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 FIFTH.
P. 299-317.
Though the tabernacle, as a whole, was God's house or dwelling-place among his people, yet the innermost of its two apartments alone was appropriated for his peculiar place of abode---the seat and throne of his kingdom. It was there, in that hallowed recess, where the awful symbol of his presence had its settled abode, and from which, as from his very presence-chamber, the High-priest was to receive the communications of his grace and will, to be through him made known to the people. The things, therefore, which concern it, most immediately and directly respect God; we have here in symbol, the revelation of what God himself is in relation to his people.
I. The apartment itself was a perfect cube of ten cubits, thus bearing on all its dimensions the symbol of completeness--an image of the all-perfect character of the Being who condescended to occupy it as the region of his manifested presence and glory. The ark of the covenant, with the tables of the testimony, and the mercy-seat, with the two cherubims at each end, formed originally and properly its whole furniture. The ark or chest, which was simply made as a depository for holding the two tables of the law, the tables of the covenant, was formed of boards of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold, two and a half cubits long, by one and a half broad, with a crown, or raised and ornamented border of gold around the top. This latter it had in common with the table of shew-bread, and the altar of incense; so that it could not have been meant to denote anything connected with the peculiar design of the ark, and in all the cases, indeed, it seems merely to have been added for the purpose of forming a suitable and becoming ornament.
The mercy-seat, as it is called in our version, was a piece of solid gold, of precisely the same dimensions in length and breadth as the ark, and ordered to be placed above, on the top of it, probably so as to go within the crown of gold, and fit closely in with it. The Hebrew name is caporeth, or covering; but not exactly in the sense of being a mere lid or covering for the ark of the covenant. This might rather be said to suggest than to express the real meaning of the term as used in the present connection. For the caporeth is never mentioned as precisely the lid of the ark, or as simply designed to cover and conceal what lay within. It rather appears as occupying a place of its own; though connected with and attached to the ark, yet by no means a mere appendage to it; and hence, both in the descriptions and the enumerations given of the holy things in the tabernacle, it is mentioned separately, (Ex. xxv. 17, xxvi. 34, xxxv. 12, xxxix. 35, xl. 20). It sometimes even appears to stand more prominently out than the ark itself, and to have been peculiarly that for which the Most Holy Place was set apart--as in Lev. xvi. 2, where this Place is described by its being "within the vail before the mercy- seat," and in 1 Chron. xxviii. 11, where it is simply designated "the house of the caporeth," or mercy-seat.
What then was the precise object and design of this portion of the sacred furniture? It was for a covering, indeed, but for that only in the sense of atonement. The word is never used for a covering in the ordinary sense; wherever it occurs, it is always as the name of this one article--a name which it derived from being peculiarly and pre-eminently the place, where covering or atonement was made for the sins of the people. There was here, therefore, in the very name, an indication of the real meaning of the symbol, as the kind of covering expressed by it, is covering only in the spiritual sense--atonement. Hence the rendering of the LXX. was made with the evident design of bringing out this: *** *** (a propitiatory covering). Yet, while the name properly conveys this meaning, it was not given without some respect also to the external position of the article in question, which was immediately above and upon, not to the ark merely, but the tables of the testimony within: "And thou shalt put the mercy-seat upon the ark of the testimony" (Ex. xxvi. 34); "the mercy-seat that is over the testimony" (xxx. 6); "that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony" (Lev. xvi. 13). The tables of the covenant, as formerly explained (p. 104), contained God's testimony, not simply for holiness in general, but for holiness as opposed to his people's transgressions--his testimony against them on account of sin; and as they could not stand before it when thundered with terrific majesty in their ears from Mount Sinai; neither could they spiritually stand before the accusations it was constantly raising against them in the presence of God, in the Most Holy Place. A covering was, therefore, needed for them between it, on the one hand, and God on the other--but an atonement-covering. A mere external covering would not do; for the searching, all-seeing eye of Jehovah was there, from which nothing outward can conceal, and the law itself also, from which the covering was needed, is spiritual, reaching to the inmost thoughts of the heart, as well as to every action of the life. That the mercy-seat stood over the testimony, and shut it out from the bodily eye, was a kind of shadow of the provision required; but still even under that dispensation, no more than the shadow, and fitted, not properly to be, but only to suggest what was really required---viz. a covering in the sense of an atonement. The covering required must be a propitiatory, a place on which the holy eye of God may ever see the blood of reconciliation; and the Most Holy Place, as designated from it, and deriving thence its most essential characteristic, might fitly be called "the house of the propitiatory," or the a atonement-house" (1 Chron. xxviii. 11).
