Section 2. The Tabernacle in its general structure and design
Section 3. The ministers of the Tabernacle -- the Priests and Levites
Section 6. The holy place -- the altar of incense -- the table of shew-bread -- the candlestick
By Patrick Fairbairn
Published by Smith & English, 1854
BOOK THIRD.
CHAPTER THIRD.
THE RELIGIOUS TRUTHS AND PRINCIPLES EMBODIED IN THE SYMBOLICAL INSTITUTIONS AND SERVICES OF THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION, AND VIEWED IN THEIR TYPICAL REFERENCE TO THE BETTER.THINGS TO COME.
P. 195-219
SECTION FIRST.
The learning of Moses was briefly adverted to in an earlier part of our investigations. [1] But this is the proper place for a more formal discussion of it, when we are entering on the explanation of the Mosaic symbols of worship and service. That an acquaintance with Egyptian learning was advantageous to Moses, to the extent formerly stated, no one will be disposed to question. Whatever might be its peculiar character, it would at least serve the purpose of expanding and ripening the faculties of his mind--- would render him acquainted with the general principles and methods of political government--would furnish him with an insight into the religious and moral system of the most intelligent and civilized nation of heathen antiquity--and so, would not only increase his fitness, in an intellectual point of view, for holding the high commission that was to be entrusted to him, but would also lend to the commission itself, when bestowed, the recommendation, which superior rank or learning ever yields, when devoted to a sacred use.
Such advantages, it is obvious, Moses might derive from his Egyptian education, irrespective altogether of the precise quality of the wisdom with which he thus became acquainted. It is another question, how far he might be indebted to that wisdom itself, as an essential element in his preparation--or to what extent the things belonging to it might be allowed to mould and regulate the institutions which he was commissioned to impose on Israel. Scripture throws no direct light upon this question; it affords materials only for general inferences and probable conclusions. And yet the view we actually entertain on the subject cannot fail to exert a considerable influence on the spirit in which we investigate the whole Mosaic system, and give a distinctive colouring to our interpretations of many of its parts.
1. The opinion was undoubtedly very prevalent among the Christian fathers, that no small portion of the institutions of Moses were borrowed from those of Egypt, and were adopted as divine ordinances only in accommodation to the low and carnal state of the Israelites, who had become inveterately attached to the manners of Egypt. With the view, it was supposed, of weaning them more easily from the errors and corruptions which had grown upon them there, the Lord indulged them with the retention of many of the customs of Egypt, though in themselves indifferent or even somewhat objectionable, and gave a place in his own worship to what they had hitherto seen associated with the service of idols. They rarely enter into particulars, and never, so far as we know, formally discuss the grounds of their opinion; but very commonly think it enough to refer in support of it to Ez. xx. 25, where the Lord is said to have given Israel "statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." This passage is also much pressed by Spencer, and, indeed, is the main authority of a scriptural nature to which both he, and after him Warburton (Div. Legation, B. iv. c. 6), appeal in confirmation of their general view of the Mosaic ritual. By a palpable misunderstanding of the meaning of the prophet, they regard the Decalogue as the statutes in themselves really and properly good, for breaking which in the wilderness, others, namely, the ceremonial observances, were imposed on them: "Because they had violated my first system of laws, the Decalogue--I added to them my second system, the ritual law, very aptly characterised (when set in opposition to the moral law) by statutes that were not good., and by judgments whereby they should not live."--(Warburton.) In our judgment, most inaptly so characterised; for certainly they could least of all have lived by the moral law, which, as the Apostle testifies, brings the knowledge of sin, and the judgment of death; and whatever life they had, must rather have come by the ritual, than the moral law. Besides, Moses had got all the instruction regarding the tabernacle and its ordinances before the revolt took place about the golden calf; so that the tabernacle-worship went before this, and was no after-thought, resorted to in consequence of the revolt. But it is quite beside the purpose of the prophet to compare one part of the law with another; "it is impossible that he could, especially after his own declarations regarding the law, designate it by such terms; the laws not good, bringing death and destruction, are opposed to those of God; they are the heathen observances which were arbitrarily put in the room of the other."--(Havernick.) So also Calvin, Vitringa, Obs. Sacrae, L. ii. c. 1. sec. 17. Indeed, Jerome, though he hesitates as to the proper meaning, has correctly enough expressed it in these words: "Hoc est, dimisit eos eogitationibus, et desiderus suis, ut facerent quas non conveniunt."---Parallel is Ps. Ixxxi. 12: "So I gave them up to their own hearts' lusts, and they walked in their own counsels;" Acts vii. 42, "He gave them up to worship the host of heaven;" Rom. i. 24; 2 Thess. ii. II. [2]
Spencer, supporting himself on the authority of the fathers, and by a distorted interpretation of one or two passages of Scripture, has, with great learning and industry (in his work De Legibus Hebraeorum), endeavoured to make good the proposition, that the immediate and proper design of the Mosaic law was to abolish idolatry and preserve the Israelites in the worship of the one true God; and that, for the better effecting of this purpose, the Lord introduced many heathenish, chiefly Egyptian, customs into his service, and so changed or rectified others, as to convert them into a bulwark against idolatry. He coupled with this, no doubt, a secondary design, "the mystic and typical reason," as he calls it--that, namely, of adumbrating the better things of the Gospel. But this occupies such an inferior and subordinate place, and is occasionally spoken of in such disparaging terms, that one cannot avoid the conviction of his having held it in very small estimation. He even represents this mystical reference to higher things than those immediately concerned, as done partly in accommodation to the early bent given to the mind of Moses. [3] And of course, when he comes to particulars, it is only in regard to a few things of greater prominence, such as the tabernacle, the ark, and the more important institutions, that he can deem it advisable to search for any mystical meaning whatever. To go more minutely to work, he characterises as a kind of "sporting with sacred things;" and declares his concurrence in a sentiment of St Chrysostom, that "all such things were but venerable and illustrious memorials of Jewish ignorance and stupidity." [4]
