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 III.
SECTION FOURTH.
P. 276-298.
In the preceding chapter, we have considered the tabernacle and its officiating priesthood only in a general point of view, with reference simply to the great design of the one, and the distinctive character and privileges of the other. But we must now descend more into particulars; and endeavour to ascertain what was the precise import of its several parts, and of the services in connection with these, which the priests were appointed to discharge. It is here so important to have a sure foundation laid, and the landmarks well fixed for future explanations, that we must in the present section confine our attention to what may be called a general survey of the particulars, the relation which one part bore to another, and the connection in which the whole stood to the most essential part of the Old Testament worship--the rite of sacrifice. This will, of course, lead us to inquire into the exact nature of a sacrifice, and the import of the actions connected with it--those, especially, of the imposition of hands on the victim, and the sprinkling of its shed blood.
1. We look first to the tabernacle itself, which, though one habitation, is presented to our view as divided into two compartments. By a richly embroidered curtain or veil, suspended from top to bottom, the Innermost portion, consisting of ten cubits square, was cut off from the outer; and was designated "the Most Holy Place," while the other was simply called "the Sanctuary," or the Holy Place. Why should such a division have been formed--a division into two and only two apartments? A reason very naturally suggests itself for this in the general character and design of the erection. It was the Lord's dwelling- place; not as in a state of isolation, however, but as the symbol of his presence among his people, and the medium of intercourse between them and him; at once, therefore, God's and the people's dwelling--the tent of meeting. But however near God may come to his creatures, and however close the fellowship to which he admits them, there must still be something to mark his incomparable greatness and glory. Even in the sanctuary above, where all is stainless purity, the ministering spirits are represented as veiling their faces with their wings before the manifested glory of Godhead; and how much more should sinful men on earth be alive to his awful majesty, and feel unworthy to stand amid the splendours of his throne? If, therefore, he should so far condescend as to pitch among them a tent for his dwelling, we might certainly have expected that it would consist of two apartments ---one which he would reserve for his own peculiar residence, and another to which they should have free access, who, as his familiars, were to be permitted to dwell with him in his house. For in this way alone could the two grand ideas of the glorious majesty of God, which raises him infinitely above his people, and yet of his covenant-nearness to them, be reconciled and imaged together.
Besides, this tabernacle for the Lord's house, being the centre of a symbolical religion, must be itself the pattern of the whole kingdom to which the religion belonged. It was constructed so as to embody and express the principles of truth and holiness, on which God's connection and intercourse with his people was to be maintained. And in this respect also a twofold division was obviously required, as the instruction to be afforded naturally fell into two parts--what concerned the relation of God to his people, and what concerned the people's relation to God. The necessities of the case required this, and we may certainly conclude, the plan actually adopted was formed with the design of securing it. The most holy place--the peculiar region of the divine presence and glory--with its furniture and service, represented what God was to his people, how and on what terms he would dwell among them and hold converse with them. The Sanctuary, which was assigned to the priests, the people's representatives, in like manner represented by means of its furniture and services, what it behoved them to be and do, as admitted to such intimate nearness to God, with what divine graces they should be furnished, and with what fruits of righteousness they should abound. Thus, in the symbolical structure of the tabernacle, were to be seen the two great branches into which the tree of divine knowledge always of necessity falls, viz, the things to be believed concerning God, and the things to be done by his believing people. Had this been understood and kept properly in view, it would have prevented many false interpretations, and much inextricable confusion. [1]
2. It is obvious, however, that while the tabernacle was thus fitted, by means of its two apartments, to give a just representation of the relations between God and his people--and while the people at large could not be permitted to enter its courts on account of its peculiar sacredness, a place connected with it was still needed, where they might personally appear before God, and hold communion with him as locally present among them. For this purpose a space was marked off around the tabernacle, an hundred cubits long by fifty broad (about 150 feet by 75), called the fore-court, or simply the court of the tabernacle. It was enclosed by curtains made of fine twined linen, of the height of five cubits (about 7½ feet). These curtains were suspended from rods of silver, which reached from one column to another; the columns being of brass (20 on each side and 10 at each end), supported also on bases of brass, and having near the top silver hooks, in which the rods that sustained the hooks were inserted. The doorway into this fore-court, as into the tabernacle itself, was by a veil or curtain, of rich embroidery, which was drawn up with cords, as often as any one had occasion to enter. That any worshipping Israelite might enter, though, not expressly said, is yet evidently implied; and according to Jewish authority, it was absolutely essential that one part of the service in every blood- sacrifice--the imposition of the offerer's hands upon the victim--should take place within the court. And in the more complete and ample accommodations connected with the temple, not only was the court of Israel within the sacred enclosure, and commanded a full view of the services about the altar, but the worshippers, who had sacrifices to offer, were wont to go even into the court of the priests and lay their hands upon the victim.
