MEDIATOR, MEDIATION 313
Jehovah to Israel and the representative of the people before God. David officiates in priestly apparel,—‘ girded with a linen ephod,’ offering burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and blessin the people in the name of Jehovah (2S 6.18), mediating POSE between God and the people appears in the Messianic Psalms, 2, 21,72, 45 (where
erhaps the king is called ‘Elohim’), 110. The hronicler, reflecting on the history from the Greek period, regards David’s throne as divine; it is ‘the throne of Jehovah’ (1 Ch 29%). Thus a pre- aration is made for regarding the Messiah of the uture as a Mediator, standing between God and man, exalted above the common human stand- point, and brought near to God, but with a view to the benefit of the people He represents.
2. Priestly mediation. —'The conception of a priesthood separate from the rest of the community implies mediatorial functions on the part of the priests for the benefit of the laity. In itself the idea of priesthood may be regarded absolutely, the priest being the man who has a right of ap- proach to God, and on whom devolves the duty of sacrificing, ete., quite apart from any considera- tion for others. In this sense Israel as a whole nation is ‘holy’ (Lv 11* 19", Nu 15%), and is named a ‘kingdom of priests’ (Ex 19°°), Similarly in late poetry the nation as a whole is said to consist of ‘prophets’ (Ps 105°). But this is exceptional. As a rule, the function of the priest is vicarious and mediatorial. In early times, however, this was not confined to any family or tribe. Gideon (Jg 61-4), Samuel (1 S 163), and Elijah (1 K 1859.) per- formed the priestly function of offering sacrifices, and, in a mediatorial way, for the benefit of the people. When a priestly order was first recognized this was not necessarily of one tribe or family, as in the Jater system. Thus David made priests of his own sons and of the chief men of the kingdom (2S 818. RV).* Zabud the son of the prophet Nathan is also described as a priest (1 K 4°). In the oldest stratum of the law, the ‘Book of the Covenant,’ it is assumed that the Israelite offers his own sacrifices in primitive patriarchal style. Thus, in the directions Moses is to give to ‘the children of Israel,’ we read, ‘If thou make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones,’ etc., and ‘neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar’ (Ex 2055: 36), where no Shaye order is referred to. In the story of Micah (Jg 17. 18, assigned to JE) a certain Levite appears as a priest, but in a most primitive fashion, consecrated or installed by Micah in his own house, and serving as a domestic chaplain. The whole narrative reveals a condition of superstitious faith in the mediatorial efficacy of the mere presence of a priest. In the narrative of Eli and his sons (1S 1. 2-3, assigned by Budde to E? and by Kittel to SS, i.e. an Ephraimite history of Samuel and Saul compiled from various sources about the time of Hosea) we have a recognized priesthood at Shiloh, so completely accepted that the priests are resorted to in spite of their tyrannical and immoral be- haviour. In Dt the priesthood of the Levites is regulated by law, and a complete system of lapel mediation by means of sacrifices, etc., elaborated. Jeremiah (3) enforces this by dwelling on the nah pat ance of the priesthood (Jer 33!%*), Ezekiel, in
pronoanain the degradation of the Levites who ad been the paca of the various high places, and confining the priesthood to the house of Zadok,
s.e. the Jerusalem order, concentrated the media- torial work in this body. Ezra’s great reform carried Ezekiel’s ideas out in practice, and advanced them still further in the development of the hier-
*See Driver, Notes on Heb. Text Samuel, p. 220; H. P. Smith, Comm. ad loc.; and, for ὦ different view, Cheyne in Hxpositor, June 1899, p. 453 ff.
314 MEDIATOR, MEDIATION
archy. After the Exile, P and the complete Pen- tateuch established the mediatorial functions of the sons of Aaron, with the high priest at their head (Nu 31-85 415. 19.20 173 181), Now the priest- hood becomes the official representative of the people before God, only the priest being permitted to approach Jehovah. This approach depends on ceremonial purity; and the priest must be free from bodily blemish (Lv 21'*-); but his function, unlike that of the prophet, does not depend on personal worth. As the mediator between Israel and Jehovah, the priest expiates guilt by prayer and sacrifice, and secures blessings for the people. Aaron the high priest is to ‘bear the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts’ (Ex 28*)—a regula- tion which Schultz interprets as meaning that his surrender to God is a compensation for whatever duties towards God the actual Israel has unwit- tingly failed toperform. Similarly, the priests eat the flesh of the sin-offering ‘to bear the iniquity of the congregation, and to make atonement for them’ (Ly 1017),
The specific mediatorial functions of the priests and of the high priest are kept quite distinct. While apparently the high priest, being a fortiori a priest, is at liberty to undertake any sacerdotal function if he chooses to do so, he cannot delegate the specific duties of his own office to any members of the ordinary priesthood, nor may any of them Veet dered functions. For the purpose of represent- ing the people before God, the priests are permitted a nearer approach than is allowed to the laity, they only being allowed to enter ‘the sacred place,’ i.e. the first and larger portion of the sanctuary, while the high priest, and he only, can enter the inner chamber, ‘the most sacred place.’ The