It is not so much, however, in this depreciation of the symbolical and typical import of the Mosaic ritual, that the work of Spencer was fitted to give a false impression of its real character and object, as in the connection he necessarily sought to establish, while endeavouring to prove his main proposition, between the institutions of Moses and the rites of heathenism. Though charged with a divine commission, Moses appears, in point of fact, only as an improved Egyptian, and his whole religious system is nothing more than a refinement on the customs and polity of Egypt. Not a few of the rites introduced were useless (legibus et ritibus inutilibus, p. 26), some were viewed as only tolerable fooleries (quos ineptias norat esse tolerabiles, p. 640), and would never have found a place in the institutions of Moses, but for the currency they had already obtained in Egypt, and the liking the Israelites had there acquired for them. But on such a view, it is impossible to conceive how to worship God according to the ritual of Moses, could have been an acceptable service, and the very imposition of such a ritual in the name of God, must have been a kind of pious fraud. "God," to use the language of Bahr, "appears as a Jesuit, who makes use of bad means to accomplish a good end. Spencer, for example, considers sacrifice as an invention of religious barbarity, an evidence of superstitious views of the divine nature; now, when God by Moses, not only confirmed for ever the offerings already in common use, but also extended and enlarged the sacrificial code, instead of thereby extirpating the mistaken views, he would really have sanctioned and most strongly enforced them ... Besides, the relation of Israel to the Egyptians, and that in particular of Moses, as represented in the Pentateuch at the time of the Exodus, would lead us to expect an intentional shunning of every thing Egyptian, especially in religious matters, rather than an imitation and borrowing. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt is set forth as the special token of divine love and power, as the greatest salvation wrought for Israel, as the peculiar pledge of the covenant with Jehovah; and a separate feast was devoted to the commemoration of this divine goodness. It is unquestionable that there was here every inducement for Moses making the separation of Israel from Egypt as broad as possible. For this, however, it was indispensably necessary to brand everything properly Egyptian, and extirpate by all means the very remembrance of it. But by adopting the Egyptian ritual, Moses would have directly sanctioned what was Egyptian, and would have perpetuated the remembrance of the land of darkness and servitude." [5]
Indeed, the objectionable character of Spencer's views could scarcely be better exposed than in the words of Lord Bolingbroke, when railing in his usual style against the current theology of his day: "In order to preserve the purity of his worship, God prescribes to them a multitude of rites and ceremonies, founded on the superstitions of Egypt, from which they were to be weaned, or in some analogy to them. They were never weaned entirely from all the superstitions: and the great merit of the law of Moses was teaching the people to adore one God, much as the idolatrous nations adored several. This may be called sanctifying Pagan rites and ceremonies in theological language, but it is profaning the pure worship of God in the language of common sense." [6]
But while Spencer's views lay open to such formidable objections, and were opposed to the more serious theology of the age, they gradually made way both in this country and on the Continent; and the influence of his work may be traced through a very large portion of the theological literature connected with the Old Testament down even to a recent period. The work owed this extraordinary success to the immense pains that had been bestowed upon it--its exact method, comprehensive plan, and lucid expression--and also to the great skill which the author displayed in availing himself of all the learning then accessible upon the subject, and bringing it to bear upon the general argument. His views were eagerly embraced on the Continent by Le Clerc, and (in his work on the Pentateuch), pushed to consequences from which Spencer himself would have shrunk. Then Michaelis came with his masculine intellect, his stores of oriental learning, but low and worldly sense, discovering so many sanatory, medicinal, political, and, in short, all kinds of reasons but moral and religious ones, for the laws and institutions of Moses, that if the Jewish lawgiver was in some measure vindicated from the charge of accommodating his policy to heathenish notions and customs, it was only to establish for him the equally questionable reputation of a well-skilled Egyptian sage, or an accomplished worldly legislator. In this case, as well as in the other, it was impossible to avoid the conviction, that it was somewhat out of character to claim for Moses a properly divine commission, and quite incredible that signs and wonders should have been wrought by heaven to confirm and establish it. After such pioneers, the way was open for the subtle explanations of rationalism, and the rude assaults of avowed infidelity. [7]
In Britain the influence of Spencer's work has also been very marked, though, from the character of the national mind, and other counteracting influences, the results were not so directly and extensively pernicious. The more learned works that have since issued from the press, connected with the interpretation of the Books of Moses, have for the most part borne no unequivocal indications of the weight of Spencer's name; while the better convictions, and the more practical aim of the authors, generally kept them from embracing his views in all their grossness, and carrying them out to their legitimate conclusions. Even Warburton, who espouses in its full extent Spencer's view regarding the primary and immediate design of the Mosaic institutions, as being intended to "preserve the doctrine of the unity by means of institutions partly in compliance to their Egyptian prejudices, and partly in opposition to those and the like superstitions" [8] --yet gives a decidedly higher place to the typical bearing of the Mosaic ritual, and comes much nearer the truth in representing both its religious use under the Old Testament dispensation, and its prospective reference to the New. [9] Such writers as Lowman [10] and Shaw, [11] gave only a partial and reluctant assent to some of Spencer's positions; and chiefly, it would seem, because they did not see how to dispose of his proofs and authorities. The latter, in particular, though he afterwards substantially grants what Spencer contended for, yet expresses his dissatisfaction with the general aim of Spencer s work, by saying, that "upon the whole he was still apt to imagine, that however it might have been one part of the Divine purpose to guard Israel against a corruption from the Egyptian idolatry, by the institution of the Mosaic economy, this was not the principal design of it." It would have been strange, indeed, if such had been its principal design. And strange it certainly was. that men, not to say of penetration and learning, but with their eyes open, could ever have imagined that it was so. For what do we not see, when we direct our view to the latter days of the Jewish commonwealth? We see this end most completely attained. A people never existed that were more firmly established in the doctrine of the unity, and more thoroughly alienated from the superstitions of heathenism; and yet never were a people more thoroughly and generally estranged from the true knowledge of God, and more hostile to the claims of heaven. So that, in adopting the hypothesis in question, one must be prepared to maintain the monstrous proposition, that the principal and primary design of that religious economy might have been accomplished, while still the persons subject to it were neither true worshippers of the living God, nor fitted to enter into the kingdom of his Son.
