adduced in favour of any peculiar priesthood are quite untenable. That Esau's raiment, mentioned in Gen. xxvii. 15, was priestly raiment, is an absurd fiction. That Jacob's blessing in Gen. xlix. 3 included the priesthood among the privileges of the birthright, is a notion founded entirely upon Luther's false rendering. That the young men, whom Moses sent to offer sacrifice (Ex. xxiv. 5), were all eldest sons, is a gratuitous assumption; and the substitution of the tribe of Levi for all the firstborn of the congregation does not prove anything, since Vitringa is certainly right in saying (p. 272): illos Deo consecratos esse ad ministerium sacrum non ad sacerdotium, s. non ut sacerdotes sed ut sacrificia. The natural and historical order of events was certainly this, that the priestly functions were usually discharged by the fathers and heads of the families; and therefore, if the firstborn inherited any priestly rights, it was simply on account of his becoming the head of the family. See Buddei hist. eccl. ed. iv. Vol. i. p. 311 sqq. § 8. The general culture of the patriarchs was undoubtedly affected by their nomadic mode of life. But nothing can be more unwarrantable, than to attribute to the patriarchs all the rudeness and hopeless degradation of ordinary nomad-hordes, who determinately fence themselves against any influence from the civilization by which they may be surrounded. Their wandering mode of life in the holy land was the necessary consequence of their being foreigners without a home. Their pilgrimage was forced upon them, and the period of its cessation was the constant object of their hopes and desires. Hence we find that, so far as it was possible, they did participate in the benefits resulting from the culture and civilization of the more settled tribes, with whom they came in contact. (1)—The external constitution of the patriarchal commonwealth partook of the characteristics of a family. The head of the family concentrated the whole authority and jurisdiction in his own person; he even possessed the power of life and death, controlled only by certain fixed traditions (Gen. xxxviii. 24). The position of the woman was a subordinate one, as it always was before the time of Christ, VOL. II. H her claim to equal rights being nowhere fully recognised. Hence polygamy was regarded as perfectly justifiable. But we find no trace among the patriarchs of such degradation of the woman, as is found wherever she is regarded as nothing but a slave of the man, affording him the means of perpetuating his race and gratifying his lusts. On the contrary, we find many a proof of the esteem and love which she received as a wife, and of the personal rights which she possessed as the mistress of the house. (2) We also find the inviolable purity of the marriage bed maintained with such severity that adultery was punished with death (Gen. xxxviii. 24), and in the case of the patriarchs it was rendered peculiarly important from their consciousness of a divine call and of the destiny of the family. The strongest incitement to polygamy arose from the desire to maintain and enlarge the family, and this was also the cause of the peculiar institution of the Levirate marriage (see Vol. i., § 86. 2). (1.) Hengstenberg (Beitr. ii. 431 seq.) has made an excellent collection of proofs that general culture was both sought after and possessed: "In the case of the patriarchs it is very apparent, that their wandering mode of life was forced upon them by the fact that they were sojourners in a land, the whole of which was held in possession by its original occupants. We find no marks of the rudeness of nomad tribes. Both mentally and morally they were on a level with civilized nations. They shared in the advantages, conveniences, and luxuries enjoyed by more favoured nations. Jacob possessed a signet-ring; Joseph wore a richly ornamented dress; Abraham paid for the field he bought, in coin; the sons of Jacob also took money with them to purchase corn; and Abraham's servant presented Rebekah with a gold ring and armlets. Wherever it was possible, the nomadic life was immediately relinquished. Lot settled in Sodom, occupied a house there, and entered too readily into the habits of the town. When Abraham went down to Egypt, instead of doing what nomads by profession and inclination have been in the habit of doing for thousands of years, namely taking up his abode in the pasture lands on the border, he went direct to the court of the king (Gen. xii. 10 sqq.). He afterwards settled in Hebron as a home, and was there the prince of God in the midst of the Hittites (Gen. xxiii.). Isaac lived in the capital of the Philistines, and occupied a house opposite to the palace (Gen. xxvi. 8). He also sowed a field (ver. 12). Jacob built himself a house after his return from Mesopotamia (chap. xxxiii. 17).—Joseph's dream of the sheaves of his brethren bowing down to his sheaf is also an important illustration of the point in question (cf. Vol. i., § 84. 1). (2). There are many proofs that the person of the woman was highly esteemed. The history of Sarah shows, that in several respects she had the right to exercise her own authority in the sphere of domestic life. The consent of the bride was asked on the occasion of her marriage (chap. xxiv. 58). The husband showed the most devoted affection to his wife (chap. xxiv. 67, xxix. 20). The multiplication of wives does not appear to have been entirely dependent upon the caprice of the husband, but was generally founded upon, and defended by the barrenness of the lawful wife (chap. xvi. 2 sqq., xxx. 3, 4, 9). And when any plan was decided upon, which was intended to alter the general condition of the family, the wife was asked to give her consent. Thus, for example, when Jacob fled from Mesopotamia, he explained his reasons to his wives, that he might obtain their approbation (chap. xxxi. 4 sqq.). |