This court of the tabernacle was furnished with two articles of worship, the laver and the altar of burnt-offering; both of which stood in a close and intimate connection with the tabernacle itself and its most peculiar services. The laver was a kind of basin, or vessel of brass, but is nowhere exactly described, though generally supposed to have been of a circular shape, and was placed on a foot or base of brass. Some difference of opinion still prevails regarding the meaning of the passage, in which the making of it is described, Ex. xxxviii. 8. In the authorized version it is: "And he made the laver of brass, and the foot of it of brass, of the looking-glasses of the women assembling, which assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Bähr, following Fort. Sacchus, understands the looking-glasses, not of the materials of which it was made, but of the furniture with which it was provided: he provided it with looking-glasses for the women, &c. His chief reason for this is a grammatical one; viz. that the verb *** (to make) has the substance out of which the thing is made always in the accusative, without any preposition prefixed, and that, therefore, the preposition before the looking glasses ( *** ) must be taken in the sense of with. If the learned author had only examined the concluding verses of this very chapter, he could not have made such an assertion; for, in v. 30, speaking of what was done with the brass of the offering, it is said, "And therewith, or thereof, he made the sockets" ( *** ). Besides, what were women going to do with looking-glasses In connection with the laver, or at the door of the tabernacle? Indeed, it is not conceivable that a place was assigned to women in the neighbourhood of the laver, and close beside the door of the tabernacle, as no part of the ministrations about the tabernacle was committed to their charge. By the door of the tabernacle here, and in 1 Sam. ii. 22, we should suppose, must be meant the door of the court of the tabernacle, corresponding to the court of the women in the temple, which was at a still greater distance than that of the men from the entrance into the temple. It would appear, however, that even so early as the construction of the tabernacle, there was a company of pious women dedicating themselves to frequent attendance on the worship of God, and having a place assigned them in connection with the tabernacle. Their duties of service seem to have consisted much in fasting and prayer. The LXX. on this account, interpreting rather than rendering the meaning of the original, have, "of the looking-glasses of the fasting-women who fasted." And Abenezra, as quoted by Lightfoot (Op, i. p. 643), gives the following explanation of the matter: "It is the custom of all women to behold their face every morning in a mirror, that they may be able to dress their hair, but lo! there were women in Israel who served the Lord, abandoning this earthly sort of pleasure, and yielding up their mirrors as voluntary oblations; nor did they any longer need these, but daily came to the door of the tabernacle to pray, and hear the words of the law." In later times, Anna was evidently one of these priest-like females, "departing not from the temple, but serving God with fastings and prayers night and day" (Luke ii. 37; comp. also 1 Tim. v. 5.) The latter part of Ex. xxxviii. 8, should run, "Of the serving-women who served at the gate of the tabernacle of the congregation." The expression in the original has respect properly to military service, but is also often used of the stated services of the priests, Numb. iv. 23, 35, 49; viii. 25.
The laver was placed between the altar and the tabernacle, as the most convenient position, its design being to provide a ready supply of water, with which the priests were to wash their hands and their feet, before ministering at the altar on the one hand, or going into the tabernacle on the other. "When they go into the tabernacle of meeting they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the tabernacle to minister, to burn offerings made by fire unto the Lord" (Ex. xxx. 20). That merely the hands and the feet of the officiating priests were to be washed at this laver, arose simply from these being the parts of their bodies immediately employed in their sacred ministrations--their hands, when engaged in presenting the sacrifices upon the altar, their feet, when going to tread the floor of the sanctuary. The strict injunction to have these acting members washed beforehand, denoted the personal holiness with which the work of God must be performed, and which is the ultimate aim, indeed, of all the institutions of worship. As the sanctification or holiness of Israel was the object of the services connected with the altar and the sanctuary, it was absolutely necessary, that they who did the service, should appear to be in a state of personal cleanness. The Psalmist clearly indicates the meaning of the rite, and shews also, that in the spirit of a true Israelite he regarded it as not less applicable to himself than to the priests, when he said, "I will wash mine hands in innocency, so will I compass thine altar, O Lord" (xxvi. 6). And that this washing in his view had respect to an internal purification, is evident from the whole tenor of the Psalm, which speaks throughout of moral cleanness and impurity, and especially from the preceding verses, in which the Psalmist declares his separation from "the wicked," "evil doers," and "dissemblers," and even entreates God to "try his reins and his heart." So also in Ps. xxiv., he points from the symbol to its spiritual import, when he asks, "Who shall ascend into the hill of God, or who shall stand in his holy place?" And answers by saying, "He that hath clean hands and a pure heart."
The symbol here employed is of so natural a kind, and so fitly adapted for conveying spiritual instruction to all ages of the church, that it has been to some extent retained also in the New Testament dispensation,--in the rite of baptism. For, however administered, whether by immersing, washing, or sprinkling, there can be no question that the cleansing nature of the element is the natural basis of the ordinance, and that from which it derives its appropriate character, as the initiatory service of a Christian life. Symbolically, it conveys the salutary instruction, that he who becomes Christ's, and through Christ would dedicate himself to the work and service of God, must be purified from the filth and pollution of sin; he must be regenerated and made holy. Believers are therefore described as "having their bodies washed with pure water" (Heb. x. 22, where the symbolical language is still entirely retained), or as having undergone "the washing of regeneration," Tit. iii. 5, where the internal character of the work is distinctly intimated, and also coupled with the efficient cause in the additional expression, "the renewing of the Holy Ghost)", or again, as being "sanctified and cleansed by the washing of water, by the word" (Eph. v. 26)--by the word, namely, the truth of Christ's salvation; for this received into the heart, and cordially embraced, is internally the means of cleansing, the instrumental cause through which the spiritual sanctification is accomplished. So that he who would acceptably approach God and discharge aright the duties of his service, must first have his heart purified by faith, he must receive the light, and through the light become a partaker in the holiness of God. The unclean, those who are still living in the guilt and pollution of sin, can have no place in his kingdom, and even "their prayers are abomination to him." As Aaron had the sentence of death suspended over him, in case he should go about the ministrations of the tabernacle with unwashed hands or feet, so the services of ungodly persons, instead of procuring the blessing of God, only provoke the eyes of his glory, and prepare for them a heavier condemnation.
