In the pure form of the parable, the personages introduced to illustrate God's ways of providence and grace do not, as in the allegory, directly represent God himself. It is not necessary, therefore, that there be in all cases a correspondence between their character and that of the holy God. It is sufficient if the words and deeds ascribed to them truly illustrate the spiritual principle in question. In the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-35), his lord "commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made" (ver. 25); and afterwards he "was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" (ver. 34). We need not trouble ourselves about the reasonableness of these acts on the part of an earthly lord. It is sufficient for the end of the parable that they were in accordance with the usages of the age, and thus illustrated the great truth which the parable was intended to enforce: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (ver. 35). We have still more forcible illustrations of this principle in such parables as those of the importunate friend (Luke 11:5-8), the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8), and the unfaithful steward (Luke 16:1-9). The Saviour does not compare God to an indolent friend, who will not arise to accommodate his neighbor with bread till he is forced to do so by his importunity; nor to an unjust judge, who fears not God nor regards men. But he draws illustrations from their conduct of the efficacy of importunate prayer; adding, at the conclusion of each parable, its scope: "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Luke 11:9); "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?" Luke 18:7. In the parable of the unfaithful steward, our Lord introduces a fraudulent transaction—a transaction so manifestly fraudulent that there is no danger of our thinking that it could have his approbation—that he may thus illustrate the importance of prudent provision for the future. By allowing each of his lord's debtors to diminish the amount due from him, he gains their favor, that in time of need he may be received into their houses. For the right apprehension of the parable, the words of the eighth verse are of primary importance: "And the lord [the master of the steward] commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely" [prudently, as the Greek word means]. Unjust as the steward's conduct was, he could not but commend it as a prudent transaction for the end which he had in view. Our Saviour adds: "For the children of this world are in their generation [more exactly, towards or in respect to their own generation; that is, in dealing with men of their own sort] wiser than the children of light." The steward and his lord's debtors were all "children of this world," and the transaction between them was conducted upon worldly principles. Our Saviour would have "the children of light"—God's holy children, who live and act in the sphere of heavenly light—provident of their everlasting welfare in the use which they make of this world's goods, as this steward was of his earthly welfare when he should be put out of his stewardship. He accordingly adds, as the scope of the parable (ver. 9): "Make to yourselves friends of [by the right use of] the mammon of unrighteousness [so called as being with unrighteous men the great object of pursuit, and too commonly sought, moreover, by unrighteous means]; that when ye fail [are discharged from your stewardship by death], they may receive you [that is, the friends whom ye have made by bestowing your earthly riches in deeds of love and mercy] into everlasting habitations." Our Lord uses the words, "they may receive you," in allusion to the steward's language: "they may receive me into their houses." They do not receive us by any right or authority of their own, for this belongs to Christ alone; but they receive us in the sense that they bear witness before the throne of Christ to our deeds of love and mercy, by which is manifested the reality of our faith, and thus our title, through grace, to everlasting habitations. Compare the remarkable passage in Matt. 25:34-46, which furnishes a true key to the present parable.

8. To determine whether a symbol is a real transaction or seen only in vision, we must consider both its nature and the context. When Ezekiel, at God's command, visits the temple-court, digs in its wall, and sees the abominations practised there (chap. 8), we know from his own words (ver. 3) that the whole transaction was "in the visions of God." So also the remarkable vision of dry bones. Chap. 37:1-14. But the symbolical action that follows—the joining of two sticks into one—seems to be represented as real; for the people ask concerning it: "Wilt thou not tell us what thou meanest by these?" (ver. 18), and the two sticks are in the prophet's hand "before their eyes" (ver. 20). The nature of the symbolical transaction recorded in Jer. 32:6-12—the purchase of Hanameel's field—with the accompanying historical circumstances, shows that it was real. From the nature of the vision of the chariot of God, on the contrary, which Ezekiel saw (chap. 1:10), as well as from the accompanying notices (chaps. 1:1; 8:1-4), we know that it was represented to the prophet's inner sense, not seen with his outward eyes. The moral character of the transactions recorded by Hosea (chaps. 1-3) has led commentators to decide against their literal occurrence.

In some cases we must remain in doubt whether the symbolical transactions are real or seen in vision. How are we to understand, for example, the transactions recorded in Isa. chap. 20; in Jer. chap. 13:1-11; in Ezek. chap. 4? Concerning such examples expositors will judge differently; but in either way of understanding them, their meaning and the instructions which they furnish are the same.

The subject of symbols will come up again in connection with that of prophecy. At present we consider simply the general principles upon which they are to be interpreted. Here we are to be guided first of all by the writer's own explanations. Where these are wanting we must carefully study the nature of the figures used, and the connections in which they occur.

The sacred writers very commonly indicate the meaning of the symbols which they employ. Thus the prophet Isaiah is directed to loose the sackcloth from his loins, and put off his shoe from his foot, walking naked and barefoot. Chap. 20:2. Then follows the explanation of this symbolical transaction: "Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia; so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot," etc. (ver. 3, 4). For other examples see the symbol of the girdle (Jer. 13:1-7 compared with ver. 8-11); of the purchase of Hanameel's field (Jer. 32:6-12 compared with ver. 13-15); of the removal of household stuff (Ezek. 12:3-7 compared with ver. 8-12); of the plumb-line (Amos 7:7, 8); of the four horns and four smiths (Zech. 1:18-21); and many other symbolical transactions which will readily occur to the student of Scripture.

But sometimes the symbol is given without an explanation, or with only an obscure intimation of its meaning. The prophet Amos has a vision of grasshoppers, and afterwards of a devouring fire, with only a general intimation that they denote heavy calamities, which the Lord in his pity will avert in answer to prayer. Amos 7:1-6. Here the nature of the symbols, in connection with the known situation of the Israelitish people, shows that they represent the general desolation of the land by foreign enemies. The prophet Ezekiel adds no interpretation to his vision of the Lord enthroned in glory upon the firmament above the chariot with four cherubim and four living wheels full of eyes, in the midst of which a bright fire glows and lightnings blaze. Chaps. 1, 10. From a careful study of the nature of this magnificent imagery we may infer with probability that the cherubim with their wheels, moving every way with the rapidity of a flash of lightning, denote all the agencies and instrumentalities by which God administers his government over the world, which are absolutely at his command, and execute with unerring certainty all his high purposes. The four faces of the cherubim, moreover, which answer to the four principal divisions of living beings among the Hebrews, seem to represent the fulness of their endowments. The meaning of Ezekiel's vision of a New Jerusalem, with its temple and altar, comes more properly under the head of prophecy. Some of the symbols in the book of Zechariah are expounded with beautiful clearness, as that of the two olive-trees. Chap. 4:1-10. Of others the meaning is only hinted at in an enigmatical way; so that their interpretation is a matter of great difficulty and uncertainty. As examples we may refer to the symbol of the ephah (chap. 5:5-11); of the four chariots coming out from between two mountains of brass with horses of different colors (chap. 6:1-9); of the two staves, Beauty and Bands, with which the prophet in vision is commanded to feed "the flock of the slaughter," and which he is afterwards to break (chap. 11:4-14). For the details in the interpretation of these and other difficult symbols the reader must be referred to the commentaries. Our limits will only allow us to indicate the general principles upon which the expositor must proceed.

9. There is a class of scriptural symbols which may be called numerical. Thus seven is the well-known symbol of completeness, four of universality, twelve of God's people. See Chap. 32, No. 5. Under this head fall also those passages in which a day is put for a year, or for an indefinitely long period of time. One of the most certain examples is Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks that were to precede the death of the Messiah (chap. 9:24-27), for the details of which the reader is referred to the commentators. Upon the same principle we must, in all probability, interpret the "time and times and dividing of time," that is, three and a half years (Dan. 7:25); the "forty and two months" (Rev. 11:2; 13:5); and the "thousand two hundred and threescore days" (Rev. 11:3; 12:6). Compare Ezekiel 4:4-8, in which symbolical transaction a day is expressly put as the symbol of a year. On the symbolical interpretation of the six days of creation, see in Chap. 19, No. 6.



SECOND DIVISION.

INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE DIVINE SIDE

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE UNITY OF REVELATION.

1. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world;" and therefore they constitute together a self-consistent whole. To receive the Holy Scriptures as containing a revelation from God is to acknowledge that they possess an essential and all-pervading unity. Whoever speaks timidly and hesitatingly of the essential harmony between the Old Testament and the New, either refuses to acknowledge both as given by inspiration of God, or he apprehends this great fundamental truth only in a confused and imperfect manner. If God spake by Moses and the prophets, as well as by Christ and his apostles, it is vain to allege any contradiction in doctrine or spirit between the former and the latter. So absolutely certain is it that the Saviour and his apostles built on the foundation of the Old Testament, that to deny its divine authority is to deny that of the New Testament also.