The same considerations hold in regard to the other reason commonly assigned by this class of writers for the rites of Judaism-- the separation of the people from the other nations of the earth. And indeed, from the very nature of things, that could not have been more than an incidental and temporary end. The covenant, out of which all Judaism grew, containing the promise, that in the seed of Abraham all the families of the earth should be blessed, it could never be the direct intention and design of the ordinances connected with it, to place them in formal antagonism to the other nations. This effect was no farther to have been produced than by the Israelites becoming too holy for intercourse with the nations. In so far as this distinction did not exist, both were virtually alike; the Israelites also were uncircumcised and heathen; and the circumstance of their being placed under such sanctifying ordinances, was chiefly designed to have a salutary influence on the surrounding heathen, and induce them to seek for light and blessing from Israel. Hence, Deut. xxxii. 43: "Rejoice, 0 ye nations, with his people;" and Isa. Ivi. 7, "Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."
2. A widely different, and in many respects entirely opposite view of the institutions of Moses, has also been maintained. Its chief expounder and advocate, as opposed to Spencer, was Witsius, whose AEgyptiaca was published with, the express design of meeting the arguments and counteracting the influence of the work of Spencer. [12] In this production, Witsius admits at the outset, that there is a striking similarity between the rites of the Mosaic law and those of other ancient nations, in particular of the Egyptians; and he even quotes with approbation a passage from Kircher, in which this similarity is asserted to have been so manifest, that "either the Egyptians must have hebraized, or the Hebrews must have egyptized." Nor does he think it improbable that this may have been the reason why the Egyptian and Jewish rites were so often classed together at Rome, and enactments made for restraining them as alike pernicious. [13] But he contends, at the same time, that some of the things in which this resemblance stood, were not peculiar to the Egyptians, but common to them with other nations of heathen antiquity; and especially, that in so far as there might be any borrowing in the case, it was more likely the Egyptians borrowed from the Hebrews, than the Hebrews from the Egyptians. His positions were generally acquiesced in by the more orthodox and evangelical divines of this country; and it is a somewhat singular fact, that the commencement of a false theology in regard to the Old Testament, had its rise in this country, and this country itself derived the chief corrective against the evil from abroad. In two important respects, however, the argument of Witsius was not satisfactory, and failed to provide a sufficient antidote to the work of Spencer. 1. He failed in proving, or even in rendering it probable, that the Egyptians borrowed from the Israelites the rites and ceremonies, in which the customs of the two nations resembled each other. Warburton is quite successful here in meeting the positions of Witsius and his followers., both on account of the unquestionable antiquity of the Egyptian institutions, and the want of any such connection between the two nations as to render a borrowing on the part of the Egyptians from the Israelites in the least degree likely. And the more recent investigations which have been made into the history and condition of ancient Egypt, by such inquirers as Heeren, Rossellini, and Wilkinson, have given such confirmation to the views of Warburton, in this respect, that they may now be regarded as conclusively established. It is not only against probability, but we may even say against the well authenticated facts of history, to allege that the Egyptians had to any extent borrowed from the Israelites. 2. If in this respect the argument of Witsius was erroneous, in another it was defective; it made no attempt to supply what had partly occasioned the work of Spencer, and certainly contributed much to its success--a more solid and better- grounded system of typology. This still remained as arbitrary and capricious in its expositions of Old Testament events and institutions as it had been before---like a nose of wax, as Spencer somewhere sneeringly, though not without reason, terms it, which might be bent any way one pleased. Orthodox divines should, as Hengstenberg remarks, "have directed all their powers to a fundamental and profitable investigation into the symbolical and typical meaning of the ceremonial institutions." [14] But not having done this, though they succeeded in weakening some of Spencer's statements, and proving the connection between the Jewish and Egyptian customs to be less in certain cases than he imagined, yet his system, as a whole, had the advantage of an apparently settled and consistent foundation, while theirs seemed to swim only in doubt and uncertainty.
3. In recent times, considerable advances have been made toward the supplying of this deficiency on the part of Witsius and his followers. Much praise is due, especially to Bahr, for having laid the foundation of a more profound and systematic explanation of the symbols of the Mosaic dispensation, although, from some radical defects in his doctrinal views, the meaning he brings out is often far from being satisfactory. On the particular point now under consideration, he substantially agrees with Witsius, holding the institutions of Moses to have been in no respect derived from Egypt; but differing so far, that he conceives the Egyptians to have been as little indebted to the Israelites, as the Israelites to the Egyptians. He maintains, that whatever similarity existed between their respective institutions, arose from the necessity of employing like symbols to express like ideas, which rendered a certain degree of similarity in all symbolical religions unavoidable. "Even if we should grant," he says, "a direct borrowing in particular cases, why should not the lawgiver have adopted that which appeared formally suitable to him? The natural and the sensible is by no means in itself heathenish, and the sensible things of which the heathens availed themselves, to represent religious ideas, did not become in the least heathenish from having been applied to such a use. The main inquiry still is, what was indicated by these signs, and that not merely in the particulars, but pre-eminently in their combination into one entire system. Besides, no case is known to us, in which any such borrowing can with certainty be proved." [15] "The investigations," he again says, "recently prosecuted in such a variety of ways into the religions of the eastern nations shew, that what was formerly regarded as peculiarly Egyptian in the religion of Moses, is also to be found among other nations of the East, especially amongst the Indians, and yet nobody would maintain that Moses borrowed his ceremonial institutions from India." [16] Unquestionably not; but there may still be sufficient ground for holding, that, without travelling to India to see what was there, he took what suited his purpose near at hand. Besides, Hengstenberg in his Egypt and the Books of Moses, has endeavoured to prove--and in some cases we think has successfully proved, that there are distinct traces to be found in the laws of Moses of Egyptian usages, and that Bahr is not borne out by his authorities, in alleging the same usages to have existed elsewhere. We are disposed, therefore, to regard Bahr's position as somewhat extreme; and on the whole subject of the Egyptian education of Moses, and the influence this might warrantably be supposed to exert upon the institutions he was afterwards honoured to introduce,--a subject not formally discussed by either of these authors--we submit the following propositions as at once grounded in reason, and borne out by the analogy of the divine procedure,