But the other piece of sacred furniture belonging to the forecourt, the altar of burnt-offering, had in some respects a still closer connection with the interior of the tabernacle and its holy ministrations. For, it was with live coals taken from it, that the priest constantly furnished his censer when he went in to burn incense before the Lord, and only after being himself sprinkled with blood from that altar could he go into the tabernacle and perform the service of God. On these accounts, and also because it was the one altar of sacrifice, where the people could directly meet with God and present to him their offerings, the altar of burnt-offering held a place of peculiar importance. It was directed to be made of boards of shittim-wood, covered with brass; and of this latter material also were made the several instruments attached to it- pans, shovels, flesh-hooks, &c. Hence, it is frequently called the brazen altar, to distinguish it from the altar of incense within the tabernacle, which, from having been overlaid with gold, is sometimes named the golden altar. In form, it was a square of five cubits, and about four and an half feet high, with what were called horns, or projecting corners. Its ever-burning fire-place consisted of a moveable grate, sunk down from the top in the centre, suspended by four rings, so that the fire was at some distance from the boards of the altar, there being a space between these, and the grating of net-work, which held the fire--"hollow with boards shalt thou make it." And this hollow space is justly supposed to have been left for being filled with earth or stones, so that the brazen altar might still correspond with the description given in Ex. xx. 24, 25, "An altar of earth shalt thou make me, and if thou wilt make it of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone." [2] The reason of which is to be sought, not in any repudiation of external pomp or splendour in the divine worship, which would have placed the altar in direct contrast to many things in the tabernacle, nor in the intention of meeting certain idolatrous tendencies (as Spencer represents), but in the proper nature and design of the altar itself.
For, this altar of sacrifice was to be the grand point of meeting between God and sinful men, between God and men as sinful; and only by first meeting there, and entering into a state of reconciliation and peace, could they afterwards be admitted into his house, as those who had the privilege of communion and fellowship with him. The altar was in a sense God's table, at and around which, the Holy One of heaven and the guilty children of dust might come together, and transact respecting life and blessing. But as such it must be a table peculiarly of blood, the place for things killed and slaughtered (hence called *** from *** to kill or slaughter), for the way to fellowship with God, for guilty beings, could only be found through an avenue of death. And since this table must thus perpetually bear on it the bloodstained memorials and fruits of sin, what so suitable for the materials, of which, it was to be principally formed, as the naked dust of earth, or earth's unhewn, unpolished stones, taken just as God and nature provided them? For thus the worshippers might most easily discern the appointed place of meeting to be of God's providing, and his in such a sense, that no art or device of theirs could be of any avail to fit it for the high end it was intended to serve, nay, that their workmanship, being that of sinful creatures, had rather a contrary tendency, a polluting effect. Materials directly fashioned by the hand of God were alone suitable here, and these not of the more rare and costly description, but the simple earth, made originally for man's support and nourishment, but now the witness of his sin, the drinker in of the blood of his forfeited life, the theatre and home of death.
This altar, then, being in a sense God's table, what was properly God's part, and especially what he required as the means of atonement and reconciliation for sin, fell to be presented there. Whether actually consumed or not, everything of this description Lad to be offered, and, as it were, served up on it. But the things which God claimed as peculiarly his own, were also consumed; and the element, which was employed for this purpose, was the flaming fire, which is the most fitting representative of a holy God --and fire, not as lighted up by the hand of man, but sent down directly from above to make it the more strikingly expressive of his nature, and more surely indicative of his acceptance of the offerings. For the fire, which fell from heaven at the first institution of the tabernacle-service, and consumed the burnt-offering and the fat (Lev. ix. 24), it was the part of the priesthood to keep perpetually burning; so that the same fire from heaven, which at first consumed, might, by being constantly preserved, never cease to consume the people's offerings, and as the people's gifts, so God's acceptance of the gifts, might have an abiding representation on the altar. "The fire upon the altar," says Vitringa rightly, though he errs respecting the altar, in making it represent God himself, "the fire upon the altar signified anything in God, and indeed what is holy in God--either the holy will of God, as righteous, loving excellence, delighting in every good -work, and vindicating his own glory; or the Holy Spirit of God, which is in God, and from God, himself holy, and the administrator of the dispensation of holiness." And as the fire thus fitly symbolized God, so its consumption of the offerings and carrying them upwards to the visible heavens in a flame and smoke, not less fitly symbolized their acceptance by Him. Hence, also, the name given to those sacrifices, in which the whole was consumed on the altar, olah, ascension, denoting their going up bodily to God. And hence also the expression, so often used of acceptable sacrifice, "of fire, a sweet-smelling savour (or, a savour of rest) for Jehovah," ascending, as it were, with a grateful odour to the God above. But the keeping of the fire perpetually alive was, no doubt, also a sign of the unceasing presentation of offerings, that ought to be ever proceeding on the altar.