2. But the unity of revelation, like that which pervades all the other works of God, is a unity in the midst of diversity—diversity in its contemporaneous parts, but especially in its progress. Illustrations without number are at hand. The history of a plant of wheat, from the time when the kernel is sown in the earth to the harvest, has perfect unity of plan. But how unlike in outward form are the tender blade, the green stalk, and the ripened ear! The year constitutes a self-consistent whole. But can any thing be more dissimilar in form than spring and autumn? Yet no one thinks of finding a want of harmony between the fragrant blossoms of the former, and the ripened fruit of the latter. The path to the harvest lies through the blossoms. Geologists dwell at great length on the varied conditions through which our planet has passed, and the wonderfully diversified forms of vegetable and animal life corresponding to these several conditions. Yet in this endless diversity of outward form they recognize from first to last a deep underlying unity of plan. We might, then, reasonably infer beforehand that if God should make a revelation of himself to men, it would have not only unity but diversity of outward form, especially diversity of progress. The fact that the revelation contained in the Bible has such diversity is one of the seals of its genuineness.

3. We may consider this unity in diversity in respect to the form of God's kingdom. From Adam to Abraham God administered the affairs of the human family as a whole, without any visible organization of a church as distinct from the world at large. From Abraham to Moses his church—using the term church in a general sense—existed in a patriarchal form. With the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation he put it into the form of a state, of which he was the supreme head and lawgiver, while its earthly rulers exercised under him all the functions of civil offices, the bearing of the sword included. When Christ came, he separated the church from the state, and gave it its present spiritual and universal organization. In all this diversity of outward form we recognize the progress of one grand self-consistent plan.

4. We may now go back again to the beginning, and consider the diversity in the forms of public worship—the simple offering of Abel, who "brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof," the altars of the patriarchs, the gorgeous ceremonial of the Mosaic economy with its priesthood and sacrifices, "the service of song in the house of the Lord" added by David, the synagogue service of later times, and, finally, the spiritual priesthood of believers under the New Testament, whose office is "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5); and show that through all this variety of outward form the essence of God's service has ever remained unchanged, so that the example of primitive believers is a model for our imitation. Heb. chap. 11.

5. We may show, again, that the same manifoldness belongs to the forms of labor devolved on God's servants in different ages. The work assigned to Noah was not that of Abraham; nor was Abraham's work that of Moses; nor the work of Moses that of David; nor David's work that of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; nor did any one of the Old Testament believers receive the broad commission: "Go ye into all the world; and preach the gospel to every creature." They could not receive such a commission, for the way was not yet prepared. Abraham must sojourn in the land of promise "as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob" (Heb. 11:9); Moses must lead Israel out of Egypt, and be God's mediator for the law given on Sinai; Joshua must take possession of the land of promise and David maintain it, sword in hand; the prophets must foretell the future glories of Christ's kingdom, not preach it, as did the apostles, to all nations. But in the divine plan this manifoldness of service constitutes a self-consistent and harmonious whole.

6. The same unity in diversity belongs to the spirit of revelation. Failing to apprehend the character of God in its entireness, Marcion rent the seamless garment of divine perfection into two parts, the one consisting of justice, which he assigned to the "Demiurge" of the Old Testament, the other of goodness, as the attribute of the supreme God of the New Testament. He did not see that God's character is alike infinite on both sides; that his justice is a justice of infinite goodness, and his goodness a goodness of infinite justice. Hence he arrayed in opposition to each other two caricatures of deity, the one drawn from the Old Testament, the other from the New; an error in which he has had too many imitators in modern times. To see the harmony of the spirit that pervades the Holy Scriptures from beginning to end in respect to the Divine character, we should take a comprehensive instead of a partial view of their representations. It is true that the Old Testament describes God as infinite in holiness and inflexibly just. But it also describes him as "the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." It is true that God's covenant under the Old Testament was restricted to a single nation; but this was, as has been heretofore shown, preparatory to a universal dispensation of mercy, as when a general seizes one strong position with a view to the conquest of an entire region. Chap. 18. It is true, on the other hand, that the New Testament is, in a peculiar sense, a revelation of God's mercy through Jesus Christ. But it is a discriminating mercy, through which God's awful holiness and justice shine with dazzling brightness. It is a mercy shown not at the expense of justice, but in perfect harmony with it; a mercy sternly restricted, moreover, to those who comply with the conditions on which it is offered. The gospel is a plan of salvation, not of condemnation; "for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:17. Yet it brings condemnation to those who reject it; for the Saviour immediately adds (ver. 18): "He that believeth on him, is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." It is in the New Testament, not in the Old, that we find the most awful declarations of God's wrath against the finally impenitent, some of them proceeding, too, from the lips of the compassionate Saviour: "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thess. 1:7, 9); "He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36); "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. 25:46).

7. The same harmony of spirit pervades both Testaments in respect to the way of salvation. On this momentous question the teachings of the New Testament are fuller than those of the Old, but never in contradiction with them. The Old Testament teaches that men are saved, not from the merit of their good works, but from God's mercy: the New Testament adds a glorious revelation respecting the ground of this mercy in Jesus Christ. To exhibit in a clear light the reality of this harmony, let us take a passage of the New Testament which embodies in itself the substance of the way of salvation, and compare with it the declarations of the Old Testament. The following will be appropriate: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. "The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt" (Deut. 7:7, 8); "For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great" (Psa. 25:11); "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving-kindness; according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions" (Psa. 51:1); "I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen whither ye went" (Ezek. 36:22); "We do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies" (Dan. 9:18).

By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. "Behold thou desirest truth in the inward parts; and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Psa. 51:6, 7, 10, 11); "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer. 31:33); "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them" (Ezek. 36:25-27).

8. The stern character of the Mosaic dispensation is freely admitted. As a preparatory dispensation, severity belonged appropriately to it. "The law," says Paul, "was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:24. Its office was to educate the human conscience to such a point that it should be prepared for the full revelation of God's mercy in Christ. We may concede the prominence of God's justice in the Old Testament, and his mercy in the New; but we must never forget that neither part of divine revelation is complete in itself. It is only when we view them in their connection with each other, as parts of one great whole, that we discern in them an all-pervading unity and harmony of spirit.

From the unity of revelation some inferences may be drawn of a very practical character, especially in reference to the interpretation of the Old Testament.

9. Each particular communication from God to man must be, in its place and measure, perfect. For it proceeded from the infinite mind of God, who understood at the beginning the whole plan of redemption, and who, when he made the first revelation concerning it, knew all that was afterwards to follow, and said and did, in the most perfect way, what was proper to be said and done at the time. The revelations of the Holy Spirit, therefore, admit of a stupendous development, but no rectification or improvement. The very earliest of them contain the germs of all that is to follow without any admixture of falsehood. There is a holding back of the full light reserved for future ages, but no mist of error—nothing which, fairly interpreted, will ever need to be retracted. For this reason the very earliest of God's communications to men retain for us, who live in these latter days, their pristine freshness and power. Take, for example, the great primitive prophecy: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen. 3:15. We can find no words more pertinent to describe the mighty conflict now going on between the kingdom of God and that of Satan. What are they but a condensation into one sentence of the history of redemption—a flash of light from the third heavens, which discloses at a glance man's destiny from Eden to the trump of the archangel? And so is it also with the later prophecies concerning Christ and his kingdom. What is true of the revelations of the Old Testament holds good of all its institutions. In their place, and with reference to the end which they proposed to accomplish, they were all perfect; were the best that could be given under existing circumstances. At the foundation of all our reasonings concerning the appointments of the Old Testament must lie the axiom: "As for God his way is perfect."

10. The later revelations must he taken as the true exponents of the earlier. This is but saying that the Holy Spirit is the true and proper expositor of his own communications to men. Since, as we have seen, the first revelations were made in full view of all that was to follow, the later revelations must be considered not as a mass of foreign and heterogeneous materials superadded to the original prophecies, but as a true expansion of the earlier prophecies out of their own proper substance. For example, the promise made to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:18), is not so much a new promise as a further unfolding of the original one: "It shall bruise thy head." A further development of the same promise we have in Nathan's words to David: "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee, thy throne shall be established for ever;" and in all the bright train of prophecies in which the glory and universal dominion of the Messiah's kingdom are foretold down to the day of Gabriel's announcement to Mary: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Luke 1:32, 33.