1. It is, in the first instance, to be held as a sacred principle, that whatever might be the acquaintance Moses possessed with the customs and learning of Egypt, this could in no case be the direct and formal reason of his imposing anything as an obligation on the Israelites. For the whole, and every part of his work, he had a commission from above, and nothing was admitted into his institutions, which did not first approve itself to divine wisdom, and carry with it the sanction of divine authority. "When the Lord was going to found a new commonwealth, as it was really new, he wished it also to appear such to the Israelites. Hence, its form or appearance, not as fabricated from the rubbish of Canaanite or Egyptian superstitions, but as let down from heaven, was first shewn to Moses on the sacred mount, that everything in Israel might be ordered and settled after that pattern. Nor did he wish liberty to be granted to the people, to determine by their own judgment even the smallest points in religion. He determined all things himself, even to the minutest circumstances; so that, on pain of instant death, they were forbidden either to omit or to change anything. Thus, it became the majesty of the supreme God to subdue his people to himself, not by the wiles of a tortuous and crooked policy, but by a royal path, the simple exercise of his own authority; and so, to accustom them from the first to lay aside all carnal considerations, and to take the will alone of their King and Lord as their common rule in all things.'' [17] The passage in Deut. xii. 30-32, is alone sufficient to establish the truth of this: "Take heed, that thou inquire not after their gods (viz, of the nations of Canaan), saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God; for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
That in point of fact, there was a marked difference between the religious customs and sacrificial system of the Israelites, and those of other nations, sufficient to stamp theirs as peculiarly their own, even heathen writers have in the strongest terms affirmed. [18] That it would be so, was implied in the declaration of Moses to Pharaoh, when he insisted upon being allowed to leave the land of Egypt, lest "they should sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians." In whatever respects this might be the case--whether in the kind of victims offered, or in the manner of offering them, the statement at least indicates a strong contrariety between the worship to be instituted among them, and that already established among the Egyptians. And in the further statement of Moses: "We shall sacrifice to the Lord our God as he shall command us," (Ex. viii. 27), he grounds their entire worship, whether it might in some respects resemble or differ from that of the Egyptians, on the sole and absolute authority of God.
2. But as the laws and institutions which God prescribes to his people in any particular age, must be wisely adapted to the times and circumstances in which they live, so it is impossible but that the fact of the lawgiver of the Jewish people having been instructed in all the wisdom of the most civilized nation of antiquity, must have to some extent modified both the civil and religious polity of which he was instrumental, the author. No man legislates in the abstract, but with a careful and considerate adaptation to the present state and aspect of society; and this always the more, the higher the skill and wisdom of the legislator. Moses, it must be remembered, did not stand alone in his connection with what was counted wise and polished among the Egyptians; he only possessed, in a more eminent degree, what belonged also in some degree to his brethren. And that the people for whom he was to legislate, had grown up in a civilized country, and an artificial state of society, familiar, at least, with the results of Egyptian learning, if but little initiated into the learning itself, naturally called for a corresponding advancement in the whole structure of his religious polity. For, what was needed to develope and express either the civil or the religious life of a people so reared, would in many respects differ from what might have suited a rude and uncultivated horde. So that a certain regard to the state of things in Egypt was absolutely necessary in the Hebrew polity, if it was to possess a suitable adaptation to the real progress of society in the arts and manners of civilized life. To instance only in one particular--the knowledge of the art of writing must alone have exercised a most material influence on the code of laws prescribed to this new people. Where such an art is unknown, the laws must necessarily be few, the institutions natural and simple, and the degree of instruction connected with them of the most elementary nature--such as oral tradition might be sufficient to preserve, or the verses of some popular bards to teach. But if, on the other hand, the legislation is for a people among whom writing is known and familiarly used, it will naturally embrace a much wider range, and branch itself out into a far greater variety of particulars. Nor can we doubt, that, for this reason, among others, the Israelites were associated with the manners of Egypt, and Moses was from his youth instructed in all its learning. For, whatever mystery hangs over the first invention of letters, there can no longer be any doubt, that Egypt was the country where the art of writing was first brought into general practice, and that at a period long prior to the birth of Moses. But, without an intimate and familiar acquaintance with this art, Moses could not have delivered such a system of laws as constituted the framework of his dispensation--which, from their multiplicity, could not otherwise have been remembered, and from their prevailing character, as opposed to the corrupt tendencies of the people, the people themselves were but too willing to forget. It was therefore necessary that they should all be written, arid that what was pre-eminently the law, should even be engraved, for the sake of greater durability, upon tables of stone. All this implies a certain amount of learning on the part of the lawgiver, as requisite to fit him for being instrumentally the author of such a dispensation, and a certain influence necessarily exerted by his learning on his legislation. It implies also a considerable degree of civilization on the part of the people, whose circumstances were such as to admit of and call for such a legislator. [19]
3. We can very easily., however, advance a step farther, and perceive how a still more direct and intimate connection might in some respects be legitimately, and even advantageously, established between the state of matters in Egypt, and that introduced by Moses among the Israelites. In things, for example, required for the maintenance of a due order and discipline among the people, or for the becoming support of the ministers and ordinances of religion--things which human nature is disposed, if not altogether to shun, at least improperly to curtail and limit, it might have been the part of the highest wisdom to take substantially the arrangements which already existed in Egypt. For as these must, from their very nature, have imposed a species of burden upon the Israelites, the thought, that the same had been borne even by the depraved and idolatrous people from, whom they were now separated, would the more easily reconcile them to its obligations. This is a principle which we find recognised and acted on in gospel-times. There must be self-denial, and a readiness to undergo labour and fatigue in the Christian; and this the Apostle enforces by a reference to the toils of the husbandman, the hardships of the soldier, and even the pains-taking laborious diligence of the combatant in the Grecian games (2 Tim. ii. 3-6; 1 Cor. ix, 24). There must be a decent maintenance provided for those who devote their time and talents to the spiritual work of the ministry; and the reasonableness and propriety of this, he in part grounds on what was usually done amongst men in the commonest occupations of life, as well as the custom, prevalent alike among Jews and Gentiles, for those who ministered at the altar to live of the altar (1 Cor. ix. 7-14; x. 21). It was absolutely necessary, however distasteful it might be to men of corrupt minds, that proper means should be employed in the church for the preservation of order, and the enforcement of a wholesome discipline; and the state of things among the Gentiles is appealed to as in itself constituting a call to attend to this, sufficient even to shame the churches into its observance (1 Cor. v.; xi. 1--16). Not only so, but the officers appointed in the Christian church to take charge of its internal administration, and preside over its worship and discipline, it is well known, were derived, even to their very names, from those of the Jewish synagogue, which was not immediately of divine origin, but gradually arose out of the exigencies of the times:--the Holy Spirit choosing, in this respect, to make use of what was known and familiar to the minds of the disciples, rather than to invent an entirely new order of things. [20]
