NOTE. Laws of Purity. Not altogether unconnected with these regulations respecting Holy Times and Seasons were other enactments of the Mosaic code, having for their object the enforcement of ideas of purity and holiness. Ye shall be holy unto Me, was the Divine command; for I the Lord thy God am holy, and have severed you from other people that ye should be Mine (Lev. xix. 2; xx. 7). Many of these regulations were, doubtless, laws of health, tending to regulate diet, enforce cleanliness, and guard against many prevalent disorders. But over and above this, they had a higher object, and formed part of the moral discipline of the elect nation. They regard (i) things unclean to eat; (ii) things unclean to touch; (iii) unclean matters or conditions1. Portions i. Things unclean to eat. The prohibitions respecting food follow directly the laws concerning sacrifice. of many sacrifices, as we have seen, might be eaten. this eating the Law passes on to food generally, the nature of which has "commonly no little influence on the refinement and manners of a people." Concerning vegetable eating, no rules are laid down. In respect to animal food, the laws are clear and precise. (i) Of quadrupeds, the clean were such as both parted the hoof and chewed the cud, all others were unclean. All animals, therefore, used in sacrifice might be eaten, as also the numerous species of deer and gazelles (Deut. xiv. 5), but none of the carnivora, or such animals as the camel, coney, hare, or pig. (ii) Of birds also, all that were offered in sacrifice might be eaten, such as doves, pigeons, and also quails, but all birds of prey, and nearly all the waterfowl, were unclean. (iii) Of Fish, those only were clean that had both fins and scales. (iv) All Reptiles and Insects were unclean, except locusts, and such as had four legs for walking and two for springing (Lev. xi. 21, 22; comp. Matt. iii. 4). But the Israelite was also strictly forbidden to eat anything that died of itself (Ex. xxii. 31), or was torn by beasts, emphatically the blood of any animal (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. iii. 17; xvii. 10, 12; Comp. 1 Sam. xiv. 32, 33). (ii) Things unclean to touch. An Israelite incurred defilement who touched or handled (i) the dead body of any animal, whether clean or unclean (Lev. xi. 24-28), (ii) the body, bones, or grave of a dead man (Num. xix. 11, 13, 16), 1 Browne's Hebrew Antiquities. The latter was deemed a defilement calling for special purification. The person was unclean seven days. For his cleansing a young red heifer was slain outside the camp or town, in the presence of one of the priests. Some of the blood the priest was then to sprinkle seven times in the direction of the Sanctuary, to burn the entire carcase, and cast into the fire cedar-wood, scarlet wool, and hyssop. The ashes were then collected, and laid up in a clean place, and a portion mixed with water was to be sprinkled on whatever had been defiled, man, or place, or vessel. This ceremony was to be repeated twice, on the third and on the seventh day. On the latter day the person defiled washed his clothes, bathed, and was clean at even. But still stricter regulations were enforced when a priest or a Nazarite had become defiled (Num. xix. 1—22). (iii) Unclean matters or conditions. Many are enumerated, but we need speak of only one, the disease of LEPROSY. This fearful malady, indigenous in Egypt and Asia Minor, disfiguring the whole person, and making it horrible to the beholder, was called by the Jews the Stroke, and even by the Greeks the first-born son of Death'. It made itself apparent by a white swelling on the skin, especially on the face, turning the skin white (Ex. iv. 6), and the hair white or yellow (Lev. xiii. 3, 10, 30), and producing other disfigurements. The person affected with it was instantly to repair to the priests (Lev. xiii. 2, 9), whose duty it was to make a minute examination, and pronounce whether it was a case of "true leprosy." If so, the sufferer was pronounced utterly unclean, and forthwith assumed the awful badges of his sad condition. He rent his clothes, bared his head, put a covering on his upper lip (Lev. xiii. 45), as though he was mourning for the dead (Ezek xxiv. 17, 22), and wherever he went cried out, Unclean unclean! An exile from his home, his family, his friends (Num. v. 2), he was bound to reside without the camp or city in a separate house by himself, or in the society of others similarly afflicted (Lev. xiii. 46; 2 Kings XV. 5; 2 Kings vii. 3; Lk. xvii. 12). No Israelite ever preThe priest tended to effect a cure of this awful malady. could pronounce upon the symptoms, shut out the sufferer from the congregation, but he had no power to heal. If, however, the symptoms abated, and there were any signs of a cure, the sufferer again went to the priest, who carefully ascertained whether this was the case. If so, a peculiar ceremony celebrated the healing. It consisted of two stages, 1 Eschylus, Choeph. 