And since the manifestation of God in the flesh is the culminating point of revelation, it follows that the Lord Jesus and his apostles, whom he authoritatively commissioned to unfold the doctrines of the gospel, must be, in a special sense, the expositors of the Old Testament, from whose interpretations, when once fairly ascertained, there is no appeal. The attempt of some to make a distinction between Christ's authority and that of his apostles is nugatory. As it is certain that our Lord himself could not have been in error, so it is certain also that he would not have commanded his apostles to teach all nations concerning himself and his doctrines, and have further given them, in the possession of miraculous powers, the broad seal of their commission, only to leave them subject to the common prejudices and errors of their age. See further in Chap. 7, Nos. 3, 4.

11. The extent of meaning contained in a given revelation must be that which the Holy Spirit intended. It is not to be limited, then, by the apprehension of those to whom it was originally made. Earlier prophecy is, at least in many cases, framed with a view to the subsequent development of its meaning. Until such development is made by God himself, either in the way of further revelations, or indirectly by the course of his providence, men's apprehension of its meaning, though it may be true as far as it goes, must yet be inadequate. To cite a single passage from one of the Old Testament prophecies: "It hath pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." Isa. 53:10. No one will maintain that the Jews before our Lord's advent (all carnal prejudices aside) could have had that apprehension of its deep meaning which it is our privilege to enjoy. This meaning was contained in the promise from the first, but in an undeveloped form. Accordingly the prophets themselves "inquired and searched diligently" concerning the import of their utterances and the time of their fulfilment. 1 Pet. 1:11. They who deny the reality of prophetic inspiration are necessitated, for consistency's sake, to deny also the principle now laid down. But if revelation be a true communication from God to men, it is reasonable to believe that it should have contained from the beginning the germs of mighty events in the distant future, the realization of which in history should be, in connection with further revelations from God, its true expositor.

12. The more obscure declarations of Scripture are to be interpreted from the clearer. A single passage of God's word occasionally gives us a glimpse of some great truth nowhere else referred to in Scripture. Of this we have a remarkable example in what the apostle says of Christ's delivering up the kingdom to the Father upon the completion of the work of redemption. 1 Cor. 15:24-28. But no great truth relating to the way of salvation through Christ is thus taught obscurely and in some single passage of Scripture. Every such truth pervades the broad current of revelation, and shines forth from its pages so clearly that no candid inquirer can fail to apprehend its true meaning. If, then, we find in the Bible dark and difficult passages, they must, if interpreted at all, be explained, not in contradiction with what is clearly and fully taught, but in harmony with it. This is but saying that, instead of using what is obscure to darken what is clearly revealed, we should, as far as possible, illustrate that which is dark by that which is clear.

The Scriptures teach, for example, with abundant clearness, that Christ is the only foundation on which the church can rest. Isa. 28:16; 1 Cor. 3:11; Ephes. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6. This is, indeed, an office which plainly requires for its exercise that omnipotence, and that supreme power in heaven and earth which are expressly ascribed to him. Matt. 11:27; 28:18; John 5:19-30; 17:2; 1 Cor. 15; 24-28; Ephes. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 1:3. When, therefore, our Lord says to Peter: "Thou art Peter [that is, as the word Peter means in the original, Thou art Rock], and upon this rock will I build my church" (Matt. 16:18), to understand Peter, or any pretended successor of Peter, as a rock in any other sense than as an eminent instrument in Christ's hand for the establishment of his church, is absurd and blasphemous.

Again: Christ gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19), and elsewhere the same power is conferred upon all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). That Peter and his associates in the apostleship had the keys of the kingdom of heaven in any such sense as that in which Christ has them (Rev. 3:7); that is, that they had authoritative power to admit their fellow-sinners to heaven, or exclude them from heaven, is contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament, which everywhere represents Christ as the supreme Judge, upon whose decision depends the everlasting destiny of every child of Adam. Matt. 7:21, 22; 16:27; 25:31-46; John 17:2; Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10. Christ's words concerning the keys may be best understood of the special authority which he bestowed on the apostles, as inspired teachers and guides of his primitive church, to settle all questions respecting her. For eminent examples of the exercise of this power, see the decisions concerning Gentile converts, Acts 11:1-18; 15:1-29. In this sense the gift of the keys ceased with that of inspiration. But if, as some think, the words may be understood of the common power conferred by Christ on his churches to regulate their own affairs, to administer discipline, and to admit or exclude from their communion, the power continues in this sense in the visible church, and is valid so far as it is exercised in accordance with God's word.

So also must we interpret the words of Christ recorded by the apostle John: "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." Chap. 20:22, 23. The authoritative forgiveness of sin is a prerogative of God alone, the exercise of which implies omniscience as well as supreme authority in heaven and earth. The prerogative of remitting and retaining men's sins here conferred on the apostles is part of the general power of binding and loosing already considered. It was exercised in the sphere of the visible church on earth. As it respects the actual forgiveness of sin and consequent admission of the soul to communion with God here and eternal life hereafter, God's ministers can only declare the terms of salvation as they are set forth in the gospel.

The same general principle is applicable to the interpretation of all passages containing "things hard to be understood." The "unlearned and unstable" wrest them, by taking them out of their connection and in contradiction to the general tenor of God's word. But the candid student of Scripture never uses that which is difficult in revelation to obscure that which is plain. He seeks, on the contrary, to illumine what is dark by that which shines with a clear and steady light.

13. As a fitting close to this part of our subject we add some remarks on the analogy of faith. "We may define it to be that general rule of doctrine which is deduced, not from two or three parallel passages, but from the harmony of all parts of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and practice." Horne's Introduct., vol. 1. p. 269, edit. 1860. It is based on two fundamental principles; first, that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and therefore constitutes a self-consistent whole, no part of which may be interpreted in contradiction with the rest; secondly, that the truths to which God's word gives the greatest prominence, and which it inculcates in the greatest variety of forms, must be those of primary importance. Thus understood, the analogy of faith is a sure guide to the meaning of the inspired volume. He who follows it will diligently and prayerfully study the whole word of God, not certain selected parts of it; since it is from the whole Bible that we gather the system of divine revelation in its fulness and just proportions. "If we come to the Scriptures with any preconceived opinions, and are more desirous to put that sense upon the text which coincides with our sentiments rather than with the truth, it then becomes the analogy of our faith rather than that of the whole system." Horne, ubi supra. In this substitution of "the analogy of our faith" for the analogy of Scripture lies the foundation of sectarian controversy.

Again; he who follows the true analogy of faith will not allow a doctrine which runs through the whole tenor of divine revelation to be weakened or set aside in the interest of some other scriptural doctrine.

The Scriptures teach, for example, with great frequency and clearness that men are saved, not from the merit of their good works, but solely by God's free grace through faith in Jesus Christ. They teach also with equal frequency and clearness that without repentance and obedience to the divine law there is no salvation. These two deductions are not contradictory, but supplementary to each other. They present two sides of one and the same way of salvation. Yet it may happen that a Biblical student will find himself unable to reconcile in a logical way two such deductions as the following: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28); "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). What then shall we counsel him to do? Plainly it is his duty, first of all, to receive and hold both doctrines. Afterwards he may properly seek to reconcile them with each other in a logical way; but if he fails to accomplish this task to his satisfaction, he must not deny one truth, or sink its importance, in the interest of the other. The same general principle applies to various other doctrinal difficulties, which need not be here specified.

Finally, a true regard to the analogy of faith will make our system of belief and practice entire and well proportioned in all its parts. Every declaration of God's word is to be received in a reverent and obedient spirit. But inasmuch as the Scriptures insist much more earnestly and fully on some things than on others, it is our wisdom to follow, in this respect, the leadings of the Holy Spirit. It will be the aim of the enlightened believer to give to each doctrine and precept of revelation the place and prominence assigned to it in the Bible. Especially will he be careful that no obscure or doubtful passage of Scripture be allowed to contradict the plain teachings of inspiration.

The practical study of the Bible, that is, the study of it as "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," resolves itself in a great measure into the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, especially the comparison of doctrinal parallelisms. All that the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation concerning God's being and attributes, his providential government over man, the person and offices of Christ and the way of salvation through him, and the final destiny of the righteous and the wicked, should be diligently compared, that from the whole we may gather a full and well-proportioned system of faith and practice as it is contained in the pages of inspiration. So far as we fail to do this our view of divine truth is defective and disproportioned. The solemn warning in respect to the last book of revelation applies with equal force to revelation as a whole: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book." Rev. 22:18, 19.



CHAPTER XXXVII.

SCRIPTURAL TYPES.

