Israel and Humanity - Priesthood, prophesy and royalty

II.

Priesthood, prophecy and kingship.

Now consider what were, in the Jewish national life, the relationship between the priesthood on the one hand, the prophets and the royalty of the other. If we mention the prophetic side of the monarchy, it is not the relationship of the priesthood might be the same with one and with the other. The royalty and the priesthood were two institutions in Israel and therefore their reporting must be something positive and legal. The prophecy was not contrary to the proper bet an institution that was its distinctiveness and strength. It was the highest manifestation of national life, so high that it escaped not only coercion, but unregulated. Above all institutions, it was certainly in a sense, because the prophets were empowered to suspend all except that of monotheism. Between them and the priests, he could not exist Relations purely moral. What were they?

It was said that the priesthood was the stability and conservation, while the prophets represented progress. This is the opinion of Mr. Salvador and rationalists in general and progress provided we understand by natural developments virtually contained in the data of Revelation, there is nothing in this division we can not accept. It responds perfectly to the respective functions of priest and prophet, occupied the first, to practical issues, the second of religious idealism. It is also consistent with the portrait that we trace one another and the Pentateuch: the priest is the custodian of written law it receives from the hands of Parliament and he is responsible for providing a copy to the King obliged to retain and meditate constantly, the prophet was promised to Israel as the successor to Moses, not to legislate like him, but to interpret and enrich his work. The role we ascribe to the Prophet is proved by the very abuse that the text provides for mosaic and order, we mean the excitement to polytheism and idolatry. This solemn warning of Moses clearly indicates the area in which the activity must be exercised prophet, he must make legitimate use of his authority and the limit is imposed.

B. Jehuda Halevi in the singularly Cuzari approaching these ideas. According to him, the priests' the statute is entrusted, while the prophets have custody of the oral law, and as long as we reflect on the nature of the latter according to the Hebrew conception, we see that the role of instrument of progress is attributed to the prophecy already included in the doctrine of the famous rabbi of the Middle Ages.

Renan, in a passage of his religious studies, denies the general character of prophecy. "The general policy of the Prophets, he writes, is as close and opposed to progress. The Kings were a thought wider, and many of us who are portrayed as villains were perhaps princes reasonable, tolerant, supporters of the necessary alliances with foreign countries, in obedience to the needs of their time and a penchant for luxury industry. " There, we seem to be few errors of fact and appreciation. Far from condemning all and even friendly relations with all alliances abroad, the prophets often encouraged and between them and the dominant political, it was only a matter of choice, measuring and expediency. There were prophets in the days of Solomon, an ally of the king of Tyre, Hiram, and we do not see that they have expressed displeasure that approximation . Prophets like Elisha devote themselves kings Syrian . Jeremiah preaches submission to the king of Babylon , which is something other than a covenant, and Israel is mentioned, after Egypt and Babylon in the blessing of Isaiah . The patriarchal history also offered examples of alliance with the Gentiles; Abraham had contracted with Abimelech, Aner and Mamre Escola its allies are also called .

What was the purpose of invective against the Prophets national alliances? They tend only to preserve the national spirit of failures that would compromise the purity of morals and beliefs, Israel must have confidence in God and therefore in the election for which he had been subjected. The eminent critic just quoted certainly knew as well as anyone the superiority of Jewish civilization over that of neighboring peoples. He could not without injustice called enemies of progress of men who, like the prophets, worked with all their might, even at the risk of not being understood by their fellow citizens, to protect the Jewish spirit against the dangers of all kinds threatened him. Progress, for those who are ahead of their contemporaries, is not to upgrade to the crowd, but instead to keep their position, despite the difficulties it presents. Far from having a closer view that proponents of foreign alliances, the prophets looked above and below. It was they contemplated the future of humanity and even if, in their grandiose vision of the future, they have sometimes compromised the current political interests of their people, real progress should still be recognized as benefactors, as they did that make Israel Israel temporal and spiritual ideal that was uppermost in their thoughts. If there was exaggeration on their part, the excess was in the direction of more generous universalism, that is to say diametrically opposed to the national bigotry that has been used to blame the Jews. The luxury industry may have suffered, but there is something in the world that deserves to be preferred to one or the other.

