitude for His inexhaustible bene- fits. Josiah himself may have been deeply im- pressed and permeated with these ideas. But the reform which he based upon them remained for the mass of the people simply a royal decree which | showed its effects in a variety of external matters, | Regarding this law-book it must suffice here (cf. also above, | p. 671>) to remark that, although not wholly identical with our — present Book of Deuteronomy, it must have had the closest affinity with the latter. Further, we have to confess ourselves — convinced that the discovery of the book by Hilkiah was really accidental (on the occasion of repairs on the temple) and not du to some collusion between Shaphan and Tb holy zeal ee Sohetial imposing upon the king. e fruit of prophetic circles (see above, p. 699»), the expression of a firm conviction that only by the centralizing of the cultus was deliverance still ossible, the book may have been deposited in the temple in the ~ ime of Manasseh, in the hope of better days, and afterwards — (perhaps on the death of the depositor) forgotten. ae! thusia | it explicable that 18 years of Josiah’s reign had passed ‘pious fraud’ have had in wai so long, when all the condi- tions were extremely favourable for its perpetration? — re + The attempt of Fries (Die Gesetzesschrijt des Kinigs Josia, | Leipzig, 1008) to lain away the demand of Dt 12 for the con | centration of the cultus is a complete failure. “4 efore it | was discovered. What object could the authors of the alleged | RELIGION OF ISRAEL but, so far as the inward disposition was concerned, left everything as before. Moreover, the new law- book produced one effect wiich can hardly have been intended by its authors, but which was in- evitable all the same. The written Law, being apparently the exhaustive revelation of the Divine will, rendered the living word of the prophets really superfluous, in spite of the promise of Dt 18. The supreme authority now rests with the letter of the Law. It is by this standard that the Deuteronomic redactors of the Books of Kings judge the theo- cratic quality of the different kings (cf. also Dt 1718), All that is really left to the prophets is the task of Ending and enforcing the Law. he decisive proof that the effect of Josiah’s reform was eke an external one, is found in the treatment to which Jeremiah was constantly sub- jected on account of his calls to repentance and is threatenings of judgment (20). The old dogma of the inviolability of the city and the temple still persisted unweakened in the popular imagination. The people, it is true, are on one occa- sion (26'-) so overpowered by the greatness of the pt that they shield him successfully from the ry of the priests and the false prophets, and even among the princes of Judah there were not want- ing some that favoured Jeremiah (36!% %); but all this could not check the infatuation of his enemies. Among the latter we have to reckon, above all, king Jehoiakim. With mingled defiance and fear he burned (362!:) the roll containing Jeremiah’s messages from God, as if the final doom of Judah and Jerusalem could be averted by the destruction of the writing which announced it. And, even after a terrible warning had been furnished by the deportation (in 597) of Jehoiachin and the spirit- aah heads of the people, the activity of the false prophets continued (28! 29!%), King Zedekiah vacillated continually between fear of the Divine word spoken by the prophet and of the threats of the war-party, until finally his dread of the latter gained the upper hand, and he abandoned the prophet to them (38"). If evidence were still wanting that the Judah of those days was ripe for judgment, it would besupplied by the circumstance that it was a foreigner, an Ethiopian, who rescued the great sufferer from an ignominious death. But even the last drop in Jeremiah’s bitter cup was not to be spared him, namely, to see that even the ter- rible Divine judgment which overtook Jerusalem in 586 had remained without effect on the remnant of the people that was left in the land. In 597 they had refused to believe in the real seriousness of the Divine judgment, but after the murder of Gedaliah at Mizpah they are seized with mad terror, for now they entertain no doubt that Jahweh has for ever | forsaken the land and abandoned His people. In Egypt, to which, in spite of all the efforts of the prophet to dissuade them, they fled, taking him along with them, thev commenced afresh the cult of the queen of heaven, and attributed all the disasters of recent times simply to the interrup- tion of this cult (by the reforms of Josiah). fo) wonder that in the effrontery with which they proclaim these sentiments seremiah sees a self- condemnation which exclnded all thought of re- pentance and forgiveness. If, in spite of all hs bitter disillusionings, Jeremiah still expected (see above, p. 697) the re- settlement of the exiles in their native land, and the establishment of a ‘new covenant,’ based on the true knowledge of God, between God and Israel, this is a striking evidence of the uncon- querable certainty with which he clung to the revelations of his God. He looked for the great transformation, consisting ina complete renewal of heart, to be yet wrought by God Himself (GUE), His younger contemporary, Ezekiel, sees in @ RELIGION OF ISRAEL 701 somewhat different light the further course of God’s ways with Israel. He, too, is aware that the rebellious disposition of the people can be over- come only by a new heart and spirit bestowed by God; but the way to this leads, according to him, through a school of iron discipline, which aceustoms the people to quite new forms of worship, and leads to the final triumph of the idea that for all Israel’s acquirements and actions there is but one supreme standard and one final goal—God’s holiness, V. EZEKIEL. 