1. The material world is full of analogies adapted to the illustration of spiritual things. No teacher ever drew from this inexhaustible storehouse such a rich variety of examples as our Saviour. His disciples are the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and a city set on a hill. From the ravens which God feeds and the lilies which God clothes, he teaches the unreasonableness of worldly anxiety. The kingdom of heaven is like seed sown in different soils, like a field of wheat and tares growing together, and like seed that springs up and grows the sower knows not how. Again it is like a net cast into the sea, like a grain of mustard seed, and like leaven hid in three measures of meal. When the Saviour opens his lips the whole world of nature stands ready to furnish him with arguments and illustrations; as well it may, since the God of nature is also the God of revelation. The world of secular activity abounds in like analogies, on which another class of our Lord's parables is based; like that of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, the servants intrusted with different talents, the ten virgins, the importunate friend, the unjust judge, the unfaithful steward, the prodigal son, and others that need not be enumerated. Analogies like these, however, do not properly constitute types. Types rest on a foundation of analogy, but do not consist in analogy alone.

2. In the history of God's people, moreover, as well as of the world which he governs with reference to them, the present is continually foreshadowing something higher in the future. This must be so, because the train of events in their history constitutes, in the plan of God, neither a loose and disconnected series nor a confused jumble of incidents, like a heap of stones thrown together without order or design, but a well-ordered whole. It is a building, in which the parts now in progress indicate what is to follow. It is the development of a plant, in which "the blade" foreshadows "the ear," and the ear, "the full corn in the ear." The primal murder, when "Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him," "because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous," was the inauguration of the great conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent—the forerunner of the higher struggle in Egypt between Pharaoh on the side of the devil, and the covenant people on the side of the seed of the woman. This struggle in Egypt, again, foreshadowed the still higher contest between truth and error in the land of Canaan—a contest which endured through so many centuries, and enlisted on both sides so many kings and mighty men; and which, in its turn, ushered in the grand conflict between the kingdom of Christ and that of Satan, a conflict that began on the day of Pentecost, and is yet in progress. This continual foreshadowing of the future by the present is essentially of a typical nature, yet it does not constitute, in and of itself, what we understand by a type in the ordinary usage of the term.

3. A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate something higher in the future, which is called the antitype. This definition includes three particulars: (1.) The type must be a true adumbration of the thing typified, though, from the very nature of the case, the adumbration must be inadequate—a shadow only of the antitype, and not its substance. Thus the paschal lamb was a type of Christ, though there is infinitely more in the antitype than in the type. (2.) The symbol must be of divine appointment, and as such, designed by God to represent the antitype. We must carefully remember, however, that, from the very nature of the case, the divine intention cannot be clearly announced when the type is instituted. The paschal lamb typified "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;" but it was not till centuries after the institution of the passover that God began to intimate by the prophets the approaching sacrifice of the great Antitype (Isa. chap. 53; Zech. 13:7), and the full import of the type was revealed only when the sacrifice of "Christ our passover" had been accomplished on Calvary. (3.) Since the type is "a shadow of good things to come," it follows that the antitype must belong to the future. A pure symbol may belong to the present or the near future. It may represent something that now exists, or is coming into existence, in respect to which concealment is not necessary. Hence we find the sacred writers freely explaining the meaning of the symbols which they employ (Numb. chap. 17; Josh. 4:1-7; 1 Sam. 7:12; 10:1, and the same symbol of anointing often elsewhere; 1 Kings 11:29-39; 22:11, where a false prophet uses a symbol; Isa. chap. 20; Jer. 1:11-14; 13:1-11, and elsewhere; Ezek. chap. 3, and in many other passages; Amos 7:1-9; 8:1-3; Zech. 1:8-11, and elsewhere). The true type, on the contrary, reckoned from the time of its institution, looks forward to the distant future. The high reality which it foreshadows may be intimated by the prophets "as in a glass darkly," but the appearance of the antitype can alone furnish a full explanation of its meaning.

The types of the Old Testament have been variously classified. We propose to consider them under the two divisions of historical and ritual types.

I. HISTORICAL TYPES.

4. The extravagance of a class of Biblical expositors in converting the Old Testament history into allegory typical of persons and events under the gospel dispensation has produced a strong reaction, leading some to deny altogether the existence of historical types. But this is going to the other extreme of error. No man who acknowledges the writers of the New Testament to be true expositors of the meaning of the Old can consistently deny the existence in the Old Testament of such types, for they interpret portions of its history in a typical way. But it is of the highest importance that we understand, in respect to such history, that it has a true and proper significance of its own, without respect to its typical import. It is not allegory, which has, literally taken, no substance. It is not mere type, like the rites of the Mosaic law, the meaning of which is exhausted in their office of foreshadowing the antitype. It is veritable history, valid for the men of its own day, fulfilling its office in the plan of God's providence, and containing, when we look at it simply as history, its own lessons of instruction. We call it typical history because, following the guidance of the New Testament writers, we are constrained to regard it as so ordered and shaped by God's providence as to prefigure something higher in the Christian dispensation.

No careful student of the New Testament can for a moment doubt that David's kingdom typified the kingdom of Christ. There is, indeed, a very important sense in which David's kingdom was identical with that of Christ; for its main element was the visible church of God, founded on the covenant made with Abraham, and therefore in all ages one and indivisible. Rom. 11:17-24; Gal. 3:14-18; Ephes. 2:20. But we now speak of David's kingdom in its outward form, which was temporary and typical of something higher. In this sense it is manifest that God appointed it to foreshadow that of the Messiah. David's headship adumbrated the higher headship of the Redeemer; his conflicts with the enemies of God's people and his final triumph over them, Christ's conflicts and victories. The same thing was true of Solomon, and in a measure of all the kings of David's line, so far as they were true to their office as the divinely appointed leaders of the covenant people. Unless we adopt this principle, the view which the New Testament takes of a large number of Psalms—the so-called Messianic psalms—becomes utterly visionary.

But neither David's kingdom nor his headship over it was mere type. The nation over which he presided was a historic reality, a true power among the other nations of the earth. His leadership also, with its conflicts and triumphs, belongs to true history. It brought to the people of his own day true deliverance from the power of their enemies; and it contains, when we study it without reference to its typical character, true lessons of instruction for all ages.

The declarations of Scripture in respect to the typical nature of the prophetical office are not so numerous and decisive as those which relate to the kingly office. There is, however, a remarkable passage in the book of Deuteronomy, from which we may legitimately infer that it was truly typical of Christ. When God had addressed the people directly from the midst of the cloud and fire on Sinai, unable to endure this mode of communication between God and man, they besought God that he would henceforth address them through the ministry of Moses: "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die." Exod. 20:19. With reference to this request, God said to Moses: "They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth: and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." Deut. 18:17-19. The essential points of this promise are, that the promised prophet shall be like Moses, one whose words shall be invested with supreme authority; and, especially, that he shall be raised up from among their brethren, and shall therefore be a man like themselves. The promise was manifestly intended to meet the wants of the covenant people from that day and onward. Yet the great Prophet in whom it was fulfilled did not appear till after the lapse of fifteen centuries or more. But in the mean time the promise was truly fulfilled to God's people in a typical way through the succession of prophets, who spake in God's name, and who were men like their brethren to whom they were sent. In these two essential particulars the prophetical office truly prefigured Christ, its great Antitype.