3. From what has been said, we are prepared to understand, that what most of all gave to this altar its distinctive character, and rendered it available to the grand purpose of reconciliation, and fellowship between God and man, was its being on all ordinary occasions the one place for presenting before God the blood of slain victims. This was its primary use, because it respects the ground of a sinner's intercourse with God; other things were but subordinate and accessory. And the reason is given by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, when he testifies, that "without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins," consequently no peace or fellowship with God for the sinner. It is still more fully brought out, however, in a declaration of Moses himself, the precise import and bearing of which deserves the most careful consideration. The passage is in Lev. xvii. 11, which should be rendered, not as in our version, but with Bähr: "For the soul (***) of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to atone for your souls, for the blood atones through the soul" (***). It is scarcely possible to mistake the general sense of this important passage, but its precise and definite meaning has been somewhat obscured, by not perceiving that the soul at the close of the verse refers back to the soul at the beginning, and expresses the principle or seat of life, not in him who is to be atoned for, but in the creature by which the atonement is made for him. And the full and correct import of the passage is to the following effect: "You must not eat the blood, because God has appointed it as the means of atonement for your sins. But it is the means of atonement, as the bearer of the soul. It is not, therefore, the matter of the blood that atones, but the soul or life which resides in it; so that the soul of the offered victim atones for the soul of the man who offers it." [3]
The ground upon which this merciful arrangement plainly proceeds, is the doomed condition of men as sinners, and the purpose of God to save them from its infliction. Their soul or life, has through sin, been forfeited to God, and, as a debt due to his justice, it should in right be rendered back again to Him who gave it. The enforcement of this claim, of course, inevitably involves the death of transgressors, according to the "sentence from the very first hung over the commission of sin, denouncing its penalty to be death. But as God appears in the institution of sacrifice providing a way of escape from this deserved doom, he mercifully appoints a substitute--the soul or life of a beast, for the soul or life of the transgressor; and as the seat of life is in the blood, so the blood of the beast, its life-blood, was given to be shed in death, and served up on the altar of God, in the room of that other higher, but guilty life, which had become due to divine justice. When this was done, when the blood of the slain victim was poured out or sprinkled upon the altar, and thereby given up to God, the sinner's guilt was atoned (covered); a screen, as it were, was thrown between the eye of God and his guilt, or between his own soul and the penalty due to his transgression. In other words, a life that had not been forfeited, was accepted in the room of his own, that was forfeited; and this was yielded back to him as now again a life in peace and fellowship with God--a life out of death.
It is clear, however, that while in one respect the life or soul of the sacrifice was a suitable offering or atonement for that of the sinner, as being unstained by guilt, innocent; in another, it was entirely the reverse, and could not in any proper and satisfactory sense take away sin. This imperfection or inadequacy arose from the vast disproportion between the two---the one soul being that of a rational and accountable creature, free to think and act, to determine and choose for itself, the other that of an irrational creature, destitute of independent thought and moral feeling, and so incapable alike of sin or of holiness. It is, therefore, only in a negative sense that the sacrificed victim could be regarded even as innocent; for, strictly speaking, the question of guilt or innocence belongs to a higher region than that which, by the very law of its being, it was appointed to occupy. And being thus so inferior in nature, how far was it from possessing what yet the slightest reflection could easily discern to be necessary to constitute a real and valid atonement or covering for the sinner's deficiency, viz. an equivalent for his life. The life-blood, then, which God gave for this purpose upon the altar, must obviously have been but a temporary expedient; his offended holiness could not rest in that, nor could he have intended more by the appointment than the keeping up of a present testimony to the higher satisfaction, which justice demanded for the sinner's guilt, and a symbolical representation of it. Then, out of these radical defects there inevitably arose others, which still farther marked with imperfection and inadequacy the sacrifices of irrational victims. For here there was necessarily wanting that oneness of nature between the sinner and his substitute, and in the latter that consent of will to the mutual interchange of parts, which are indispensably requisite to the idea of a perfect sacrifice. Nor could the sacrifice itself--which was a still more palpable incongruity--be like the sin, for which it was offered in atonement, a voluntary and personal act; the priest and the sacrifice were of necessity divided, and the work of atonement was done, not by the victim in willing self-dedication, but upon it, all unconsciously, by the hand of another.
Such defects and imperfections inhering in the very nature of ancient sacrifice, it could not possibly have been introduced or sanctioned by God as a satisfactory and ultimate arrangement. Nor could he have adopted it even as a temporary one, so far as to warrant the Israelitish worshipper to look for pardon and acceptance by complying with its enactments, unless there had already been provided in his eternal counsels, to be in due time manifested to the world, a real and adequate sacrifice for human guilt. Such a sacrifice, we need scarcely add, is to be found in Christ; who is, therefore, called emphatically "the Lamb of God"--" foreordained before the foundation of the world"--and of whose precious blood, it is written, that "it cleanseth from all sin."
How far, however, the Jewish worshippers themselves were alive to the necessity of this alone adequate provision, and realised the certainty of its future exhibition, can only be matter of probable conjecture, or reasonable inference. As the light of the church, generally, differed at different times, and in different individuals, so undoubtedly would the apprehension of this portion of divine truth have its diversities of comparative clearness and obscurity in the Jewish mind. If there were faith only to the extent of embracing and acting upon the existing arrangements--faith to present the appointed sacrifices for sin, and to believe in humble confidence, that imperfect and defective as these manifestly were, they would still be accepted for an atonement, and that God himself would know how to supply what his own provision needed to complete its efficacy--if faith only to this extent existed, we have no reason to say it was insufficient for salvation; it might be faith very much in the dark, but still it was faith in a revealed word of God, implicitly following the path which that word prescribed. It was the child relying on a father's goodness, and committing itself to the guidance of a father's wisdom, while still unable to see the end and reason of the course by which it was led.