We should not, therefore, be surprised to find the application of this principle in the Mosaic dispensation--to find that some things there, especially of the kind supposed, bore a substantial conformity to those of Egypt. The officers, or shoterim, mentioned in the xxth. ch. of Deuteronomy, were evidently of this class. And such also were some of the arrangements respecting the apportionment of the land, and the support out of its produce of those who were regarded more especially as the representatives of God. In these respects there was the closest resemblance between the Egyptian and Jewish polities, and in the points in which they agreed they differed from all the other nations of antiquity with which we are acquainted. It is an ascertained fact, confirmed by the reports of the Greek historians, that the king was regarded as sole proprietor of the land in Egypt, with the exception of what belonged to the priests, and that the cultivators were properly farmers under the king. Diodorus, indeed (L. i. 73), represents the military caste as having also a share in the land; and Wilkinson (vol. i. p, 263) says, that kings, priests, and the military order, these, but these only, appear to have been landowners. Herodotus, however, explains this apparent contradiction in regard to the military order, by stating (B. ii. sec. 141) that their land properly belonged to the king; that they differed from the common cultivators only in holding it free of rent, and in lieu of wages; that hence, while it had been given them by one king, it had been taken away by another. He also mentions, that not only had the priests property in land connected with the temples in which they served, but also that they had allowances furnished them out of the public or royal treasures, and along with the soldiers received a salary from the king (ii. 37, 168). These are very striking peculiarities, and, as Hengstenberg justly remarks, [21] imply, at least in regard to the king's proprietorship in the land, a historical fact through which it was brought about. We have such a fact in the history of Joseph (Gen. xlvii.), when he bought the land for Pharaoh, but rented it out again to the people on condition of their paying a fifth of the produce, with the exception, however, of the land of the priests, whose land Pharaoh had no opportunity, indeed, of purchasing, because they had a stated allowance from his stores.
it is perhaps not too much to say, that one of the reasons why this singular state of things was introduced into Egypt by the instrumentality of Joseph, was, that a similar arrangement in regard to the land of Canaan might the more readily be gone into on the part of the Israelites. The similarity is too striking to have been the result of anything but an intentional copying from the Egyptian constitution. For in the Jewish commonwealth God is represented as king, to whom the whole land belonged, and the people only as tenants under him--obliged also by the tenure on which they held it, to yield two-tenths, or a fifth of the yearly produce, unto God, who again provided out of this fifth for the support of the priests and Levites, the widow and the orphan, his peculiar representatives. [22] This large contribution from the regular increase of the land was necessary for the proper administration of divine ordinances, and the beneficent support of those who, according to the plan adopted, had no other resources to trust to for their comfortable maintenance. But it implied too entire a dependence upon God, and exacted too much at their hands, to meet with a ready compliance. And it was not only compatible, but we should rather say in perfect accordance, with the highest wisdom, to adopt an arrangement for securing it, which was thus grounded in the history and constitution of Egypt, rather than to contrive one altogether new. For it thus came to them on its first proposal, recommended and sanctioned by ancient usage. And the thought was obvious, that if the citizens even of a heathen empire, in consideration of a great act of kindness in the time of famine, gave so much to their earthly sovereign, and held so dependency of him, it was meet that they should willingly yield the same to the God who had redeemed them, and freely bestowed upon them everything they possessed.
In these, and probably some other matters of a similar kind, we can easily understand how the Egyptian learning of Moses, without the slightest derogation to his divine commission, might be turned to valuable account in executing the work given him to do. Nor have we any reason to suppose that the divine direction and counsel imparted to him, superseded the light he had obtained, or the benefit he had derived by his opportunities of becoming acquainted with the internal affairs of Egypt.
4. But there is a still farther point of connection between the Egyptian learning of Moses, coupled with the Egyptian training of the people, and what might justly be expected in the institutions under which they were to be placed, and one still more directly bearing on the religious aspect of the dispensation. For the handwriting of ordinances brought in by Moses was predominantly of a symbolical nature. But a symbol is a kind of language, and can no more than ordinary speech be framed arbitrarily, but must grow up and form itself out of the elements which are furnished by the field of nature or art, and be gathered from it by daily observation and experience. The language which we use as the common vehicle of our thoughts, and which forms the medium of our most hallowed intercourse with heaven, is constructed from the world of sin and sorrow around us, and if viewed as to its origin, savours of things common and unclean. But in its use simply as a vehicle of thought, or a medium of intercourse, it is not the less fitted to utter the sentiments of our heart, and convey even our loftiest aspirations to heaven. Why should it be thought to have been otherwise with the language of symbol? This too must have its foundation to a great extent in nature and custom, in observation and experience; for as it is addressed to the eye, it must, to be intelligible, employ the signs, which by previous use the eye is able to read and understand. How should I imagine that white, as a symbol, represents purity, or crimson guilt, unless something in my past history or observation had taught me to regard the one as a fit emblem of the other? It would not in the least mar the natural import of the symbol, or destroy its aptitude to express, even on the most solemn occasions, the idea with which it has become associated in my mind, if I should have learned its meaning amid employments not properly sacred, or the practices of a forbidden superstition. No matter how acquired, the bond of connection exists in my mind between the external symbol and the spiritual idea; and to reject its religious use, because I may have seen it abused to purposes of superstition, would not be more reasonable than to have proscribed every epithet in the language of Greece or Rome, which had been appropriated to the worship and service of idolatry.