The Old Testament contains not only typical orders of men, but typical transactions also; that is, transactions which, while they had their own proper significance as a part of the history of God's church, were yet so ordered by God as to shadow forth with remarkable clearness and force the higher truths of Christ's kingdom. Such are the transactions between Melchizedek and Abraham recorded in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. Considered simply in itself, Melchizedek's priesthood belongs to the class of ritual types. But in the record of his intercourse with Abraham there is an accumulation of historic circumstances arranged by God's providence to shadow forth the higher priesthood of Christ. (1.) He united in his person the kingly and priestly offices, as does the Messiah. In the hundred and tenth Psalm it is, in like manner, a king invested by God with universal sovereignty, to whom the declaration is made: "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek." (2.) In official dignity he was higher than Abraham, and thus higher than any of Abraham's descendants by natural generation; for Abraham paid tithes to him, and received from him the priestly blessing (Gen. 14:19, 20); "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better." Heb. 7:7. (3.) His priesthood was without limitation, and had thus the attribute of universality. It was not restricted in its exercise by nationality, for Abraham was not one of his people. (4.) He did not belong to a line of priests, who transmitted their office from father to son. He was, so far as we know from the record, without predecessors, and had no successor in his priesthood. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews describes him as one who is "without father, without mother, without pedigree" (marginal rendering), "having neither beginning of days nor end of life: but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Heb. 7:3. In the interpretation of this difficult passage, we must begin with the axiomatic principle that Melchizedek was a human being. He could not have been, as some have thought, the Son of God himself; for how could the Son of God be "made like unto the Son of God?" Nor could he have been an angel; for angels are not partakers of human nature, and cannot therefore typify him who came in human nature to deliver those who are "partakers of flesh and blood." Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15; 5:1, 2. And if he was a proper man, then he was "without father, without mother, without pedigree," not in an absolute sense, but with reference to his priesthood. He was a priest whose genealogy is not mentioned, because his priesthood was not restricted, like that of the Levitical priests, to any particular line of descent. He held his priesthood from God, without predecessors or successors. The words that follow—"having neither beginning of days nor end of life: but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually"—are more difficult. It is certain, however, that they cannot be understood absolutely. They are commonly interpreted upon the same principle as the preceding words; namely, that in omitting from the inspired record every limitation of Melchizedek's life as well as descent, it was God's purpose to shadow forth the unlimited nature of Christ's priesthood; that, in truth, the apostle describes Melchizedek, the type, in terms which hold good in their full meaning only of Christ the great Antitype. They who, admitting that Melchizedek was a human being, find the interpretation unsatisfactory, must leave the apostle's words shrouded in mystery.

But whatever obscurity there is in the scriptural notices of Melchizedek, they abundantly affirm the typical nature of his priesthood as distinguished from that of the Levitical priests. He was a type of Christ not simply as a priest, but also in the peculiar character of his priesthood. He united with his priesthood the kingly office; was superior in dignity to Abraham himself, and thus to the Levitical priests; and his priesthood had the attribute of universality. Here, then, we have an undoubted example of a historic type.

It is not without reason that the deliverance of the covenant people from Egypt, their journey through the wilderness of Arabia under God's guidance, and their final settlement in the land of promise, have been regarded as typical of the higher redemption, guidance, and salvation received through Christ. From the earliest ages of the Christian church this wonderful history has been an inexhaustible storehouse of analogies for the illustration of Christian experience. In his pilgrimage through this vale of tears, the believer instinctively turns to it for instruction and encouragement. The mighty interposition of God when the Israelites were "yet without strength" in their bondage; their protection through the blood of the paschal lamb sprinkled on the doors of their houses when the destroyer passed through Egypt; the opening of a way through the Red sea when all human means of escape failed them; the journey through the wilderness; the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night to guide, the water from the rock to refresh, the manna from heaven morning by morning to feed them; God's faithful discipline in contrast with human unbelief, waywardness, and folly; the final preparation for the conquest of Canaan and its successful accomplishment—this whole series of events is wonderfully adapted to illustrate the course of Christian experience, and who shall say that God did not order it with a view to this end? We do not resolve it into mere type. We acknowledge it to be true history, valid to the men of that age—a true earthly deliverance, guidance, and sustenance in the wilderness, conducting to the possession of a true earthly inheritance. But we say that it is a history so ordered by God as to typify the higher pilgrimage of the believer to the heavenly Canaan. It is undeniable that the writer to the Hebrews regards the rest of the covenant people in the land of promise as a type of the rest of heaven. Heb. 3:7-4:11. And if that part of the history was typical, it is reasonable to infer that the whole was typical. It belongs to the nature of a type that it should, on the one hand, come short of the fulness of meaning that belongs to the antitype, and, on the other, should contain some things which find no correspondence in that which it adumbrates. The priesthood of the sons of Aaron, as we shall see, typified Christ's priesthood, but only inadequately, as a shadow represents the substance; while sinfulness, which belonged to all the priests of Aaron's line, not only did not correspond to the character of the Antitype, but was in contradiction with it. So is it also with the historical types that have been under consideration. They represent the antitype inadequately, and only in certain respects.

* * * * *

II. RITUAL TYPES.

5. The sacrifices were the central part of the Jewish ritual. But sacrifices imply offerers, a personal God to whom the offering is made, and a priesthood through which it is presented. In the primitive ages of the world, men offered sacrifices in their own behalf and that of their household in whatever place it was their chance to sojourn. Gen. 4:4; 8:20; 12:7, 8; 31:54; 33:20; 35:1, 7; 46:1; Job 1:5; 42:8. But upon the establishment of the Mosaic economy, the priestly office was restricted to the family of Aaron. Thenceforward all who wished to offer sacrifices must bring them through the mediation of the priests of Aaron's line. It belonged to the nature of the Mosaic economy, that God should have a visible dwelling-place among the Israelites. The directions for the construction of the tabernacle with its furniture are introduced by the words: "Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them." Exod. 25:8. The material sanctuary, then, was God's visible dwelling-place, where he manifested himself to his people, and received their worship according to the rites of his own appointment; the whole being, as we shall see, typical of higher realities pertaining to our redemption through Christ. And as this earthly sanctuary was God's chosen dwelling-place, it followed, as a necessary consequence, that after its erection all the sacrifices must be brought to its altar, and presented there to God through the priesthood of his appointment.

6. The Mosaic tabernacle was a movable structure very simple in its plan. Its frame-work on three sides consisted of upright boards, or rather timbers (for, according to the unanimous representation of the Jewish rabbins, they were a cubit in thickness), standing side by side, and kept in position by transverse bars passing through golden rings. Thus was formed an enclosure ten cubits in height, thirty cubits in length from east to west, and ten cubits in width; the eastern end, which constituted the front, having only a vail suspended from five pillars of shittim-wood. Over this enclosure, and hanging down on either side, was spread a rich covering formed by coupling together ten curtains of "fine-twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with cherubim of cunning work." Over this was another covering, formed from the union of eleven curtains of goats' hair; and above two other coverings, the one of rams' skins dyed red, and the other, or outermost, of badgers' skins. Surrounding the tabernacle was a court one hundred cubits long and fifty wide, enclosed by curtains of fine-twined linen supported on pillars five cubits high. The tabernacle itself was divided by a vail supported on four pillars into two parts; the inner sanctuary, or "holy of holies," ten cubits every way, and the outer, or "holy place," twenty cubits long by ten in breadth and height.

In a wider sense the whole movable structure within the court is called the tabernacle. But in a stricter sense the rich inner curtain is distinguished in the Mosaic description as the tabernacle, while the curtain of goats' hair is called the tent. Exod. 26:1, 7; 36:8, 14, 19. The true meaning of the word rendered in our version badgers is uncertain. Some think that the seal is referred to.

7. We have seen that the tabernacle was God's visible dwelling-place. But the palace of a king has its audience-rooms, where he receives his subjects and attends to their petitions. In like manner the Mosaic tabernacle, and afterwards the temple, had its "holy of holies" and its "holy place," the former being in a special sense the abode of Israel's God. The tabernacle, with its furniture, priesthood, and services, is declared in the New Testament to have been "a shadow of good things to come." Heb. 10:1, and elsewhere. Unless we understand this its typical character, we fail to gain any true apprehension of its meaning.

8. In contemplating the truths which the Mosaic tabernacle shadowed forth, we begin with the materials used in its construction. Here we notice two things; their preciousness, and the gradation observed in this respect.

(1.) Their preciousness. All the materials were of the most durable and costly character—gold, silver, fine-twined linen of blue and purple and scarlet, acacia-wood (the shittim-wood of our version), brass being allowed only in the external appointments. This obviously represented the glory and excellence of God's service, and the corresponding obligation on the part of the worshippers to give to God the best of all that they had.

(2.) The gradation in the preciousness of the materials had reference to the inner sanctuary, where, as will presently be shown, God dwelt between the cherubim that overshadowed the mercy-seat. The rule of gradation was this: the nearer to God's dwelling-place the greater the glory; and hence, as shadowing forth this glory, the more precious the materials. The mercy-seat, where God dwelt between the cherubim, was accordingly of pure gold. All the woodwork pertaining to the tabernacle and its furniture was overlaid with gold. The inner or proper covering of the tabernacle, as also the vail that hung before the ark, separating the holy from the most holy place, was of "fine-twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with cherubim of cunning work." The outer vail, at the entrance of the outer sanctuary, was of the same materials, but without the cherubim; while the curtains of the court were made simply of fine-twined linen, suspended from pillars of shittim-wood not overlaid with gold. The sockets, again, that supported the timbers of the tabernacle and the inner row of pillars before the ark were of silver; but those beneath the outer pillars of the sanctuary, and all the pillars of the court, were of brass.