At one point of view a little different, we could say that the priesthood is the individuality and Jewish prophecy cosmopolitan trends, that is to say, the progress not only in time but in space. In this regard, the priesthood, kingship and the judiciary have in common is that they are all bodies of Jewish particularism, the priesthood, as he manages this part of the religion that is the specialty of Israel element suprarational, royalty, as she saves the interest, and the judiciary, as it keeps the company on its legal basis. The prophecy is contrary to Jewish life itself, but affects all these particular points, but it surpasses it extends to all humanity, embrace the future and rises above national interests and contingencies to God. It resembles in a way that claims to be in our modern free thought, however, much less free than it is supposed, as it moves under the direction of certain specified laws, while the prophetic thought the contrary was actually much more free than she thought to be.

It should be noted now, as regards the reports of the priesthood with royalty, how carefully the two functions have been distinguished and well separated in Judaism. No obstruction could not be tolerated by the king on the prerogatives of priests. Anyone who tried to usurp the priestly power was beaten on the field of divine punishment. Perhaps the story of Korah is it that the oldest of scriptures warning against such a confusion of powers, as if Persephone had not the royal dignity, was at least a prince in Israel and had resulted in its train the elite of the nation. On the other hand, the priest was not only subject to the jurisdiction of the senior judiciary that could decide the sovereign pontiff himself, but he was also dependent on the king's policy under which it still ranked hierarchically and he could not no way aspire to wear the crown. This subordination of the priest appears in the same attitude that should be observed during the prayer. The rule was that there was more elevated in the social ladder, the more we should show by his posture of submission; and it just tilts his head as Israelite first three and last three blessings Schemoné Benedictions while the high priest was obliged to bow at the beginning and end of each, only the king would never raise his head from the start until completion of the prayer . II.

Priesthood, prophecy and kingship.

Now consider what were, in the Jewish national life, the relationship between the priesthood on the one hand, the prophets and the royalty of the other. If we mention the prophetic side of the monarchy, it is not the relationship of the priesthood might be the same with one and with the other. The royalty and the priesthood were two institutions in Israel and therefore their reporting must be something positive and legal. The prophecy was not contrary to the proper bet an institution that was its distinctiveness and strength. It was the highest manifestation of national life, so high that it escaped not only coercion, but unregulated. Above all institutions, it was certainly in a sense, because the prophets were empowered to suspend all except that of monotheism. Between them and the priests, he could not exist Relations purely moral. What were they?

It was said that the priesthood was the stability and conservation, while the prophets represented progress. This is the opinion of Mr. Salvador and rationalists in general and progress provided we understand by natural developments virtually contained in the data of Revelation, there is nothing in this division we can not accept. It responds perfectly to the respective functions of priest and prophet, occupied the first, to practical issues, the second of religious idealism. It is also consistent with the portrait that we trace one another and the Pentateuch: the priest is the custodian of written law it receives from the hands of Parliament and he is responsible for providing a copy to the King obliged to retain and meditate constantly, the prophet was promised to Israel as the successor to Moses, not to legislate like him, but to interpret and enrich his work. The role we ascribe to the Prophet is proved by the very abuse that the text provides for mosaic and order, we mean the excitement to polytheism and idolatry. This solemn warning of Moses clearly indicates the area in which the activity must be exercised prophet, he must make legitimate use of his authority and the limit is imposed.

B. Jehuda Halevi in the singularly Cuzari approaching these ideas. According to him, the priests' the statute is entrusted, while the prophets have custody of the oral law, and as long as we reflect on the nature of the latter according to the Hebrew conception, we see that the role of instrument of progress is attributed to the prophecy already included in the doctrine of the famous rabbi of the Middle Ages.

