PRIEST
570
PRIEST
vine voice; the right hand and the right foot, thai were to be active in divine ministrations (Exod. xxix. 20; Lev. viii. 23, 24). Lastly, as they were to be the expo- nents, n ily of the nation's sense of guilt, but of its
praise and thanksgiving, Moses was to * " rill their hands" with cakes ol unleavened bread and portions of the sac- riiices, which they were topresenl before the L rd as a wave-offi ring. This appears to have been regarded as the ess> niial part of the consecration ; and the Beb. " to lill the hand" is accordingly used as a Bynonym for "to consecrate" (Exod. xxix. 9; 2 Chron. xiii. 9). The whole of this mysterious ritual was to he repeated for seven days, during which they remained within the Tabernacle, separated from the people, and nol till then was the run-., ration perfect (comp. on the meaning of all these arts. Bahr, Symbolik, vol. ii,-ch.v, 5; 2). Most a himself, as the representative of the Unseen King, is the consecrator, the sacriticer throughout these ceremonies; as the channel through which tin- others receive their office, he has tor the time a higher priesthood than that of Aaron (Selden, Dt 8ynedr.i,16; Ugolino, xii, 3). In accordance with the principle which runs through the history of Israel, he. the ruler, solemnly divests himself of the priestly office and transfers it to another. The fact that he had been a priest was merged in his work as a lawgiver. Only once in the language of a later period is the word kohen applied to him (I'sa. xeix. 6).
The consecrated character thus imparted did not need renewing. It was a perpetual inheritance transmitted from father to sou through all the centuries that fol- lowed. We do not read of its being renewed in the ease of any individual priest of the sons of Aaron. Only when the line of succession was broken, and the impiety Of Jeroboam intruded the lowest of the people into the sacred office, do we find the reappearance of a like form (2 Chron. xiii. ft) of the same technical word. The pre- vious history of Jeroboam and the character of the wor- ship which In- introduced make it probable that, in that case only, the ceremonial was. to some extent. Egyptian in its origin. In after-times the high-priest took an oath 1 Ibl.. vii. 23) to bind him, as the .lews say, to a strict adherence to established customs (Mishna, Yoma, i,5).
•_'. Dress. — The "sons of Aaron' thus dedicated were to wear during their ministrations a special apparel at other times apparently they wore the common dress of the people. The matt rial of the sacred garments wa- in be linen, and not wool ( I'./.ek. xliv. 17; Lev. xxi. 1-10); but Ewaldl iltertkiinu r, p. 317 I, Josi ■pints 1 Ant. iv. 8 1. and the rabbins (Mass. Kilaim, p. '.') maintain that the holy garments were made of a mixture of wool and linen, called TJJOSlIJ (skaalnez); and a typical meaning is found in this by Braun (Vest. Sac. Htbr. § 30), as it it was to signify the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood; while K/ek. xliv. 17. which restricts the
material to linen, was considered significant of the sim- plicity of the New Test. See Hi n 1;. .. | Mors. The
prohibition in Lev. xix. 1'.': Dent, xxii, 11 against the people generally wearing any garments of such "min- gled" material was hence explained by Josephus that tiny mighl not assume what was characteristic of the priests I I nt. iv, M I. Hut the re satisfactory and nat- ural view is that the priests only wore linen, and that the Israelites were prohibited front wearing the mixt- ure to teach them that even in garments they Bhould avoid all needless artificiality, and to respect the crea- tion oi God in the simplicity of the material. See I. iM \. h is well known that the Roman poets speak of the Egyptian priests as the linigeri, the wearers of linen (Juvenal, Sat. 6; < >\ id. Met. i). The reason for fixing on this material is given in Ezek. xliv. 18; but the feeling thai there was something unclean in clothes made from the skin or wool of an animal was common to Other nations. Egypl has already been mentioned. The Arab prii -is in the time of Mohammed wore linen only (Ewald, \li< ithinii. p. 289). Afi there were some
garments common both to the priests and the high- priest, we -hall begin with those of the former, taking them in the order in which they would be put on. Set \i 1 ABEL.
(1.) The first was 13 iDJSt), "linen breeches," or drawers (Exod. xxviii, 12; Sept. irepurKekij \ivcl ; Vulg. feminalia linen). These extended from the loins to the thighs, and were " to cover their nakedness." The vere- cundia of the Hebrew ritual in this and in other places (Exod. xx. 26; xxviii. 42) was probably a protest against some of the fouler forms of nature-worship, as e.g. in the worship of Peor (Maimonides, Moreh Nebo- rhiiii. iii. 45; Ugolino, xiii. 385), and possibly, also, in some Egyptian rites (Herod, ii. 60). According to Josephus, whose testimony, however, of course relates only to his own time, they reached only to the middle of the thigh, where they were tied fast (Ant. iii. 7. 1). Such drawers were worn universally in Egypt In the sculptures and paintings of that country the figures of workmen and servants have no other dress than a short kilt or apron, sometimes simply bound about the loins and lapping over in front; other figures have short loose drawers; while a third variety of this article, fitting closely and extending to the knees, appears in the fig- ures of some idols, as in the cut. This last sort of draw- ers seems to have been peculiar in Egypt to the gods. and to the priests, whose attire was often adapted to that of the idols on which they attended. The priests, in common with other persons of the upper classes, wore the drawers under other robes. Xo mention occurs of the use of drawers by any other class of persons in Israel except the priests, on whom it was enjoined for the sake ofdecencv. See Breeches.