9. Passing to the appointments of the tabernacle, we naturally begin with the inner sanctuary. Here between the wings of the cherubim that overshadowed the mercy-seat, or lid of the ark, was the Shekinah, or visible dwelling-place of Jehovah. In the ark beneath the mercy-seat were placed, by God's direction, the two tables of the law. Exod. 25:16 compared with 1 Kings 8:9. This was their appropriate place. It shadowed forth the great truth that God is the fountain of law, and that they who approach him must come in the spirit of true obedience.

That God's dwelling-place was between the cherubim we learn from the original direction for the construction of the ark: "And thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there will I meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel." Exod. 25:21, 22. In accordance with these words God repeatedly promised that he would meet with Moses at the mercy-seat (Exod. 30:36; Lev. 16:2; Numb. 17:4); and after the dedication of the tabernacle and its altar, it is recorded that "when Moses was gone into the tabernacle of the congregation to speak with Him, then he heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy-seat that was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim." Numb. 7:89. Hence Jehovah is described in the Old Testament as he that dwells between the cherubim. 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Psa. 80:1; 99:1; Isa. 37:16.

10. In the outer sanctuary, before the vail that separated it from the holy of holies, stood, on the south side, the golden candlestick, with its seven lamps burning always before the Lord (Exod. 27:20; 40:24, 25; Lev. 24:25), and on the north side the table of show-bread, with its twelve loaves renewed every week (Exod. 25:30; 40:22, 23; Lev. 24:5-9). These typified the light and the life that come from God's presence through the ordinances of his appointment; and since the end of these ordinances is Jesus Christ, they shadowed him forth as the light of the world and the bread of life. John 8:12; 12:46; 6:35-58; and especially John 1:4. Between the golden candlestick and the table of show-bread, consequently directly in front of the ark, and separated from it by the inner vail, was the golden altar of incense, on which the priests burned sweet incense every morning and evening before the Lord (Exod. 30:6-8; 40:26, 27), whereby was shadowed forth Christ's intercession, through which the prayers of saints are made acceptable to God.

In the book of Revelation an angel is represented as offering upon this golden altar much incense with the prayers of all saints. "And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand." Rev. 8:3, 4. This passage seems to warrant the interpretation above given to this symbol; not that the ancient covenant people understood fully its meaning, or that of the other symbolic rites, but that such was the mind of the Spirit, to be made manifest in due time.

There is a view of the Mosaic ceremonial, which makes it simply a scenic representation of a king's court; in which the tabernacle represents the royal palace, the incense the homage rendered to the monarch (compare Dan. 2:46), the sacrifices, show-bread, and other unbloody offerings the provision made for his table, the priests his ministering servants, etc.; by which the whole is reduced to the idea of service rendered to Jehovah as the national monarch, and all typical representation of the provision made by God for man's spiritual wants is excluded. This interpretation of the Mosaic ritual is as superficial as it is false. In this ritual, service is indeed rendered to God; but it is a service which typically shadows forth the provision which God makes for man's wants as a fallen being—light for his darkened understanding, life for his spiritual nature dead in trespasses and sins, and reconciliation to God through the blood of Christ. This is the constant interpretation given in the New Testament of the "carnal ordinances" of the Old.

11. In the court before the tabernacle stood the brazen altar with its laver. Here the blood of the sacrifices flowed from age to age—a lamb every morning and evening, and on the Sabbath day two lambs morning and evening, besides all the public sacrifices connected with the national festivals, and the private sacrifices of individuals. The New Testament teaches us that the Levitical priests who ministered at the Jewish altar typified Christ, our great High Priest. In the one hundred and tenth psalm, which the Saviour himself quotes as written by David "in spirit," and as referring to himself (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37) the Messiah is represented as uniting in himself the kingly and the priestly office. There is a remarkable symbolical transaction in Zechariah (chap. 6:9-14) which contains the same representation. The prophet is directed, in the presence of competent witnesses, to "take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua [the Hebrew word answering to the Greek Jesus, which stands in the Septuagint rendering of this passage] the son of Josedech, the high priest." In his office as high priest Joshua typifies Christ our great High Priest. By the symbolical act of crowning Joshua is typified the kingly office of Christ as united with the priestly. Hence the prophet is directed by God to add: "Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH" (compare chap. 3:8, and Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:4-6; 33:15, 16); "and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." In accordance with these representations a large part of the epistle to the Hebrews is occupied with a discussion of our Lord's priestly office, in which, beyond contradiction, he is exhibited as the great antitype of both Melchizedec and the Levitical priests.

12. If the Levitical priests typified Christ, it follows that the sacrifices which they offered were also typical of Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the world. So the epistle to the Hebrews argues: "Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." Chap. 8:3. The Levitical priests stood "daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." Chap. 10:11. Their offerings were only typical of expiation, and needed therefore to be continually repeated till the Antitype itself should appear. But Christ offered his own blood on Calvary, by which he obtained eternal redemption for us, so that his sacrifice needs no repetition. He was "once offered to bear the sins of many;" and by this "one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Chaps. 9:11-14, 25, 26; 10:10-14.

But this doctrine respecting the typical character of the Levitical sacrifices is not restricted to the epistle to the Hebrews. The New Testament is full of it. John the Baptist, the Saviour's forerunner, announced him as "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. Whether we render, as in the margin of our version, "which beareth the sin of the world," or, as in the text, "which taketh away the sin of the world," the words contain the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice, or, which amounts to the same thing, an expiatory sacrifice; since it is by expiating our sin that Christ propitiates the Father. By bearing the sin of the world Christ expiates it, and thus takes it away. Thus he is "the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2.

The Saviour himself announced his purpose to die for his people: "I lay down my life for the sheep." "Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:15, 17, 18. And lest any should think that he died simply in the character of a martyr, he elsewhere explains that "the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many"—more literally, "a ransom instead of many" (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45), where the sacrificial and vicarious nature of our Lord's death is explicitly affirmed.

But it was after our Lord's resurrection that the sacrificial and propitiatory character of his death was most fully revealed. We have seen the view taken of it in the epistle to the Hebrews. With this the other writers of the New Testament are in harmony. Jesus Christ is the great sufferer foretold in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, who "was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed;" upon whom the Lord "laid the iniquity of us all;" who was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth; whose soul God made "an offering for sin;" who "was numbered with the transgressors," and "bare the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." 1 Pet. 2:24, 25; Acts 8:32-35; Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37. He "hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet. 3:18); He has redeemed us to God by his blood (Rev. 5:9); has "loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5); and his redeemed "have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 7:14).

To recite all the declarations of the apostle Paul on this great theme would be a superfluous work. It is not through Christ's example or teachings, but through his blood that we have "redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Ephes. 1:7. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13), words which teach as explicitly as human language can, that Christ has delivered us from the penalty of the divine law, which is its curse, by bearing the curse in our behalf. This he did when he was hanged on the tree. His death on the cross was, then, vicarious, a death in our stead; and propitiatory, for in view of it God releases us from the curse of the law. This is what is meant by a propitiatory sacrifice. Finally, as if to cut off all ground for the assertion that the efficacy of Christ's death lies wholly in its moral influence upon the human heart—its humbling, softening, and winning power—the apostle teaches that God has set forth Christ Jesus as a propitiation through faith in his blood for a manifestation of his righteousness, "that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Rom. 3:25, 26.

Every word of this weighty passage deserves serious consideration. We give by the side of the English version another translation, intended to be somewhat more literal:

Whom God hath set forth to Whom God hath set forth, a be a propitiation, through propitiation, through faith, faith in his blood, to declare in his blood, for the his righteousness for the manifestation of his passing over [marginal righteousness in respect to rendering] of sins that are the overlooking of sins that past, through the forbearance are past, through the of God. To declare, I say, forbearance of God—a at this time, his manifestation of his righteousness; that he might righteousness at the present be just, and the justifier of time; in order that he may be him which believeth in Jesus. just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.

