The Pulpit Commentary — Ezekiel — Volume 2 — Section 378

mode in which the priests should wear their to.ined to the priests nnder the Law (Nnmb. hair. It should neither be she.ved nor v. 14-31; Deut. xvii. 8-13; xix. 17; xxi. worn long, thus nvoiding excess ou either 5), 11ntl was exercised in pre-exilic times side (compare for the first, Lev. xxi. 5; nnd (Hos. iv. 6; Micah iii. 11 ; Isa. xxviii. 7; for the second, Lev. x. 6; xxi. 10, Revised Jer. xviii. 18), though not always in accord- Version), but should merely be polled. The ance with Jchovah's judgments. That the obligo.Lion to let the h11ir grow freely was juridical authority of the priests was purely imposed upon the Na:r.arite only during the of a moral kind (Wellhauseo, Smend), can period of his vow (Numb. vi. 5). The verb be maintained only by rejecting 2 Cbron. "to poll," or "cut" (Cl?;>), occurs nowhere xvii. 7-9 ond xix. 5-11 as unhistorical. else. Smend thinks what is here denied to (3) The regulation of all fe,;tal assemblies in the priests collectively is in the priest-code accordance with the Divine statutes. For denied solely to the high priest (Lev. xxi. errors in the celebration of these festivals, 10, Revised Version; compare, however, the priests should be answerable, as they Lev x. 6, Revised Version), and discovers had al ways been; only under the new in this a sign of the later origin of Leviticus. r~gime there should be no errors. 4. Tl16 Ezekiel's raising the priesthood as a body to hallowing of Jehovah'• sabbatlui. This they the rank of the high priest, of whom in con- should do both by resting on the seventh nection with this temple is no trace, rather day ond by offering the sabbuth sacrifices, proves Ezekiel to have been later than the shewbread, and the burnt offering ; LeviticUB. • both of which things the priests nuder the Ver. 21.-The prohibition of wine to the Law had been commanded to do (see Exod. priests when engaged in temple service xx. 8-11; xni. 13-17; Lev. x:xiii. 3; accorded with Mosaic legislation (Lev. x. xxiv. 8 ; Numb. xxviii. 9), but hntl not 9). Total abstinence at other times was not done (eh. xx.12, 13, 20, 21; xxii. 8; xxiii. 28). enjoined. Vere. 25-27. -Regulations are next given Ver. 22.-As to marriage (since the priests for preserving the priesthood from defilement in Ezekiel's" house" were no more expected through eoming in contact with the dead, to be celibates than were thoso employed and for removing such defilement in case of about Moses' te.berne.cle or Solomon's its having been contracted. As under the temple), they were forbidden to marry Lo.w,so in the ideal constitution of Ezekiel, widows (which the Levitical priests were not, the priests should not bo at liberty to con- though the high priest was) or divorced tract ceremonial impurity through touching women, and allowed to wed only virgins of a c01·pse except in the case of near relo.tions the house of Israel, or (the sole exception) (comp. Lev. xxi. 1-4). That neither in widows of such as had been priests ( com- Leviticus nor in Ezekiel is the priest's wife po.re with the priest-code, Lev. xxi. 7, 13, among the excepted is surprising, o.nd 14). Ezekiel's ennctment discovers two varia- hardly to be explained, with Knobel, on the tions-first, that it does not formally forbid ground that a wife is not a blood-rehition, to the priests m11rriago with a harlot; and, since according to the Divine conception of second, that it sanctions me.rriage with 11 marriage husband and wife ure one (Gen. priest's widow. But the first waa implied ii. 24), but either by holding, with Keil, that in the prohibition of m11rriage with an the wife, who stands nenrer her husbnnd adulteress, and the second was a sign of the than o.ny of the relatives n11med, wns viewed higher sanctity of the priesthood belonging as included under the phro.se, " nnd for his to Ezekiel's temple. Hence, so for from kin that is neo.r unto him" (Lev. xxi. 2), or indicating the priority of Ezekiel, it rather by supposing it self-evident thnt such defile- points to the priority of Leviticus. ment could not be nvoided in the cnse of 11 wifo Vera. 23, 24.-Among the priests' offlcinl and wo.s therefore to.citly allowed. Smend, duties four things are prescribed. (1) The oe usual, finds signs of Ezekiel's priority to education of the people in the fundamento.l the priest-code, first in the circumsto.nce principles of their religion, viz. that a dis- that Ezekiel regarded it as perfectly nu. turo.l tinction existed between the "holy" nod that a priest should sorrow for his wife ( eh. " profane," or " common," and in the prac- xxiv. 15-18), which showed he had no tical application of that principle, the acquaintance with Lev. xxi. ; and secondly, art of discernini; between the "unclean" in the fact that Lev. xxi. 11 prohibits abso- nnd the "clean.' This duty had been laid lutely to the high priest nll conto.ct with a upon the priests of Mose.ism (Lev. x. 10; corpse, which, it is argued, betrays a greoter Deut. xxiv. 8; xxxiii. 10), but in the l,1st strictness than existed in the <la.ye of yeo.rs of the monarchy had been neglected Ezekiel. But ns the prohibition in Lev. (oh. xxvi. 26; comp. Mo.1. ii. 7-9). (2) xxi. 11 applies only to the high priest, who The administration of jmtiCJJ in a.11 disputes in Ezekiel's temple has no place, nn ar=- arising out of nod connected with the prac- mont as to which or the books had priority tice of their religion. Thie office had per- of origin el\nnot properly be founded on Sfl 892 TRE BOOK OF THE PROPHET EZEKIEL. [ott. XLiv.1-31.