1. The great importance of Ezekiel for the fur- ther development of the religion of Israel, as we haversketched it at the close of the preceding section, could not be recognized until the depend- ence of the Priests’ Code upon his programme for the future (Ezk 40-48) was placed beyond doubt. As long as it was held possible that he, the priest, occupied the leisure of the Exile in constructing fantastic variations on the priestly legislation which had already been long in existence, nothing could be made of his book, or at least of the clos- ing parts of it. Nay, it was possible, as we see from the Talmud, even to dispute whether the Book of Ezekiel was entitled to a place at all in the canon of the Old Testament. But quite a different judgment has to be formed if Ezk 40-48 is to be regarded as a bold sketch of the future form of the State and the cultus. Then the ‘ priest in prophet’s clothing’ is all at once transformed into the pioneering genius, the real creator of Judaism in the narrower sense, the religion of the Law, which is the subsequent form of the religion of Israel. Notas if on that account the name of prophet is to be denied him altogether. On the contrary, we shall see immediately that in every particular he attaches himself to his predecessors— to Jeremiah in“particular—and that he frequently assumes their ideas as self-evident. But with all this it remains true that, for the realizing of God’s plans with Israel and of the demands and the promises of the earlier prophets, he looks to the establishment of a priestly State, whose chief aim shall be the conserving of the holiness of God This last idea is Ezekiel’s own, and through it he acquired an extraordinary influence on succeeding es. 6. The truth that Ezekiel simply takes for granted the religious notions of his predecessors, holds good in quite a remarkable way of his conception of God. The zeal with which he constantly insists upon his two main themes—the guilt of the people and the way to its removal—scarcely gives him any occasion for specific declarations regarding the being and attributes of God. Indeed, if one were to judge merely by appearances, Ezekiel’s detailed descrip- tion of the glory (7!13) of Jahweh as His sensible form of manifestation (17° 437, cf. above, p. 639°f.), and of the temple as the place of God’s throne and the place of the soles of His feet (437), might seem a return to long superseded material conceptions of the Godhead. But it is inconceivable that to Ezekiel the ‘glory’ of Jahweh which dwells in the temple should be wholly identical with His essential being. He himself inveighs (8) against the silly delusion of those who had been left in Judah, that ‘Jahweh sees us not, Jahweh hath forsaken the land.’ But, above all, it is note- worthy how Ezekiel handles the attitude of Jahweh to the heathen peoples hostile to Israel. Scarcely anywhere do we find an indication of the reasons for this attitude, or a rejection of false notions, It is, in any case, one of the very isolated exceptions, when in 2916 it is put forward as one result of the ju ent upon Egypt, this country shall be no more a source of confidence for Israel. 702 RELIGION OF ISRAEL except the very frequently recurring formula, ‘that they may know that I am Jahweh’ (so four times over in the oracle against Edom in ch. 35). This is as much as to say, ‘that My absolute omnipo- tence, My absolute sovereignty over all peoples of the earth, My inviolable holiness, may be brought to their consciousness.’ Nay, in view of 367°", it looks quite as if Jahweh’s only reason for resolving upon the restoration of Israel was that their con- tinuing in exile gave occasion for blasphemies on the part of the heathen, and the consequent dis- honouring of His holy name. 3. The thought of the election of the people and of the benefits bestowed upon them by Jahweh appears only in the striking allegory contained in 163%. 