From these words we learn: (1.) That God has publicly set forth Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. The following paraphrase gives the probable connection of the words of the first clause: Whom God, by means of his blood, hath set forth as a propitiation through faith. But if we take the connection as given in our version, the propitiation is still through Christ's blood, and is thus a propitiatory or expiatory sacrifice. (2.) That the appropriation to individual sinners of this propitiation is conditioned on personal faith. Christ's propitiatory sacrifice does not, in and of itself, justify any man; but it provides a ground whereby all may be justified, if they will believe in Jesus. (3.) That through Christ's propitiatory sacrifice God makes a public manifestation of his righteousness in showing mercy to sinners. The phrase, "the righteousness of God," may mean, in the usage of Paul, the righteousness—justification—which he gives through faith. But in connection with the words that follow, "that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus," it can only mean righteousness as an attribute of God, his public justice, namely, as the lawgiver and governor of the world. (4.) That Christ's propitiatory sacrifice was necessary in order that God might show mercy to sinners consistently with the demands of his justice. For when the apostle says "that God might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus," the words necessarily imply that, without this sacrifice, he could not have been just in justifying sinners. Christ's propitiation was not needed to make God more merciful in his nature; for in this respect he is unchangeably "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." But it opens a way by which he may show mercy consistently with his justice and the sanctity of his law. When we raise inquiries concerning the interior nature of the atonement, we meet with deep mysteries, some of which are, perhaps, above the comprehension of finite human understanding. But we can comprehend, and believe upon God's testimony, the great central fact of the gospel, that Christ offered himself to the Father to bear in human nature the curse of the divine law in behalf of sinners; and that God accepted this propitiatory offering as a satisfaction to his justice in such a sense that he can pardon all who believe in Christ without dishonor to himself or injury to his moral government.

13. We have considered Christ as the great Antitype of the Levitical priests and sacrifices. Let us now go back and consider the characteristics belonging to the types themselves, beginning with the priesthood.

(1.) The first point in which the Levitical priests typified Christ was in their possession of the same common human nature as those in whose behalf they acted. "For both he that sanctifieth [Christ] and they who are sanctified [believers] are all of one [one Father, having a common sonship as members of the same family of Adam]: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. 2:11); and again: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same" (ver. 14); and still further: "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren; that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted" (ver. 17, 18; and compare 4:15). Accordingly the priests who typified Christ were taken from among men, not angels; and "able to have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way," being themselves "compassed with infirmity." Heb. 5:1, 2.

(2.) The Levitical priests, again, were appointed to their office by God: "And no man taketh this honor upon himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec." Heb. 5:4-6.

(3.) The Levitical priests, once more, were mediators between God and the people. After the establishment of their priesthood, no Israelite or sojourner in the land could approach God with sacrifices and oblations in his own right, and be his own priest. He must come to God through the priesthood of his appointment—an expressive type of the great truth announced by Christ; "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6.

(4.) Finally, the Levitical priests were not only mediators between God and men, but mediators through propitiatory sacrifices. They were ordained to "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." Heb. 5:1; 8:3. "Wherefore," adds the writer, "it is of necessity that this man [Christ] have somewhat also to offer." Heb. 8:3. They offered the blood of bulls and goats, which made expiation only in a typical way; he offered to God his own blood as a real propitiation for sin. Heb. 7:27; 9:12-28; 10:10-14.

The points of dissimilarity between the Levitical priests and Christ, as stated in the epistle to the Hebrews, all serve to illustrate the superior dignity and efficacy of his priesthood. They were sinful men, and as such needing to offer sacrifice first for their own sins (chap. 5:3); but he is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" (chap. 7:26). They were many, "because they were not suffered to continue, by reason of death:" but he, "because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." Chap. 7:23, 24. Their offerings could not take away sin. They were only typical of expiation, and therefore needed to be continually repeated. But Christ has by his one offering "perfected for ever them that are sanctified"—perfected them in respect to the expiation of sin, which is the foundation on which the work of personal sanctification rests. Heb. 10:11, 12.

Mediatorship between God and man through propitiatory sacrifice constitutes the central idea of priesthood. The Levitical priests did indeed make intercession for the people in the burning of sweet incense (see above, No. 8), and in presenting to God their unbloody offerings, but all this was done through the blood of atonement. We see, then, how false and mischievous is the idea that there can be true mediating priests under the New Testament dispensation. Christ appeared once for all "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:25-28; 10:10-12), since which no further sacrifice is needed, or can be lawfully offered. Christ also opened to all believers through his blood a new and living way of access to God, through which they can come boldly to the throne of grace, having no need of human mediators. Heb. 10:18-22. Believers as a body are "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 2:5. They present themselves to God "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God." Rom. 12:1. They "offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of their lips, giving thanks to his name." Heb. 13:15. These spiritual sacrifices offered by the body of believers through Christ, their glorified High Priest, are the only sacrifices known to the New Testament church.

Of the high priest's garments, made by divine direction "for glory and for beauty," we cannot here speak in detail. Suffice it to say that they represented in general the dignity and excellence of his office, as the divinely appointed mediator between God and the covenant people. The golden plate with the inscription HOLINESS TO THE LORD is its own interpreter. The twelve names of the tribes of Israel, graven on two precious stones, and borne on the shoulders of the high priest, six on each shoulder, and then the same twelve graven on twelve gems, and borne on his breast as he ministered before the Lord, beautifully typify Christ our great High Priest, who bears his people on his shoulders by his almighty power and efficacious atonement, and on his heart by his everlasting love.

14. From the typical priests we naturally pass to the consideration of the typical sacrifices offered by them. Upon Noah's leaving the ark, God prohibited the eating of blood on the ground that it is the life of the animal. Gen. 9:4. The reason of this prohibition is unfolded in a passage of the Mosaic law, which clearly sets forth the nature and design of bloody offerings: "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: FOR IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKETH AN ATONEMENT FOR THE SOUL." Lev. 17:10, 11. Hence the sprinkling of the sacrificial blood by the priest as a sign of expiation, a rite that will be more particularly considered hereafter (No. 15). The reason that the blood makes the atonement is that "the life of the flesh is in the blood." The scriptural idea, then, of a sacrifice is the offering to God of one life in behalf of another that has been forfeited by sin—the life of the innocent beast instead of the life of the guilty offerer. This general idea of the vicarious and propitiatory nature of sacrifices comes out with beautiful simplicity and clearness in the book of Job: "And it was so when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts." Chap. 1:5. And again: "My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly." Chap. 42:7, 8. The sacrifices of the Mosaic law were of various kinds, implying various accessory ideas. But underlying them all was the fundamental idea of propitiation through blood. Hence the writer to the Hebrews, when commenting on the transaction recorded in Exodus, chap. 24:4-8, says: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22. The only exception was in the case of the poor man who was "not able to bring two turtle doves or two young pigeons." He was allowed to "bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering" (Lev. 5:11), upon the principle that God "will have mercy and not sacrifice."

No orderly classification of sacrifices is to be sought without the pale of the Jewish ceremonial. The burnt-offerings, for example, mentioned in the book of Job, had the force of proper sin-offerings. Chaps. 1:5; 42:8. The classification in the book of Leviticus is into burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. But they may be most conveniently considered in the order of their presentation, when two or more of them were offered on the same occasion, as when Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the priesthood, and the people sanctified in connection with this transaction (Lev. chaps 8, 9), and in the offerings of the great day of atonement (Lev. chap. 16).

Here the sin-offering naturally held the first place; for this, as its name indicates, was wholly expiatory and propitiatory, bringing the offerer into a state of forgiveness and divine favor. The sin-offerings had reference (1) to sin generally, as when Aaron and his sons were consecrated and the people sanctified, and when, on the annual day of atonement, expiation was made for the sins of the past year; (2) to specific offences (Lev. chaps. 4, 5), The exact distinction between the sin-offering and the trespass-offering is of difficult determination. Both were alike expiatory, were in fact subdivisions of the same class of offerings. A comparison of the passages in which trespass-offerings are prescribed (Lev. 5:1; 6:1-7; Numb. 5:6-8) seems to indicate that they belonged especially to trespasses for which restitution could be made.

Next in the order of sacrifices, though first in dignity, came the burnt-offering, also called holocaust (Heb. kalil) that is, whole burnt-offering, the characteristic mark of which was the consuming of the whole by fire (Lev. chap. 1). It is conceded by all that this was a symbol of completeness; but in what respect is a question that has been answered in different ways. Some refer the completeness to the offering itself, as that form of sacrifice which embraces in itself all others (Rosenmueller on Deut. 33:10); or, as the most perfect offering, inasmuch as it exhibits the idea of offering in its completeness and generality, and so concentrates in itself all worship. Baehr, Symbolik, vol. 2, p. 362. But we cannot separate, in the intention of God, the completeness of the form from the state of the offerer's mind. The burnt-offering was indeed, in its outward form, the most perfect of all sacrifices, for which reason it excluded female victims, as relatively inferior to the male sex. But because of this its completeness and generality it signified the entire self-consecration of the offerer to God. Winer and others after Philo. But this, let it be carefully remembered, was a self-consecration that could be made only through the blood of expiation, to indicate which, the blood of the burnt-offering was sprinkled by the priest "round about upon the altar;" or, in the case of a bird, where the quantity was too small to be thus sprinkled, was "wrung out at the side of the altar."