Now, it so happened in the providence of God, that the children of Israel were brought into contact with the religious rites and usages of a people deeply imbued, no doubt, with a spirit of depravity and superstition, but abounding, at the same time, with symbolical arts and ordinances. And it was in the nature of things impossible that another religion abounding with the same could be framed, without adopting to a large extent the signs with which, from the accident of their position, they had become familiar. The religion introduced might differ--in point of fact it did differ from that already established, as far as light from darkness, in regard to the spirit they respectively breathed and the great ends they aimed at. But being alike symbolical, the one must avail itself of the signs which the other had already seized upon as fitted to express to the eye certain ideas. This had become, so to speak, the current language, which might to some extent be modified and improved, but could not be dispensed with. And as such language consists, for the most part, of a figurative use of the sensible things of nature, the assertion of Bahr is undoubtedly correct, that a very large proportion of the symbols so employed must be common to all religions of a like nature. Yet as each nation also has its peculiarities of thought, of custom, of scenery, of art and commerce, it can scarcely fail to have some corresponding peculiarities of symbolical expression. And it should by no means surprise us---it is rather in accordance with just and rational expectation, if since the Egyptians were in various respects so peculiar a people, and the Israelites in general, and Moses in particular, had been brought into such close and intimate connection with their entire system, the symbols of the Jewish worship should in some points bear a resemblance to those of Egypt, which cannot be traced in those of any other nation of heathen antiquity.
Such in reality is the case--as will afterwards appear--and we perceive in it a mark, not of suspicion, but of credibility and truth. It bears somewhat of the same relation to the authenticity of the Books of Moses, and the original genuineness of the revelation contained in them, that the language of the New Testament Scripture, the peculiar type of the period to which it belonged, does in reference to the truths and statements contained in them. Though certain critics, of more zeal than discretion, have thought it would be a great achievement for the literature of the New Testament, if they could establish its claim to be ranked in point of purity with the best of the Greek classics, no individual of sound judgment will dispute, that if they had succeeded in this, the loss would have been immensely greater than the gain; that one most important proof for the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament record would have perished---that, namely, arising from the exact conformity of its language to the period of its origin, and to no other. So, it is no discredit to the religion of Moses, that its symbols can so generally be identified with those currently employed at the period when it arose; and the peculiar resemblance borne by some of them to the customs and usages of Egypt, is like a stamp of veritableness impressed upon its very structure, testifying of its having originated in the time and circumstances mentioned in the original record. Nor can we fail to see in this the marvellous wisdom of the divine working, in connection with the history of the undertaking of Moses, that while he was to be commissioned to set up a symbolical religion among the Israelites, the reverse in all its great features of that prevalent in Egypt, he should yet have been thoroughly qualified by his original training to serve himself of whatever suitable materials were furnished by the land of his birth. These were in a sense a part of the spoils taken from the enemy, out of which the tabernacle of the wilderness was reared--though still all things there, from the greatest to the least, were made after the divine pattern shewn to Moses in the mount, and in the truths it symbolised, and the purposes for which it was erected, it came forth, not the slimy product of the Nile, but the chaste and holy architecture of heaven. It is not certainly for the purpose of finding any confirmation, in a theological point of view, to the argument maintained in the preceding pages, but only to shew the foundation in nature, or the scientific basis which it also has to rest upon, that we produce the following quotation from Müller. The quotation is farther valuable, as it exhibits the view of a profound thinker, and one who has made himself intimately conversant with the thoughts and customs of remote antiquity, in regard to the meaning treasured up in the symbols of ancient worship, and the aptitude of the people to understand them. It is possible, that in the work from which we give the extract, he carries his views to an extreme, as we certainly think he does, in often making too much of particular transactions, and also in making the instruction by myths and symbols, not only independent of, but in some sort inconsistent with, direct instruction in doctrine. The general soundness, however, of his view regarding the significance of those ancient forms of instruction, especially of symbol, there are few men of learning or judgment who will now be disposed to call in question. "That this connection of the idea with the sign, when it took place, was natural and necessary to the ancient world; that it occurred involuntarily; and that the essence of the symbol consists in this supposed real connection of the sign with the thing signified, I here assume. Now, symbols in this sense are evidently coeval with the human race; they result from the union of the soul with the body in man; nature has implanted the feeling for them in the human heart. How is it that we understand what the endless diversities of human expression and gesture signify? How comes it, that every physiognomy expresses to us spiritual peculiarities, without any consciousness on our part of the cause? Here experience alone cannot be our guide; for without having ever seen a countenance like that of Jupiter Olympus, we should yet, when we saw it, immediately understand its features. An earlier race of mankind, who lived still more in sensible impressions, must have had a still stronger feeling for them. It may be said that all nature wore to them a physiognomical aspect. Now, the worship which represented the feelings of the Divine in visible external actions, was in its nature thoroughly symbolical. No one can seriously doubt that prostration at prayer is a symbolic act; for corporeal abasement very evidently denotes spiritual subordination: so evidently, that language cannot even describe the spiritual, except by means of a material relation. But it is equally certain that sacrifice also is symbolical; for how would the feeling of acknowledgment, that it is a God who supplies us with food and drink, display itself in action, but by withdrawing a portion of them from the use of man, and setting it apart in honour of the Deity? But precisely because the symbolical has its essence in the idea of an actual connection between the sign and the thing signified, was an inlet left for the superstitious error, that something palatable