But it was scarcely possible for thoughtful and reflective minds, for any length of time at least, to stand simply at this point. The felt imperfection and deficiency in the appointed sacrifices could not fail in such minds to connect itself with the Messiah, with whose coming there was always associated the introduction of a state of order and perfection. Some even of the Rabbinical writers speak as expressly upon this point as the New Testament itself does. [4] And a when the conscience of the Israelite (to use the words of Kurtz Mos. Opfer, p. 43, 44) was fairly awakened to the insufficiency of the blood of irrational creatures to effect a real atonement for sin, there was no other way for him to obtain satisfaction, than in the supposition that a perfect ever available sacrifice lay In the future. This supposition was the more natural to him, and must have readily suggested itself, as the Israelite, according to his constitutional temperament, was "a man of desire," and was farther stimulated and encouraged by the whole genius and tendency of his religion to look forward to the future. Besides, his entire life and history, his ancestors, his land, his people, his law, all bore a typical character, which his own spiritual tendency prompted him to search for, and which antecedent divine revelations instructed him to find. And had not Moses himself given some indication of the typical character of the whole ritual'introduced by him, when he testified that the eternal archetype of it was shewn him upon the holy mount? How natural was it, moreover, to bring the heart and centre of the entire worship into connection with the promises respecting the seed of the woman and of the patriarchs, and possibly with still other elements in the earlier revelations or devout breathings? How natural to connect together the centre of his expectations with the centre of his worship--to descry a secret, though still perhaps incomprehensible connection between them, and in that to seek the explication of the sacred mystery?"
4. The directions given in the law of Moses respecting the sacrificial blood, as well before as after its being shed in death, tend in every respect to confirm the views already exhibited of its vicarious import. They relate chiefly to the selection of the victims--the imposition of the offerer's hands on its head--and the action with (the sprinkling of) the blood.
(1.) The choice in respect to the victims to be offered was limited to "the herd and the nocks" (oxen, sheep, and goats), and to individuals of these without any manifest blemish. Why animals from such classes alone were to be taken, was briefly, but correctly answered even by Witsius, [5] when treating of the connection between the restriction as to clean animals for food, and the appointment of the same for sacrifice upon the altar: "God wished (says he) these two to be joined together, partly that man might thereby exhibit the more clearly his gratitude to God, in offering what had been given him for the support of his own life; and partly that the substitution of the sacrifice in his stead might be rendered the more palpable. For man offering the support of his own life, appeared to offer that life itself." This last thought, we have no doubt, indicates what may be called the primary reason, and brings the selection of the victim into closest contact with the essential nature of the sacrifice. It was not permitted to offer in sacrifice human victims, because none such could be found free from guilt, and so they were utterly unfit for being presented as a substitution for sinful men. But to make the gap as small as possible between the offerer and the victim--to secure that at least the animal natures of the two should stand in the nearest relation, the offerer was obliged to select his representative from the tame domestic animals of his own property and of his own rearing, the most human in their natural disposition and mode of life; and not only that, but such also, as might in a certain sense be regarded as of one flesh with himself--so far homogeneous, that the flesh of the one was fit nutriment for the flesh of the other. The principle which lay at the bottom of this selection, like every other in the ancient economy, is seen rising to its perfect form and highest manifestation in Christ--who, while the eternal Son of God, and as such infinitely exalted above man, yet brought himself down to man's sphere, became literally flesh of man's flesh, and, sin alone excepted, was found in all things like to man, that he might be a suitable offering, as well as High-priest, for the heirs of his salvation. [6]
It was for a reason very closely related to the one noticed, that the particular animal offered in sacrifice was to be always perfect in its kind. In the region of the animal life it was to be a fitting representative of what man should be--what his real and proper representative must be, in the region of the moral and spiritual life. Any palpable defect or blemish, rendering it an imperfect specimen of the natural species it belonged to, would have visibly marred the image it was intended to present of the holy beauty which was sought by God first in man, and now in man's substitute and ransom. For the reality we are again pointed by the inspired writers of the New Testament to Christ, whose blood is described as that "of a lamb without blemish, and without spot," and who is declared to have been such an High-priest as became us, because "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners."
In cases of extreme poverty, when the worshipper could not afford a proper sacrifice, the law permitted him to bring pigeons or turtle-doves, the blood of which was to be brought to the altar as that of the animal victim. That these rather than poultry are specified, the domestic fowls of modern times, arose from the manners prevalent among the ancient Israelites, These doves were, in fact, with them the tame, domesticated fowls, and in the feathered tribe corresponded to sheep and oxen among animals. No mention whatever is made of home-bred fowls or chickens in Old Testament scripture.
(2.) The second leading prescription regarding the victim, viz. that before having its blood shed in death, the offerer should lay his hand or hands upon its head, was still more essentially connected with the great idea of sacrifice. This imposition of hands was common to all the bloody sacrifices, and is given as a general direction before each of the several kinds of them, except the trespass-offering (Lev. i. 4; iii. 2; iv. 4-15; xvi. 21; 2 Chron. xxix. 23), and was no doubt omitted in regard to it on account of its being so much of the same nature with the sin-offering, that the regulation would naturally be understood to be applicable to both. There can be no question that the Jewish writers held the necessity of the imposition of hands in all the animal sacrifices except the passover. [7] What the rite really imported would be easily determined, if the explanation were sought merely from the materials furnished by Scripture itself. There the custom, viewed generally, appears as a symbolical action, bespeaking the communication of something in the person who imposes his hands, to the person or being on whom they are imposed. Hence it was used on such occasions as the bestowal of blessing (Gen. xlviii. 13; Matt. xix. 15); and the communication of the Holy Spirit, whether to heal bodily disease (Matt. ix. 18; Mark vi. 5; Acts ix. 12-17, &c.), or to endow with supernatural gifts (Acts xix. 6), or to designate or qualify for a sacred office (Num. xxvii. 18; Acts vi. 6; 1 Tim. v. 22). In all such cases there was plainly a conveyance to one who wanted from another who possessed, and the hand, the usual instrument of communication in the matter of gifts, simply denoted, when laid upon the head of the recipient, the fact of the conveyance being actually made. What, then, in the case of the bloody sacrifices did the offerer possess which did not belong to the victim? What had the one to convey to the other? Primarily and indeed always guilt. This, as we have already shewn, was the grand and fundamental distinction between the offerer and his victim. It was especially, as being the representative of him in his state of guilt and condemnation, that its blood required to be shed in death, to pay the wages of his sin.