The peace-offering (more literally, offering of renditions; that is, offering in which the offerer rendered to God the tribute of praise and thanksgiving which was his due) was in all its different subdivisions—thank-offering, votive offering, free-will offering (Lev. 7:11-16)—a eucharistic offering. Hence its social character. After the sprinkling of the blood, the burning of the prescribed parts on the altar, and the assignment to the priest of his portion, the offerer and his friends feasted joyfully before the Lord on the remainder. Lev. chap. 3 compared with chap. 7:11-18. In the case of monarchs, like David and Solomon, the whole nation was feasted. 2 Sam. 6:17-19; 1 Kings 8:62-66. Hence the Messiah, as the great King of all nations, is beautifully represented as paying his peace-offerings to God for the deliverance granted him from his foes, and as summoning all nations to the sacrificial feast: "My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation; I will pay my vows [vows in the form of peace-offerings] before them that fear him. The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the Lord that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord," etc. Psa. 22:25-31. The peace-offering naturally followed the burnt-offering, as that did the sin-offering in the sanctification of the Israelitish congregation. Lev. 9:15-18. It signified joyful communion with God in thanksgiving and praise; but this, too, only through the blood of the victim sprinkled upon the altar as a sign of expiation. Lev. chap. 3. In these three classes of offerings, then, we have typically set forth, first, expiation restoring man to God's favor, then self-consecration, then holy communion in thanksgiving and praise—ALL THREE ONLY THROUGH THE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, the great Antitype of the Levitical priests and sacrifices.

The sacrificial nature of the passover appears in the direction given at its institution that the blood of the paschal lamb should be sprinkled on the lintel and two side-posts of the house where it was eaten as a protection against the destroyer of the first-born (Exod. 12:22, 23); and in the ordinance afterwards established, requiring that it should be slain at the sanctuary (Deut. 16:1-8), and its blood sprinkled upon the altar. 2 Chron. 30:16; 35:11. Its character approached very near to that of the peace-offerings. It was a joyous festival, commemorative of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage; and thus typically shadowing forth the higher redemption of God's people from the bondage of sin. As the blood of the paschal lamb sprinkled on the doors of the houses protected the inmates from the destroyer of the first-born, so does the blood of Christ protect all who through faith receive its expiatory power from the wrath to come. As the Israelites feasted joyfully on the flesh of the paschal lamb, so does the church feed by faith on the great antitypal Lamb of God, who is the true Passover sacrificed for us. 1 Cor. 5:7.

There were some other sacrifices of a special character, such as those by which the covenant between God and the people was ratified (Exod. 24:3-8); the ram of consecration, when Aaron and his sons were inducted into the priesthood (Lev. 8:22-30); the sacrifice and other rites connected with the cleansing of the leper (Lev. 14:1-32); the sacrifice of the red heifer from which were prepared the ashes of purification (Numb. chap. 19); the sacrifice of the heifer in the case of an uncertain murder (Deut. 21:1-9). Respecting these, it is only necessary to remark generally that, whatever other ideas were typified by them, that of expiation through blood was not wanting.

It was required by the law that all the sacrificial victims should be without blemish, not only because the offering to God of an imperfect victim would have been an affront to his majesty (Mal. 1:8, 13, 14), but especially because a perfect victim could alone typify the Lamb of God, "without blemish and without spot," who was offered on Calvary as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. 1 Pet. 1:19, 20.

Of the unbloody offerings [oblations, called in our version meat-offerings], some were supplementary to the sacrifices, being necessary to their completeness. Such was the salt which, as a symbol of purity and friendship, was prescribed for all meat offerings (Lev. 2:13), and seems to have been used with all sacrifices also. Ezek. 43:24 compared with Mark 9:49. Such, also were the flour, wine, and oil offered with the daily sacrifice (Exod. 29:40), and in certain other cases. Lev. 8:26; 9:17; 14:10, etc. Other oblations, like those prescribed in the second chapter of Leviticus, were presented by themselves, as expressions of love, gratitude, and devotion to God on the part of the offerers. After a portion of them, including all the frankincense, had been burned on the altar, the rest went to Aaron and his sons as their portion.

The priests also received specified portions from the peace-offerings of the people, the trespass-offerings, and the sin-offerings the blood of which was not carried into the sanctuary. See Lev. chap. 6:24-7:34.

15. Of the typical transactions connected with the offering of sacrifices and oblations we notice the following:

(1.) In all cases the offerer laid his hands upon the head of the victim. The meaning of this act may be inferred from the first mention of it in the Levitical ceremonial: "And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." Lev. 1:4. The act in question was, then, the solemn dedication to Jehovah of the victim for the end proposed. By the laying on of his hands, he presented it to God as his offering to make atonement for his soul, and God accepted it as such. From the very nature of the offering, this act of presentation contained an acknowledgment of guilt that needed expiation, but there was no formal transfer of his sins to the victim, as in the case of the scape-goat. See below, No. 16.

(2.) The waving and heaving of offerings belonged to the priests alone. Both were manifestly acts of presentation and dedication to God. For example, the loaf of bread, cake of oiled bread, and wafer of unleavened bread employed upon the occasion of Aaron's consecration were first placed in his hands to be waved before the Lord, and then burned by Moses on the altar of burnt-offering. Exod. 29:23-25. So also the breast of the ram of consecration was waved, and the right shoulder heaved, before they were eaten by Aaron and his sons (Exod. 29:26-28); the lamb of the leper who had been healed, with the accompanying oblation, was waved by the priest before the Lord before slaying it. Lev. 14:12, seq.

According to the rabbins, the waving consisted of a movement forwards and backwards. Some think that there was also a lateral motion from right to left and the reverse. The heaving was a movement upwards and downwards. The ground of the distinction between these two forms of presentation to Jehovah is uncertain. We only know that the ceremony of heaving was restricted to certain cases. Thus the breast of the peace-offerings was always waved, and the right shoulder heaved, before they were given to the priests as their portion. Lev. 7:28-34.

(3.) The sprinkling of the victim's blood was a most weighty part of the ceremonial, for by this expiation was symbolized. It was accordingly restricted to the priest, who was the appointed mediator between God and the people. The sevenfold sprinkling of the blood that was carried into the sanctuary (Lev. 4:6, 17; 16:14, 19), and in certain other cases (Lev. 8:11; 14:7, 51) denoted the completeness of the expiation, seven being the well-known symbol of perfection. Hence the New Testament beautifully represents believers as purified from sin by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, the great Antitype of the Mosaic sacrifices. Heb. 9:13, 14; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2.

Kindred to the rite of sprinkling was the application of the victim's blood to the horns of the altar and to the person of the offerer. Exod. 29:12, 20; Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30; 8:15, 24; 14:14, etc.

(4.) The burning of the offering, or of certain specified parts of it, upon the altar, whereby its odor ascended up to heaven, was a natural expression of dedication to God. Compare Gen. 8:21, Lev. 1:9, etc.

16. We have seen the typical import of the furniture of the tabernacle (Nos. 8 and 9 above). That the tabernacle itself, considered generally, had also a typical meaning, is admitted by all who believe in revelation. But when we come to the consideration of details, we encounter diversities of interpretation which cannot be here considered. We notice only the following points:

(1.) The Mosaic tabernacle was, as we have seen, God's visible earthly dwelling-place. As such, it shadowed forth his real presence and glory, first, in the church of the redeemed on earth through Jesus Christ; secondly, in the glorified church in heaven. Some think that the outer sanctuary, with its altar of incense, its golden candlestick, and its table of show-bread, typified God's presence with the church militant, through her divinely-appointed ordinances; and the inner sanctuary, his presence with the church triumphant in heaven.

(2.) Under the Mosaic economy, the people were not admitted to either sanctuary. They could approach God only through the mediation of the priests. The priests themselves entered the outer sanctuary daily to burn incense and perform the other prescribed services; but the high priest alone was permitted to enter the most holy place once every year with the blood of the sin-offering. This represented that, under the old dispensation, the way of access to God on the part of sinners was not yet made manifest. In respect to the holy of holies, we have the express statement of inspiration: "But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." Heb. 9:7, 8. By parity of reason, the principle holds good in respect to the exclusion of the people from the outer sanctuary. We are informed, accordingly, that when Christ cried upon the cross with a loud voice, "It is finished," and gave up the ghost, "the vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." Matt. 27:50, 51; Mark 15:37, 38; Luke 23:45, 46. By this was signified that now the way of access to God was opened through Christ's blood to all believers; so that they constitute a spiritual priesthood, having access to God within the vail without the help of any earthly mediation, that they may there "offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." Heb. 7:25; 10:19, 20; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6.