Renan, in a passage of his religious studies, denies the general character of prophecy. "The general policy of the Prophets, he writes, is as close and opposed to progress. The Kings were a thought wider, and many of us who are portrayed as villains were perhaps princes reasonable, tolerant, supporters of the necessary alliances with foreign countries, in obedience to the needs of their time and a penchant for luxury industry. " There, we seem to be few errors of fact and appreciation. Far from condemning all and even friendly relations with all alliances abroad, the prophets often encouraged and between them and the dominant political, it was only a matter of choice, measuring and expediency. There were prophets in the days of Solomon, an ally of the king of Tyre, Hiram, and we do not see that they have expressed displeasure that approximation . Prophets like Elisha devote themselves kings Syrian . Jeremiah preaches submission to the king of Babylon , which is something other than a covenant, and Israel is mentioned, after Egypt and Babylon in the blessing of Isaiah . The patriarchal history also offered examples of alliance with the Gentiles; Abraham had contracted with Abimelech, Aner and Mamre Escola its allies are also called .

What was the purpose of invective against the Prophets national alliances? They tend only to preserve the national spirit of failures that would compromise the purity of morals and beliefs, Israel must have confidence in God and therefore in the election for which he had been subjected. The eminent critic just quoted certainly knew as well as anyone the superiority of Jewish civilization over that of neighboring peoples. He could not without injustice called enemies of progress of men who, like the prophets, worked with all their might, even at the risk of not being understood by their fellow citizens, to protect the Jewish spirit against the dangers of all kinds threatened him. Progress, for those who are ahead of their contemporaries, is not to upgrade to the crowd, but instead to keep their position, despite the difficulties it presents. Far from having a closer view that proponents of foreign alliances, the prophets looked above and below. It was they contemplated the future of humanity and even if, in their grandiose vision of the future, they have sometimes compromised the current political interests of their people, real progress should still be recognized as benefactors, as they did that make Israel Israel temporal and spiritual ideal that was uppermost in their thoughts. If there was exaggeration on their part, the excess was in the direction of more generous universalism, that is to say diametrically opposed to the national bigotry that has been used to blame the Jews. The luxury industry may have suffered, but there is something in the world that deserves to be preferred to one or the other.

At one point of view a little different, we could say that the priesthood is the individuality and Jewish prophecy cosmopolitan trends, that is to say, the progress not only in time but in space. In this regard, the priesthood, kingship and the judiciary have in common is that they are all bodies of Jewish particularism, the priesthood, as he manages this part of the religion that is the specialty of Israel element suprarational, royalty, as she saves the interest, and the judiciary, as it keeps the company on its legal basis. The prophecy is contrary to Jewish life itself, but affects all these particular points, but it surpasses it extends to all humanity, embrace the future and rises above national interests and contingencies to God. It resembles in a way that claims to be in our modern free thought, however, much less free than it is supposed, as it moves under the direction of certain specified laws, while the prophetic thought the contrary was actually much more free than she thought to be.

It should be noted now, as regards the reports of the priesthood with royalty, how carefully the two functions have been distinguished and well separated in Judaism. No obstruction could not be tolerated by the king on the prerogatives of priests. Anyone who tried to usurp the priestly power was beaten on the field of divine punishment. Perhaps the story of Korah is it that the oldest of scriptures warning against such a confusion of powers, as if Persephone had not the royal dignity, was at least a prince in Israel and had resulted in its train the elite of the nation. On the other hand, the priest was not only subject to the jurisdiction of the senior judiciary that could decide the sovereign pontiff himself, but he was also dependent on the king's policy under which it still ranked hierarchically and he could not no way aspire to wear the crown. This subordination of the priest appears in the same attitude that should be observed during the prayer. The rule was that there was more elevated in the social ladder, the more we should show by his posture of submission; and it just tilts his head as Israelite first three and last three blessings Schemoné Benedictions while the high priest was obliged to bow at the beginning and end of each, only the king would never raise his head from the start until completion of the prayer .