271. (i) Two birds were taken, one killed by the priest over running water, the other dipped, together with cedar-wood, scarlet wool, and hyssop, in its blood, and suffered to fly away into the open air. The priest then sprinkled the leper with the blood seven times, and pronounced him clean. (ii) But before he could return to the society of his fellowmen, he must wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, bathe, and then present himself at the Sanctuary with a he-lamb as a Trespass-offering, an ewe lamb as a Sin-offering, and a he-lamb as a Burnt-offering with its usual meat-offering. In cases of poverty two doves or pigeons might be presented in place of the two latter offerings, but the he-lamb as a Trespassoffering was indispensable. This was first slain, and its blood smeared by the priest on the leper's right ear, the thumb of his right hand, and the great toe of his right foot. Consecrated oil was then similarly applied, and poured on his head, and the other sacrifices offered, at the conclusion of which atonement was deemed to have been made, and the Leper was clean (Lev. xiv. 49-53). The regulations respecting this fearful malady were no mere sanitary regulations, for it was not catching from one person to another (comp. 2 Kings v. 1; viii. 4), and the ordinances respecting it did not apply to the stranger and the sojourner. "From the whole host of maladies and diseases which had broken in upon man's body, God selected this, the sickness of sicknesses, that He might thereby testify against that out of which it and all other sicknesses grew, against SIN, as not from Him, and as grievous in His sight'." It was the outward and visible sign of the innermost spiritual corruption, a meet emblem in its small beginnings, its gradual spread, its internal disfigurement, its dissolution little by little of the whole body, of that which corrupts, degrades, and defiles man's inner nature, and renders him unmeet to enter the Presence of a Pure and Holy God. (iv) Among the Vows known before the time of Moses (and which, as a general rule, were discouraged by him, comp. Deut. xxiii. 21-23) was that of the Nazarite. The person making this vow was bound, usually for a certain term, to abstain from wine or strong drink, from grapes or anything made from the vine, from cutting the hair of his head, or approaching a corpse, even that of his nearest relative (Num. vi. 2-7). If he accidentally touched a corpse, he was obliged on the seventh day to cut off his hair, and begin his vow 1 Archbp. Trench On the Miracles, pp. 210-214. afresh on the next day, after presenting to the priest two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, one for a sin, and the other for a burnt-offering, and a lamb as a trespass-offering. At the expiration of his vow, he brought to the Tabernacle a burnt-, sin-, and thank-offering (Lev. vii. 12, 13) with a meatand drink-offering (Num. vi. 15), had the left shoulder of the thank-offering waved upon his hands by the priest (Num. vi. 19, 20), and cutting off his hair burnt it in the fire on the altar. Of Nazarites for life three are mentioned in Scripture, Samson (the only one actually called a Nazarite, Judg. xiii. 5), Samuel (1 Sam. i. 11), John the Baptist (Lk. i. 15).. H ITHERTO we have been concerned with those portions of the Mosaic Law, which instructed the Israelite in his duty towards God, and the mode in which He was to be worshipped. We will now turn to the chief of those which instructed him in his duty as (i) a member of a family, and (ii) of a nation. (i) The FAMILY RELATIONS include (1) The mutual duties of Parents and Children, (2) of Husband and Wife, (3) of Master and Servant. (1) The duties of Parents and Children. Reverence for parents is enjoined in the Decalogue as the first duty next after those appertaining to God Himself. Honour thy father and mother is the first and the only commandment to which a promise of long life and continuance in the Promised Land is definitely attached (Ex. xx. 12; Eph. vi. 2), and to smite or revile father or mother is made a capital offence (Ex. xxi. 15, 17; Lev. xix. 3; xx. 9). In the Patriarchal times, as we have already seen1, the authority of the father over 1 See above, p. 74. his children was very great. His blessing conferred special benefits, his curse special injury (Gen. ix. 25, 27; xxvii. 27—40; xlviii. 15, 20; xlix.). His authority was of great moment, not only in the marriage of sons (Gen. xxiv. 3), but of daughters, though in the latter case the consent of the brothers, or at least of the elder brother, was deemed important (Gen. xxiv. 50,51; xxxiv. 11). But the Mosaic Law did not invest the father with the same boundless power as the Greek or Roman Law1. He could not inflict death irresponsibly. The incorrigible son, whom he could not restrain from flagrant crimes, he might bring before the elders of the city, who, having obtained the concurrence of both parents, might sentence him to be stoned to death. But in the execution of the judgment the whole congregation were required 'to take part, in order to promote a more general abhorrence of the sin (Deut. xxi. 18-21). The father could not disinherit his sons; to the firstborn he must give two portions, and equal shares to the rest; but in case of extreme indigence he might sell his children, especially his daughters, into servitude, or surrender them to creditors as a pledge (Ex. 21. 7). (2) The Relations of Husband and Wife. The institution of marriage was jealously guarded by the Mosaic Law. Adultery ranked next to murder, and the punishment for both parties was death by stoning (Lev. xviii. 20; xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22). In deference to the universal custom of Oriental nations, and the example of the Patriarchs, polygamy was allowed, though by no means encouraged, and though frequently practised by the kings of Israel, was rare in private life (1 Sam. i. 2). The right of divorce was conceded (Deut. xxiv. 1—4) on account of the hardness of the hearts of the people (Matt. xix. 8), but a woman once divorced and marry 1 Milman's History of the Jews, I. 171. |