108. | where there is clearly dependence upon the ideas of Deuteronomy, and the inference is silently implied of the immensity of the debt of gratitude which the Divine goodness imposes upon Israel. The ethical demands of Jahweh, collected in a sort of canon in Ezk 18° (cf. also 22%"), partly agree verbatim with those of the pre-exilic prophets, but are partly intermingled already with allusions to specifically religious or, more precisely, ritual obligations (regard to what is sacred to Jahweh, Sabbath observance, refraining from sacrifice upon the high places, ete.). In his view of the moral responsibility of the individual, Ezekiel attaches himself entirely to the teaching of Jeremiah. Like the latter (cf. Jer 31%), he opposes the delusion that Jahweh makes the children suffer innocently for the sins of the fathers (18?5-) ; on the contrary, ‘he that sinneth, he shall die’ (v.”). But the general rule expressed in this last saying does not exclude the efficacy of timely repentance: Jahweh wills not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn and live (v.% 33"). Therefore He takes measures even for the warning of the ungodly by the prophets, and the latter are held fully respon- sible if they neglect this duty (3!"- 33). 4. The rarity with which the above ideas are touched upon in Ezekiel is plainly owing to the circumstance that he feels himself in the first instance far more impelled to give strong expres- sion to his holy indignation at the sins and the consequently enormous guilt of his people. Hence his Divine commission has for its very starting- oint that he is sent to ‘the apostate ones, the ouse of rebellion’ (2% 5 5° and often). And in- deed it is always the same complaint that occupies the foreground in all his arraignments of the people, namely, that of gross apostasy from Jahweh —idolatry. In order rightly to appreciate this charge, two things must be kept in view. (a) First of all, by idolatry Ezekiel understands not merely the actual worship of strange, heathen gods, such as he once beheld (8!) in a vision, when he saw carried on in the temple at Jerusalem the worship of the ‘image of jealousy’ (?an ’dshérah) and of all kinds of creep- ing things, the lamenting for Tammuz, and the adoration of the sun. He includes in the term the whole of the Jahweh cult, in so far as it is com- bined with the use of images of Jahweh and sacri- ficial worship on the so-called ‘ high places.’ The Book of Deuteronomy makes no secret that the abolition of the high place worship is an inno- vation, which must be carried out with a certain measure of forbearance. For it really amounted to counting every spot outside Jerusalem profane —an intolerable idea to the ancient way of think- ing. Consequently, Deuteronomy had conceded to the former priests of the high places at least the right of officiating in the temple, and at the same time commended them as far as possible There is no evidence for the view of Robertson Smith and Smend, that in Ezk 8 it is ancient Israelitish family or tribal gods _ that are in view. RELIGION OF ISRAEL to kindness at the hands of the people. An absolute condemnation of the high place worship as a heinous sin was thus far from its intention, although it held that subsequent to the time of Solomon the confining of the ecultus to the temple had become a universal obligation. Quite different is the judgment of Ezekiel. The oceur- | rences of the year 597, by which he had suffered so — much personally, and the days that followed, had revealed to him that the roots of the evil lay too deep to be removed by the reforms of Josiah. Not only from the time of Solomon, but from the very first the worship of Israel, even when it had Jahweh for its object, had been pure idolatry, masquerading first in Egyptian (23% ®) and after- wards in Canaanite dress. The latter is what is referred to by the prophet at the commencement of his great arraignment of Jerusalem in ch. 16: ‘Thy birth and thy nativity are of the land of the Canaanites ; thy father was an Amorite, and thy | mother a Hittite.’ Ezekiel’s intention here is not to teach anything new about the earliest history of Israel, but simply to characterize in the strongest fashion the heathenish form of its worship. This | comes out not only in the two great indictments | of chs. 16 and 23, but also elsewhere (ef. e.g. 44°), The heathen character of this worship is shown to consist not only in specifically heathen practices connected with the cultus, such as excess and immorality at the sacrificial meals, but in the utter lack of fine feeling for what is holy and worthy of the Deity. No wonder that Ezekiel regarded the transferring of this cultus to one sanctuary as only a half measure, which must now be energetically superseded by a whole one. For, even after the reforms of Josiah, the sanctuary | had been further ‘defiled’; in particular, images | of Jahweh appear to have been afterwards reintro- | duced and to have played an important réle (57 | 64f. 18 720), : (6) But, secondly, the charge of idolatry as adultery against Jahweh includes also courting the favour and aid of the heathen powers. This | is clearly the case in 1676, probably also in 2375 léf. 21; elsewhere it is sometimes doubtful whether actual apostasy to heathen gods, as the result of { olitical intercourse, is not intended. To Ezekiel, indeed, ald contact with the sphere of heathendom, causes outward and inward defilement., 5. In the view of Ezekiel, both kingdoms (Samaria | in 234 under the name ’OAélah=‘ her [own] tent,’ and Jezusalem under the name ’Ohdlibah=‘mytent | is in her’) are naturally in the same condemnation. Yet Judah’s guilt is greater in so far as she has not only failed to take warning from the fate of — Sodom and of Samaria, but has acted even more | corruptly than these her sisters. Therefore the ill- | fortune of the latter is to be reversed, that they | may serve for the profound humiliation of Judah; | for the latter has shown by her conduct, that, in | comparison with herself, even Sodom and Samaria still deserved consideration (164% 231). wy 6. The special charges made by Ezekiel (co . 