was really offered to the gods--that they tasted it. But it will scarcely do to derive the usage from this superstition; in other words, to assign the intention of raising a savoury steam as the original foundation of all sacrifice. It would then be necessary to suppose, that at the ceremony of libation the wine was poured on the earth, in order that the gods might lick it up! I have here only brought into view one side of the idea, which forms the basis of sacrifice, and which the other, certainly not less ancient, always accompanied, namely, the idea of atonement by sacrifice; which was from the earliest times expressed in numberless usages and legends, and which could only spring from the strongest and most intense religious feeling: 'We are deserving of death; we offer as a substitute the blood of the animal.'" [23]--He states a little further on, that we must not always presuppose, that a particular symbol corresponds exactly to a particular idea, such as we may be accustomed to conceive of it; that the symbols will partly, indeed, remain the same as long as external nature continues unchanged, but that their signification will vary with the different national modes of intuition and other circumstances; so that a moral and religious economy, like that of Judaism, might be engrafted on the nature-worship of Egypt--meaning, thereby, we suppose, that while many of the symbols were retained, a new and higher meaning was imparted to them. [24]
Having given the sentiments of one high authority, bearing on the external resemblance in some points between Judaism and the religions of heathen antiquity, we shall give the sentiments of another as to the radical difference in spirit and character which distinguished the true from the false,--an authority whose low views on some vital points of doctrine only render his opinion here the less liable to suspicion. "Heathenism," says Bahr, "as is now no longer disputed, was in all its parts a nature-religion; that is, the deification of nature in its entire compass. That mode of contemplation, which was wont to perceive the ideal in the real, proceeded in heathenism a step farther; it saw in the world and nature, not merely a manifestation of Godhead, but the very essence and being of nature were regarded in it as identical with the essence and being of Godhead, and as such thrown together; the ultimate foundation of all heathenism is pantheism. Hence the idea of the oneness of the Divine Being was not absolutely lost, but this oneness was not at all that of a personal existence, possessing self-consciousness and self-determination, but an impersonal One, the great It, a neuter abstract, the product of mere speculation, which is at once everything and nothing. Wherever the Deity appeared as a person, it ceased to be one, and resolved itself into an infinite multiplicity. But all these gods were mere personifications of the different powers of nature. From a religion, which was so physical in its fundamental character, there could only be developed an ethics which should bear the hue and form of the physical. Above all that is moral rose natural necessity--fate, to which gods and men were alike subject; the highest moral aim. for man was to yield an absolute submission to this necessity, and generally to transfuse himself into nature as being identified with Deity, to represent in himself its life, and especially that characteristic of it, perfect harmony, conformity to law and rule.--The Mosaic religion, on the other hand, has for its first principle the oneness and absolute spirituality of God. The Godhead is no neuter abstract, no It, but I; Jehovah is altogether a personal God. The whole world, with everything it contains, is his work, the offspring of his own free act, his creation. Viewed as by itself, this world is nothing; he alone is---absolute being. He is in it, indeed, but not as properly one with it; he is infinitely above it, and can clothe himself with it, as with a garment, or fold it up and lay it aside as lie pleases. Now this God, who reveals and manifests himself through all creation, in carrying into execution his purpose to save and bless all the families of the earth, revealed and manifested himself in an especial manner to one race and people. The centre of this revelation is the word which he spoke to Israel; but this word is his law, the expression of his perfect holy will. The essential character, therefore, of the special revelation of God is holiness. Its substance is, "Be ye holy, for I am holy." So that the Mosaic religion is throughout ethical: it always addresses itself to the will of man, and deals with him as a moral being. Every thing that God did for Israel, in the manifestations he gave of himself, aims at this as its final end, that Israel should sanctify the name of Jehovah, and thereby be himself sanctified." [25]
1. Vol. ii. chap. i. s. 2.
2. The references to the fathers may be found in Spencer Be Leg. Hebr. I. c. 1. Deyling has an acute dissertation on this passage (Obs. Sac. P. ii. ch. 23), in which he very successfully refutes the interpretation of the Fathers, Spencer, and those of later times, who substantially adopt his view, but also objects to the view given of it here, and contends, that the statutes not good, and the laws by which thev could not live, were God's chastisements punishing them for their violations of his good and life-giving ordinances. We have no doubt that these chastisements were in the eye of the prophet, but not to the exclusion of the other: God gave them up to foolish counsels and a reprobate mind, that they might manifestly appear to be undeserving of his care, and be left to inherit the recompense that was meet for their perversity.
3. De Leg. Heb. p. 210.
4. Ibid. p. 215.
5. Symbolik, B. i. s. 41, 42. The latter part is stated rather too comprehensively, as we shall shew by and by. The circumstances were such as to have led Moses rather to avoid than to seek an imitation of what was Egyptian, but it was impossible, altogether to exclude it, or precisely to brand every thing properly Egyptian.
6. Philosophical Works, vol. v. p. 377. It is remarked by Archbishop Magee, that Spencer's work "has always been resorted to by infidel writers, in order to wing their shafts more effectively against the Mosaic revelation." See note 60 to his work on the Atonement, where also are to be found some good remarks on such views generally, although, in resting upon the ground of Witsius, he does not place the opposition to them on its proper basis. He speaks of Tillotson as having been before-hand with Spencer in propounding the general view regarding the nature of the Mosaic ritual, and certainly Barrow (in his Sermon on the Imperfection of the Jewish Religion), exhibits to the full as low a view of the legislation of Moses as Spencer himself did shortly afterwards. We have no doubt that the view itself was an offshoot of the semi-deistical philosophy which sprung up at that period in England as a kind of re-action from Puritanism, and almost simultaneously insinuated itself into various productions of the more learned theologians.
7. Michaelis did not himself positively avow his disbelief of the miraculous in the history of Moses, but he plainly betrayed his anxiety to get rid of it as far as possible, by his questions to Niebuhr in regard to the passage through the Red Sea.