And as God had given it to be used for such a purpose, so the offerer's laying his hands upon its head, indicated that he willingly appropriated it to the same, and made over to it as innocent the burden of guilt with which he felt himself to be charged. Besides this, however, other things in the offerer might also be symbolically transferred to the sacrifice, according to the more special design and object of the sacrifice. As his substitute, presented to God in his room and stead, it might be made to embody and express whatever feelings toward God had a place in his bosom--not merely convictions of sin, and desires of forgiveness, but also such feelings as gratitude for benefits received, or humble confidence in the divine mercy and loving-kindness. And when the law entered with its more complete sacrificial arrangements, appointing sin and trespass-offerings, as a distinct species of sacrifice, there can be no doubt, that in these would more especially be represented the sense of guilt on the part of the offerer, while in the peace or thank-offerings, it would be the other class of feelings, those of gratitude or trust, which were more particularly expressed. But still not to the exclusion of the other. In whatever circumstances, and with whatever special design man may approach God, he must come as a sinner, conscious of his unworthiness and his guilt. Nor, if he comprehends aright the relation in which he naturally stands to God, will anything tend more readily to awaken in his bosom this humble and contrite feeling, than a sensible participation of the mercies of God; for he will regard them as tokens of divine goodness, of which his sinfulness has made him altogether unworthy. So that the nearer God may have come to him in the riches of his grace, the more will he always be inclined to say with Jacob: "I am not worthy of all the mercies and the truth which thou hast shewn unto thy servant;" or with the Psalmist: "Lord, what is man that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?" It was, therefore, of necessity that there should have been even in such offerings a sense of guilt and unworthiness on the part of the worshipper, and hence the stress laid on all the animal sacrifices under the law, on the shedding and sprinkling of the blood, a peculiarity quite unknown to heathenism. Even in the thank-offerings, the atoning property of the blood was kept prominently in view.
It is impossible, then, we conceive, to separate in any case the imposition of hands on the head of the victim from the expression and conveyance of guilt; because the worshipper could never approach God in any other character than that of a sinner, consequently in no other way than through the shedding of blood. The specific service the blood had to render in all the sacrifices, was to be an atonement for the sinner's guilt upon the altar; and in reference to that part of the victim--always the most essential part--the imposition of the offerer's hands was the expression of his desire to find deliverance through that blood from his burden of iniquity, and acceptance with God. In those offerings especially--such as sin and trespass-offerings---in which the feeling of sin was peculiarly prominent in the sinner's bosom, the outward ceremony would naturally be used with more of this respect to the imputation of guilt; the whole desire of the offerer would concentrate itself here. And in perfect accordance with what has been said, we learn from Jewish sources, that the imposition of hands was always accompanied with confession of sin, but this varying, as to the particular form it assumed, according to the nature of the sacrifice presented. And in the only explanation which Moses himself has given of the meaning of the rite, namely as connected with the services of the day of atonement, it is represented as being accompanied not only with confession of sin, but also with the sin's conveyance to the body of the victim: "Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat!" [8]
The principle involved in this transaction is equally applicable to New Testament times, and, stript of its external form, is simply this, that the atonement of Jesus becomes available to the salvation of the sinner, only when he comes to it with heartfelt convictions of sin, and with mingled sorrow and confidence disburdens himself there of the whole accumulation of his guilt. Repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ, must grow and work together like twin sisters, in the experience of his soul. And assuredly, if there be no genuine sense of sin, shewing itself in a readiness to make full confession of the shortcomings and transgressions in which it has appeared, and an earnest desire to turn from it and be delivered from its just condemnation through the blood of sprinkling, as there is then 110 real preparedness of heart to receive, so there can be no actual participation in, the benefits of Christ's redemption.