296f-) acainst Jerusalem are concerned, above all, with the perverting of justice and the committing of deeds of violence, and remind us strengly of the | ever recurring complaints of the earlier prophets. | The only strange feature is the emphatic mention | of incest (221°), which it is impossible to under- | stand in a figurative sense. Moreover, all classes | share in the general corruption: the king (Zede- | kiah), who is to pay heavily for his perjury and | The picture of gross unchastity which the prophet draws | in such realistic fashion in chs. 16 and 23 can only be intended, in accordance with a familiar usage of language, to stand for | idolatry (a view which is confirmed by 208); and thus the sug: i gestion is very natural that Ezekiel was led to the above judg- tt fotos. referring Am 5% to the Egyptian period of the people's s |, le ea ee eee eee Sr RELIGION OF ISRAEL breach of treaty (17':) ; the princes, who are like wolves and worthless shepherds (2277 34"); the priests, who are forgetful of their duties (2275) ; the lying prophets (13'" 2278) and prophetesses (13!7-), who lull the people into false security. All this guilt cries for vengeance. A feeling of ity for the perishing people is awakened, indeed, in the heart of Ezekiel by the view of the approach- ing terrible judgment, but the transgression is too great for pardon to be still possible (98 11% and often). Even such examples of piety as Noah, Daniel, and Job could now effect nothing by their intercession ; at most they would be able to save only themselves (14'#"-), ‘The judgments that now threaten are only the close of those that have long —always, indeed, in vain—been impending over Israel. Quite peculiar in this connexion is the ate doctrine that Jahweh has punished the sraelites for their apostasy by giving them com- mandments that were not good, as, for instance, the order for child-sacrifice. Only in this sense can the language of 20”: be understood, even if the prophet in 167% and 23 speaks of these sacrifices as offered to idols. But it is almost inconceivable that Ezekiel should have repre- sented child-sacrifice as instituted by Jahweh Himself for the purpose of destroying Israel. Perhaps he speaks of the command of Ex 2278 (?)> as ‘not good’ simply because it gave occasion to the delusion that God demanded not only the pal aaa but the actual sacrifice of the first- Tm. Ezekiel foresees with perfect clearness the ap- proach of the Chaldeans (21°"-), the siege of the city, with all its horrors (4! 15), as well as its burning to the ground (10)._ By symbolical actions he portrays the fate of the besieged, the fresh decimation of those who had apparently escaped (5*-), and their departure to exile (12). Sword, famine, and pestilence shall devour them without intermission ; the land shall become a desolation and, along with its people, the subject of savage mockery by the heathen (5!4 3377"-) ; the inhabit- ants themselves, carried into exile, shall have to eat unclean bread in the place of their captivity (4°"). 7. But this casting off is not to be final. It would appear, nica’, from 21°? as if the pious and the ungodly were alike to be overwhelmed by the judgment—a declaration to which Ezekiel evidently felt impelled for the time by the facts of the case; but at bottom the old Prophetic ex- pn abides, that a certain number, however ew, shall escape sword and famine, wild beasts, and pestilence (147). For Ezekiel beholds in spirit (947) not only the fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the enemy, but also the mark put by the angel on the foreheads of those who are destined to escape. And, further, he sees in spirit (37!-) the resurrection of the dead bones (i.e. the people sunk as it were into the grave in exile) by the breath of God, which awakens them to new life. Those who are brought back to the Holy Land shall henceforward, after the removal of all the former abominations, dwell there secure, and re- joice in rich blessings from Jahweh’s hand (11! Q8%t. 3418. ZE8t. 83. 