8. Divine Leg., B. iv. s. 6, and v. s. 1.
9. Ibid. B. vi. s. 5 and 6.
10. Rational of the Ritual of the Hebrew Worship.
11. Philosophy of Judaism.
12. Spencer's work called forth many other opponents, but Witsius continued to hold the highest place. The AEgyptiaca was followed by a respectable work of Meyer, De Teraporibus et Festis diebus Hebrseorum-- the first part against Sir John Marsham, the second against Spencer, taking up substantially the same ground as Witsius. Vitringa also opposes the leading views of Spencer, in various parts of his Obs. Sacrss, as does Deyling also, in his Obs. Sac. In this country, Shuckford in the first vol. of his Connection of Sacred and Profane History, and Graves in his Lectures on the Pentateuch (he has only one lecture on the subject, P. ii. Lee. v.), with various other writers of inferior note, have opposed Spencer, on the ground of Witsius, and without adding to its strength. Dauheny's Connection between the Old and the New Testament, though praised by Magee in his notes on this subject, does not touch on the controversy, and, in a critical point of view, is an inferior work.
13. Lib. i. c. 2.
14. Authentie, I p. 8.
15. Symbolik, i. p. 34.
16. Ib. 42.
17. Witsius, AEgyptiaca, I. iii. c, 14, 3.
18. Moses, quo sibi in posterum gentem firmaret, novos ritus, contrariosque cajteris mortalibus, indidit. Profana illic omnia, quae apud nos sacra, &c.--Tacitus, Hist. L. v. 4, also Plin. H. N. xiii. 4.
19. We have already spoken, toward the close of chap. i. s. 1, of the connection between the civilization of the Israelites, and the ultimate purposes of God in respect to them. The particular point more especially noticed in the text here---the existence and familiar use of the art of writing in Egypt, at the time of Israel's sojourn there, has given rise to a good deal of controversy, but is now virtually settled, so far as our immediate purpose is concerned. How alphabetical writing was invented, or by whom, or whether it was not transmitted from the ages before the flood, and might consequently be claimed by each of the more eminent races or nations that afterwards arose as their own, these are still unexplored mysteries, and likely to remain such. The opinion is now very prevalent, that the invention belongs to Egypt, and grew out of a gradual improvement of the original hieroglyphic or picture-writing. So especially Warburton, Div. Leg- B. iv. s. 4, and many of the recent writers 011 hieroglyphics. See the Article Hieroglyphics, in Encyclop. Britan. and Heeren's introduction to the second vol. on Africa. But this opinion is by no means universal, and it stands connected with such difficulties, that some of those who have devoted most attention to the subject, hold the order of things to have been precisely the reverse. They conceive that the most complicated was also the last, that out of the alphabetical writing came the phonetic hieroglyphic, and this again gave rise to the ideographic and figurative. So, in part at least, Zoega, also Klaproth, Latronne, and Hengstenberg, who remarks, in confirmation of this view, that "the hieroglyphic writing was exclusively a sacred one, and hence conveys the impression, that it was intended to darken what already existed in a simple form; if we seek in hieroglyphic writing the commencement of writing in general, we can scarcely comprehend how it should from the first have been exclusively employed by the priests" (Authentic, des Pent. i. p. 444-6, where also see quotations from the other writers mentioned as holding this view). But, however this may be, it is certain that the knowledge and use of letter-writing reaches back to a period beyond all authentic profane history, and dates from the very infancy of the human race. Hence, by most early nations, the invention of it was ascribed to one of their gods--by the Phrenieians to Thaaut, by the Egyptians to Thot or Hermes, &c. The fact, also, that a person, whether personally- designated, or characterised by the name of Cadmus, a supposed contemporary of Mosesy. brought letters from Phoenicia to Greece, is a sufficient proof that letter-writing was then, in current use in the East. Even Winer (Seal-Wort. art. Sereib Kunst); admits that Moses might possibly have become acquainted with it in Egypt. The Greek writers, Piodorus (iii. c. 3.), Plato (De Leg. L. vii.) speak of it as customary in Egypt for the multitude learning letters; and the name given by Herodotus to the alphabetic kind of writing, demotic (popular), and by Clemens and Porphyry, epistoliCj implies it to have been generally known and used. "In Egypt," says Wilkinson, "nothing was done without writing. Scribes were employed on all occasions, whether to settle public or private questions, and no bargain of any consequence was made without the voucher of a written document," (Vol. i. p. 183). He tells us also, that papyri of the most remote Pharonic period have been found with the same mode of writing as that of the age of Cheops (Yol. iii. p. 150). Rossellini says, that "they probably wrote more in ancient Egypt, and on more ordinary occasions than among us"--that u the steward of the house kept a written register"--that "their names used to be inscribed upon their implements and garments"--that "in levying soldiers, persons wrote down the names as the com- manders brought the men up," &c. (Vol. ii. p. 241, ss). That this accords with the representations given in the Pentateuch, and that the Israelites partook in the privilege, is evident from the name given to their officers both in Egypt and Canaan, shoterim. or scribes (Ex. v. 15; Deut. xx. 5). and also from the very frequent references to writing in the books of Moses, for example, Ex. xxxii. 16; Deut. vi. 9, xi. 20, xxvii., where they were enjoined to have the whole law written upon stones covered with chalk or plaster (according to a practice common in Egypt, Wilkinson, iii. p. 300), that all might see it and read it.
20. Abrogata templi liturgia et cultu, utpote ceremoniali, cultum atque publicam Dei aclorationem in Synagogis, quae quidem, moralis erat, Deus in ecclesiam transplantavit Christianam, publieum scilicet ministerrain, etc. Hinc ipsissima nomina ministrorum evangelii, Angelus ecclesice, atque Episcopus, quae ministrorum in Synagogis, &c. Lightfooti, Op. iio p. 279. But the full and satisfactory proof is to be found only in Vitringa, De Synagoga Vet. in the third part of which it is demonstrated, that the form of government and ministry belonging to the Synagogues was in great measure transferred to the Christian church.
21. Egypt and Books of Moses, p. 62, Trans.
22. Deut. xviii.; Lev. xxv.; comp. also Michaelis' Laws of Moses, vol. ii. p. 258, and Hengstenberg's Authentie, ii. p. 401, ss.
23. Miiller's Introd. to Scientific System of Mythology, p. 196, Eng. Trans.
24. Ib. 219, 222.
25. Symbolik, i. p. 35-37, where also confirmatory testimonies are produced from Creuzer, Gorres, Hegel, Schlegel.