(3.) The only remaining direction of a general kind, applicable to all the sacrifices of blood, was the action with the blood after it was shed. It was to be sprinkled--on ordinary occasions, upon the altar round about, but on the day of atonement, also upon the mercy-seat in the inner, and the altar of incense in the outer apartment of the Tabernacle. For the present, we confine our attention to the ordinary use of it. "This sprinkling of the blood," Outram remarks, "was by much the most sacred part of the entire service, since it was that by which the life and soul of the victim were considered to be given to God as supreme Lord of life and death; for what was placed upon the altar of God was supposed, according to the religion of the Old Testament, to be rendered to him." [9] But in what relation did the blood stand, when thus rendered to God? Was it as still charged with the guilt of the offerer, and underlying the sentence of God's righteous condemnation? So the language just quoted would seem to import. But how then shall we meet the objection, which naturally arises on such a supposition, that a polluted thing was laid upon the altar of God? And how could the blood with propriety be regarded as so holy when sprinkled on the altar, that it sanctified whatever it touched? We present the following as in our judgment the true representation of the matter: By the offerer's bringing his "victim, and with imposition of hands confessing over it his sins, it became symbolically a personation of sin, and hence must forthwith bear the penalty of sin--death. When this was done, the offerer was himself free alike from sin and from its penalty. But was the transaction by which this was effected owned by God? And was the offerer again restored, as one possessed of pure and blessed life, to the favour and fellowship of God? It was to testify of these things--the most important in the whole transaction--that the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar took place. Having with his own hands executed the deserved penalty on the victim, the offerer gave the blood to the priest, as God's representative. But that blood had already paid, in death, the penalty of sin, and was no longer laden with guilt and pollution. The justice of God was (symbolically) satisfied concerning it; and by the hands of his own representative, he could with perfect consistence receive it, as a pure and spotless thing, the veiy image of his own holiness, upon his table or altar. In being received there, however, it still represented the blood or soul of the offerer, who thus saw himself, through the action with the blood of his victim, re-established in communion with God, and solemnly recognized as possessing life, holy and blessed, as it is in God himself. His soul had come again into peaceful and approved contact with God, and was thence admitted to participate of a divine nature. [10]
How exactly this representation accords with what is written of Christ, must be obvious on the slightest reflection. When dying as man's substitute and representative, he appeared laden with the guilt of innumerable sins, as one who, though he knew no sin, yet had "been made sin," bearing in his person the concentrated mass of his people's pollution; and on this account he received upon his head the curse due to sin, and sank under the stroke of death, as an outcast from heaven. But the moment he gave up the ghost, an end was made of sin. With the pouring out of his soul unto death, its guilt and curse were exhausted for all who should be heirs of salvation. Godhead was glorified concerning it with a perfect glory; and when the life laid down in ignominy and shame, was again resumed in honour and triumph, and this, or the blood in which it resided, was presented before the Father in the heavenly places, it bespoke his people's acceptance in him to the possession of the life out of death, to nearest fellowship with God, and the perpetual enjoyment of the divine favour; so that they are even said to "sit with him in heavenly places," and to have "their life hid with him in God." Hence also the peculiar force and significancy of the expression in 1 Pet. i. 2, so generally misunderstood, "unto," not only obedience, but also "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus;" which literally means the participation of his risen, divine, heavenly life--a life that is full of the favour and purity and blessedness of God. It is there, spoken of as the end and consummation of a Christian calling. Not as if such a calling could really be entered upon without an interest in Christ's risen life; but there must be a growing participation; and the spiritual life of a child of God approaches to perfection, according as he becomes "complete in Jesus," and is through him "filled into the fulness of God."
But we need not enter more at length here into the elucidation of the truth, as it will again occur, especially in connection with the service of the day of atonement; and for a fuller illustration of the passage just alluded to, we refer to the former volume (p. 182. sq.) The sprinkling was there viewed with a more special reference to the service at the ratification of the covenant, when the blood was partly sprinkled on the altar, and partly on the people, to denote more distinctly their participation and fellowship in what belonged to it. In the case of ordinary sacrifices, however, this was not done; nor could it be said to be necessary to complete the symbolical action. The offerer, after having brought his victim to the altar, laid his hands on its head with confession of sin, and having solemnly given it up for his expiation, could have no difficulty in realizing his connection with the blood, and his interest in its future application. The difficulty rather stood in his realizing God's acceptance of such blood in his behalf, and on its account restoring him to life and blessing. Now, however, the difficulty is entirely on the other side, and stands in realizing, not the acceptance of Christ's soul or blood by the Father, but our personal interest in it---in apprehending ourselves to be really and truly represented in the pouring out of his soul for sin, and its presentation for acceptance and blessing in the heavenly places. Hence, while respect is also had to the former in the New Testament, yet in the practical application of the doctrine of redemption, the latter is commonly made more prominent----viz. "the sprinkling of the believer's heart," or "the purging of his conscience "with the blood of Jesus." This is done, however, simply out of respect to the difficulty referred to; and stript of their symbolical colouring, the essential and radical idea in all such representations is, God's owning in the behalf of his people, and receiving into fellowship with himself, as pure and holy, that life which has borne in death the curse and penalty of sin; so that its new, undying life becomes their life, and its inheritance of blessing their inheritance. This owning and receiving on the part of God, is what is meant by Christ's sprinkling with his blood the heavenly places. And to realize on solid grounds the fact of its having been done for us, is on our part to come to the blood of sprinkling, and enter into the participation of its pure and blessed life.
1. The right view here was first distinctly brought out by Hengstenberg, against Bähr, Authen. ii. p. 635, and has been since adopted also by Tholuck in the last edition of his Com. on Heb. ch. ix. 5. The typical explanations prevalent in the Cocceian school, and still current in this country, overlooked this distinction as a whole; although the view taken of particular parts and services is often correct in the main. The error chiefly discovers itself in the interpretation given of the things belonging to the Sanctuary, in which Christ is commonly found as directly represented as in those of the Most Holy Place. See, for example, among the last works on the subject, Mudge's Tabernacle of Moses, and the Holy Vessels and Furniture of the Tabernacle, recently published by Baxter and Sons, which, not less than the older ones in this country, fail to draw the proper line of demarcation between the two apartments.
2. Spencer (De Leg. L. ii. c. 6), conceives this altar to have been such only as was to be raised on extraordinary occasions, and not to apply at all to the brazen altar. Some of the Jewish writers, however, judge better: "Altare terreum est hoc ipsum senetira altare, cujus concavtim terra implebatur."--Jarchi on Ex. xvii. 5; "Cavitas vero alta- ris terra replebatur, quo tempore castra ponebant."--Bechai in ib. And Bähr properly remarks, after Von Meyer, that this hollow space was not merely to be thus filled up with earth or stones, but that so filled, it formed the more essential and distinctive part of the materials of the altar-- the boards being chiefly intended as a form or casing to hold it together. Hence, also, that the earthern matter might appear prominent, the brazen altar was to have no covering or top, like the altar of incense.