3021.) Kor He remembers His former promises, forgives Jerusalem all her sins, and concludes with her an ever enduring covenant (16®- 3725), He can no more hide His face from His people now that He has poured out His spirit upon them (39). And, as the result of this receiving of the spirit of God, it is promised that the old nature shall have its place taken by another spirit and a new heart, that the stony The call in 1831, in a somewhat different connexion, ‘ Make = new heart and a new spirit,’ does not invalidate the that the bestowal of the new spirit can come from God RELIGION OF ISRAEL 703 heart shall be changed into a soft heart of flesh (1129 36755), 8. In so far as its fulfilment necessitates an extraordinary interposition of God, the last men- tioned promise may already be included in the category of Messianic prophecies (in the wider sense). Such prophecies, even in the narrower sense, are found in Ezekiel, although sparingly and with no special emphasis, Thus the tender sprout taken from the top of the tall cedar, and Pp anted on a high and lofty mountain (the temple ill), where it grows to be a majestic cedar (177), can stand only for the Messianic king of David’s race, under whom Israel is to dwell secure. B his exaltation shall the heathen kingdoms (all the trees of the field’) learn to know the power of Jahweh. There is no mention here then of the exercise of world-empire by the Messianic king. So also in 21 @7) it is said only that the State shall lie low until he comes to whom it [sc. the rule] belongs and to whom Jahweh gives it. A descendant of David is first expressly promised by Ezekiel in 3475; but even there not as the cham- pion and saviour of the people, but only as the faithful shepherd, who shall feed the Hock after Jahweh Himself (v.1™, clearly dependent on Jer 231") has intervened on behalf of His sheep and even zealously discharged the shepherd’s office for them (v."#). It is only after this that He is to set over them a single shepherd, namely His servant David. That this does not mean king David redivivus, but, asin the case of the ‘ righteous shoot’ of David in Jer 235, only one who rules in the spirit of David, is shown by the simple fact that he is not once called ‘ king’; on the contrary, it is said in v.% ‘I, Jahweh, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince (x'y}) in the midst of them.’ But, beyond this, nothing is predi- cated of him. It is Jahweh alone that concludes a covenant of peace with the people (v.*), confers upon them security from wild beasts, as well as from oppression and mockery by their enemies, and imparts rich fertility to the land. The same prediction occurs in 377% in connexion with the symbolic action whereby two staves (Judah and Joseph) are to be joined together in the hand of Ezekiel. Even the long fallen Morthern king- dom is to be reunited with Judah so as to form one kingdom under one king. But once more it is Jahweh Himself (v.%) who delivers and purifies them, that they may become again His people. Now, it is true that in 37-, as compared with 34”, there appears to be an advance in so far as 3774+ declares not only ‘and my servant David shall be king over them,’ but (v.) ‘my servant David shall rule over them for ever.’ Can it be that the expectations of Ezekiel underwent such a trans- formation in the interval that he now looked for a king whose dominion should be unending? This is impossible, for it would completely contradict the réle which the ‘ prince’ (not the /ingq) plays in the future programme of Ezk 40-48 (see belo But, even apart from that, in ch. 37 as in ch. 34 Jahweh appears so prominently as the real Ruler dwelling in His sanctuary in the midst of the people and exercising towards them the everlast- ing covenant of peace, that there is scarcely room left for the idea of the Messiah. 9. As elsewhere in the expectations of the pro- phets regarding the future, a pretty large space is occupied in Ezekiel with threatenings against foreign nations ; nay, it would seem from 30% as if the ‘ Day of the Lorp,’ which had been looked for from the time of Amos, was exclusively a day of judgment upon foreign peoples. The hos- tility of these peoples to Israel is also, it is true, specified as a ground of the Divine anger [thus we have the malicious joy and thirst for revenge of (04 RELIGION OF ISRAEL O58 ; the Ammonites, the Moabites, v.§; the Edomites, v.!, and again in ch, 35; the Philis- tines, 25; the Tyrians, 267]; but the main point of view always is that all the splendour and proud display of the heathen is to be brought low, ‘in order that they may know that I am Jahweh’ (257 4. 7 ete.). Hence the longest and the severest threatenings are directed against the haughtiest and most powerful peoples: against Tyre (chs. 26-28), because she has declared herself to be the perfection of beauty (27%), and her king has claimed even to be a god (287) ; against the Egyptians (chs. 29-32), because the Pharaoh has boasted, ‘ mine is the Nile, I have made it’ (29%). God is going to punish this arrogance as He formerly punished that of the Assyrian warriors, whose graves (as those of the most heinous offenders) are ‘ set in the uttermost parts of the pit’ (82°, where by the way there is the first approximation to a distinction between inhabitants of the under world, and thus to the doctrine of the pains of hell). 10. A peculiarity of the eschatology of Ezekiel is his expectation of a hostile storm of great masses of people, led by Gog the prince of the land of Magog, against the resettled land of Israel, that is to say, after the dawn of the Messianic age (ch. 38 f.). Here too the essential point of view is that stated in 38!