3. The passage, indeed, is intended simply to provide an answer to two questions: Why they should not eat blood? viz. because the blood was appointed by God for making atonement. And, why should blood have been appointed for this purpose? viz. because the soul or life is there, and hence is most suitably taken for the soul or life of man forfeited b}7 sin. This is also the only sense of the passage that can be grammatically justified; for the preposition *** after the verb to atone (***) invariably denotes that by which the atonement is made; while as invariably the person or object for which is denoted by ***, or by *** --See Gesen. Lex. or Bähr on the passage before us. We are surprised, therefore, that Hengstenberg in his recent treatise, Opfer der heiligen Schrift, should adhere to the old rendering, and give nothing but his own authority for doing so. Abenezra, quoted by Bähr, had briefly indicated the right interpretation: "Sanguis anima, qiue sibi inest, expiat;" also Gussetius: i; Per animam, i. e. vi animaa in eo sanguine constantis." Though Bähr, however, has given the right view of this passage, he has again neutralized the benefit by the misapplication of the passage, which he has laboriously striven to make in support of his own false views of atonement. We shall throw into the form of an appendix, an examination of his grounds, and shall chiefly rneet his erroneous statements by the sounder ones which have been urged by an opponent in his own country--Kurtz, in his Mosaische Opfer. See appendix B.
4. Schoettgen (Hor. Heb. et Tal. ii p. 612) produces from Jewish authorities the following plain declarations: "In the times of the Messiah all sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of praise will not cease:" "When the Israelites were in the holy land, they took away all diseases and pimislimeiits from the world, through the acts of worship and the sacrifices which they performed-; but now Messiah takes these away from the sons of men." One quoted by Bähr from Eisenmenger: (Entdectes Judenthum, ii, p. 720) goes so far as to say, "that he would pour out his soul unto death, and that his blood would make atonement for the people of God."--It is right to state, however, that the value of such testimonies is greatly diminished by the multitude of directly opposite ones, which are also to be found in the Rabbinical writings. In the very next page, Schoettgen has passages affirming that the day of expiation should never cease, and the mass of the Jews in our Lord's time certainly believed in the perpetuity of the law of Moses. The utmost that can be fairly deduced from the quotations noticed above is, that there were minds among them seeking relief from felt wants and deficiencies, in the expectation of that more perfect state of things, which was to be brought in by Christ,
5. Miscel. Sac., Lib. ii. Diss. 2. § 14.
6. The reasons often given for the choice of the victims being confined to the flock and the herd, such as that these were the more valuable, were more accessible, ever at hand, horned (emblematical of power and dignity), and such like, fall away of themselves, when the subject is viewed in its proper connection and bearings. It is, of course, quite easy to find many analogies in such, respects between the victims and Christ; but they are rather beside the purpose, and tend to lead away the mind from the main idea. The view of Bähr is an ingenious and plausible modification of the notion, which represents the materials of ancient sacrifice as property-gifts; he regards oxen, sheep, and goats, as the pastoral, as bread, oil, and wine, were the agricultural products of the land--so that the things sacrificed were representatives of the people's whole property. The view is radically defective, for it omits all reference to sin, punishment, substitution, the prime elements in ancient sacrifice.
7. Omnibus victimis, quas a quopiam private offerebantnr, sive ex praseepto, sive ex arbitrio offerentur, oportebat ipsum imponere manus clum vivebant adhuc, exceptis tan turn primitiis, decirnis, et agno paschali. Maimon. Hilc. Korbanoth 3. See also Outram De Sac. L. i. c. 15; Ainsworth on Lev. i. 4; xvi. 6,11, Magee on Atonement Note, 39.
8. Lev. xvi. 21. The Jewish authorities referred to may be seen in Outram, L. i. c. 15, § 10, 11; Ainsworth on Lev. i. 4; Magee, Note 39. Upon the sin-offering the offerer confessed the iniquity of sin, upon the trespass-offering the iniquity of trespass, upon the burnt-offering the iniquity of doing what he should not have done, and not doing what he ought, &c. Outram gives several forms of confession, of which we select merely the one for a private individual, when confessing with his hands on his sin-offering: "I beseech thee, 0 Lord, I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have rebelled, I have done so and so (mentioning the particular transgression); but now I repent, and let this victim be my expiation." So closely was imposition of hands associated in Jewish minds with confession of sins, that it passed with them for a maxim, "where there is no confession of sins there is no imposition of hands;" and they also held it equally certain, that, the design of this imposition of hands "was to remove the sins from the individual and transfer them to the animal" (Outram, L. i. c. xv. 8; xxii. 5). The circumstance of the hearers of blasphemy being appointed to lay their hands on the head of the blasphemer before he was stoned (Lev. xxiv. 14), is no contradiction to what has been said, but rather a confirmation; for till the guilt was punished, ifc was looked upon as belonging to the congregation at large (comp. Jos. vii., 2 Sam. xxi), and by this rite it was devolved entirely upon himself, that he might bear the punishment.--Bähr finds nothing in the rite but a symbolical declaration, that the victim was the offerer's own property, and that he was ready to devote it to death.
9. De Sac. L. I. c. 16, § 4,
10. This representation, which is so perfectly simple, that it cannot be regarded as having' lain beyond the reach of the commonest worshipper, completely disposes of the objection urged by Sykes, Priestley, and others, that if the guilt of the offerer was laid upon the victim, men must have offered to God what was polluted. The objection was taken upy, but in its main point, rather evaded than satisfactorily answered, by Magee in his 39th Note. Kurtz has come the nearest to a right explanation of this part of the sacrificial idea (Mos. Opfer. p. 80-85), but spoils its simplicity and truthfulness by considering the altar as in a sense representative of the offerer.