° ‘that the nations may know me when I shall show myself holy before their eyes’ (cf. also 397). Neither here nor anywhere else in Ezekiel is there any hint that this know- ledge is to lead further to these peoples attaching themselves to Jahweh and thus sharing in Israel’s salvation. Gog is to fall upon the mountains of Israel ; and so enormous shall be the number of his warriors, that for seven years on end their weapons shall serve for fuel, and seven years shall be required for the burying of their dead bodies. When Ezekiel (38!") appeals to the predictions of former prophets concerning Gog, it is impossible to say what utterances of theirs (provided they have come down to us at all) he may have had in view. But, in any case, his allusion to them is a proof that the pre-exilic prophecies had already become to him the object of reflexion. And this implies at the same time the consciousness that the old form of prophecy, as the product of a direct operation of the spirit of God, was practically extinct, and had essentially to be replaced by literary activity. 11. To this last domain belongs, beyond doubt, the whole section made up of chs. 40-48, which, as was pointed out above, proved of epoch-making import- ance for the form afterwards assumed by the re- ligion of Israel, containing as it does a sketch of the new form to be given to the sanctuary and the cultus after the return of the people from exile. Not that even in chs. 1-39 there are no hints at all pointing to this final aim of the Divine judg- ments, for we find such, for instance, in 204 and 3776-28, But in chs. 40-48 these interests—the re- construction of the temple in all its details, the exact regulation of offerings and festivals, ete.— come so strongly into the foreground that every- thing else, i.e. all that does not belong to the cultus, looks like a mere appendage and scarcely worthy of mention. (a) All the manifold and complicated regula- tions in chs. 40-48 have, strictly viewed, only one underlying idea-namely, the perfect representa- tion and conservation of the holiness of God, in opposition to the endless detriment done to it in the pre-exilic period. This conservation, more- over, is to be effected by means of a great number of external institutions and ordinances. To be sure, these are at bottom only symbolical pictures of the Divine holiness and of the zeal directed Of. Bertholet, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Hzechiel in seiner veligtonsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung, Freiburg i. B., 1896. RELIGION OF ISRAEL towards its maintenance, but strict attention ta them is absolutely indispensable instead of being (as the sacrifices were in the estimation of the earlier prophets) merely an expression, that might be dispensed with at need, of a pious frame of mind. Ezekiel is in fact the founder of legal religion, the Levitical system. It is, above all, characteristic of this standpoint that any wrong done to the holiness of God is estimated exclusively as an objective fact, without regard to the inten- tion and motive of the author of the wrong. Un. witting Levitical defilement and knowing sin in- volve exactly the same degree of guilt. (6) At the head of all the regulations in question naturally stand those about holy ground. The idea that now the whole land is sacred to Jaliweh, finds its symbolical expression in the high degree of holiness which attaches not only to the temple, the dwelling-place of Jahweh, but to the whole quarter surrounding the temple, on the summit of the hill (43). For city and temple are henceforth to stand on a very lofty mountain (407), in token that they surpass in importance every other spot on earth, Any pollution of the sanctuary, such as was formerly occasioned by the close proximity of the royal graves to the temple (43”), is now com- pletely excluded. The holiness of the fore-court is constantly recalled by the keeping shut of the east door (441), by which Jahweh returned from the Mount of Olives to the sanctuary. But the whole of the sacred precincts, including the quarters of the priests and the Levites, isa ¢érdmahof theland | (451#- 48°-), a kind of oblation whereby all the rest | of the land is likewise hallowed and made fit for use, as the fruits of the land are, through the rendering of the firstfruits to Jahweh. Directly adjoining the sacred precincts is the ground occupied by the | city, and the land which appeal ex officio tothe | ‘prince.’ To the former of these a certain measure of holiness still belongs; in fact, according to 48° (the closing word of the whole section), the city is to be called Jahweh-shammah, ‘Jahweh is there.’ | It belongs to no one tribe exclusively, but members | of all the tribes are to people it (481). (c) Suitably to its above significance, the city | along with the sacred térdmah is the heart and almost the exact central point of the whole | country ; for to the north of it lie seven, and to the south five tribes, the latter—quite contrary to the former historical state of things | even Issachar, Zebulun, and Gad. The districtto | the east of the Jordan had been probably for along | time too largely occupied by heathen for Ezekiel | to count it as any longer belonging to the Holy | Land. On the other hand, the strangers dwelling in the midst of Israel, who have begotten sons (i.¢. who are permanently settled there), are to be on exactly the same footing as native-born Israelites, | and are equally to receive a possession (477). The meaning of this at first sight strange prescription is simply that in the new State there can he only ~ full-blooded members of the worshipping com- | munity, possessed of equal rights, but sharing | also equal responsibilities. ‘ a (d) ely the idea that the land consecrated to Jahweh has His blessings showered upon it, finds very drastic expression in the prophecy of — the temple spring (47!-), which, taking its rise | under the temple itself, is at first a tiny rill, but after a course of 4000 cubits has already become a mighty river, which causes the numerous trees on its banks to bear foliage that is ever green and — fruits that never fail, which makes the waters of | the Dead Sea wholesome and teeming with fish- | The explanation offered for all this is that ‘because | the water proceeds from the sanctuary’ it hasa | magical efficacy (477%). Ti (e) The degree to which even the most subtle | is pester tere oe > i Sal eae a ie pe a NE RELIGION OF ISRAEL prescriptions regarding points in the cultus are of importance in the eyes of Ezekiel, is shown by his regulations concerning the sacrificial tables (40%8-), the priests’ cells (42!!-), the sin, offering in connexion with the seven days’ dedication of the altar (431§%-), the measures and weights to be used in the cultus (45%), the rules for festivals and sacrifices (45!8" ; cf. also the complicated pre- scriptions as to the place and number of the sacrifices to be offered by the ‘prince,’ ch. 46). With reference to the festivals, it is noteworthy that, as is shown even by their exact dating, they have now lost their connexion with the course of nature [sc. as harvest festivals] and have become simply church festivals ; for, apart from the pro- hibition of leaven at the time of the Passover, there is no mention of anything but the official offerings to be presented (454%), Very striking is the complete ignoring of the Feast of Weeks, which, on the ground of very ancient tradition, is retained even by P; and no less so is the fact that the two days of atonement, of which Ezekiel places one at the beginning of each half of the year (45!**-), do not represent days of humiliation on the part of the people, but contemplate an atonement for the sanctuary by means of external ceremonies ‘on account of those who may have offended through error or ignorance.’ The purifying of the temple building from Levitical defilement appears here as the main object to such a degree that the cleansing of the heart, which to the pre-exilic prophets was by far the most important matter, remains un- mentioned. (f) Much of what is ordained by Ezekiel ma have been based upon ancient tradition, which was perhaps familiar to him in connexion with the exercise of his duties as priest. New, however, beyond doubt, and of great consequence is his dis- tinction (40% and esp. 44°") between those priests of Levi who are also descendants of Zadok (i.e. who belong to the hereditary priesthood established at Jerusalem), and those other priests of Levi who have ministered to the people in the times of error (i.e. the former priests of the high places). The priesthood in future is to pertain to the Zadokites alone. The other class are ‘to bear the conse- quences of their guilt’ (441%), and are condemned to discharge all the menial offices of the cultus which were formerly attended to by uncircumcised ones (slaves and prisoners of war). Ezekiel in this way first paved the way for that distinction between priests and Levites which is so familiar to us in P and the Chronicler, that we can hardly conceive of the cultus of Israel without it from the time of Sinai downwards, although, as a matter of fact, it is still quite unknown even to the Book of Deutero- nomy. Gai When we turn to the special rules for the "ated (4417) it is again noteworthy that at the ead of their official duties (v.%) is the instruction of the people in the distinction between holy and common, clean and unclean; it is only after this that there is mention of their judicial functions. (h) By the side of the priests the nds? or ‘ prince’ lays, as was remarked above, a somewhat colour- ess part. A head was necessary, and nothing was more natural than to form a connexion here with the historical tradition of many centuries, namely, the expectation of a political head belonging to the family of David. Surprise has been felt quite unnecessarily that Ezekiel does not assign to the priestly State a spiritual head—nay, that he is altogether silent about the ‘high priest.’ But in the pre-exilic period there had been no high priests at all, but at most at Jerusalem chief priests. The latter, moreover, were simply exalted officials of the king, and it may very well be that Ezekiel had good reasons for not wishing to see priestly