At the two ends of this mercy-seat, and rising, as it were, out of it--a part of the same piece, and constantly adhering to it-- there were two cherubim, made of beaten gold, with outstretched wings over-arching the mercy-seat, and looking inwards towards each other, and towards the mercy-seat, with an appearance of holy wonder and veneration. The symbolical import of these ideal figures has already been fully investigated, [1] and nothing more is necessary here than a brief indication of their design as connected with the mercy-seat. Placed as they were with their outstretched wings rising aloft and overshadowing the mercy-seat, they gave to this the appearance of a glorious seat or throne, suited for the occupation or residence of God in the symbolic cloud as the King of Israel. That forms of created beings were made to surround this throne of Deity, and impart to it an appearance of becoming grandeur and majesty, this was simply an outward embodiment of the fact, that God ever makes himself known as the God of the living, of whom, not only have countless myriads been formed by his hand, but attendant hosts also continually minister around him and celebrate his glory. And that the particular forms here used were compound figures, representations of ideal beings, and beings whose component parts consisted of the highest kinds of life on earth in its different spheres--man first and chiefly, and with him the ox, the lion, and the eagle--this again, denoted that the forms and manifestations of creature-life, among whom and for whom God there revealed himself, were not of heaven, but of earth--chiefly indeed, and pre-eminently man, who when the work of redemption is complete, and he is fitted to dwell in the most excellent glory of the divine presence, shall be invested with the glories of what is still to him but an ideal perfection, and be made possessor of a yet higher nature, and stand in yet nearer fellowship with God, than he did in the paradise that was lost. But these new hopes of fallen humanity all centre in the work of reconciliation and love, shadowed forth upon the mercy-seat; thither, therefore, must the faces of these ideal heirs of salvation ever look, and with outstretched wing hang around the glorious scene, as in wondering expectation of the things now proceeding in connection with it, and hereafter to be revealed. So that God sitting between the cherubim, is God revealing himself as on a throne of grace, in mingled majesty and love, for the recovery of his fallen family on earth, and their final elevation to the highest region of life, and blessedness, and glory.--This explanation applies substantially to the curtains, which formed the whole interior of the tabernacle, and which were throughout inwrought with figures of cherubim. Not the throne merely, but the entire dwelling of God, was in the midst of these representatives (as we conceive them to have chiefly been) of redeemed and glorified humanity.
The articles now described formed properly the whole furniture of the Most Holy Place, being all that was required to give a suitable representation of the character and purposes of God in relation to his people. But three other things were afterwards added, and placed, as it is said, before the Lord, or before the testimony--the pot of manna, the rod of Aaron, and the entire book of the law. These were all lodged there in the immediate presence of God, as in a safe and appropriate depositary--lodged partly as memorials of the past, and partly as signs and witnesses for the future. The manna testified of God's power and willingness to give food for the life of his people even in the most destitute circumstances--to sustain life in parched lands---and was ready to witness against them in all times coming, if they should distrust his goodness or repair to other sources for life and blessing. The rod of Aaron, which in itself was as dry and lifeless as the rods of the other tribes, but which "brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds," through the quickening and sovereign agency of God, testified of the appointment of Aaron to the priestly office--of him alone, but not, as some wickedly affirmed, to the detriment and death of the congregation, but rather for their life and fruitfulness in all that is pure and good. It was, therefore, well fitted to serve as a witness in every age against those who might turn aside from God's appointed channel of grace, and choose to themselves other modes of access to him, than such as he had himself chosen and ordained. Finally, the book of the law, which contained all the statutes and ordinances, the precepts and judgments, the threatenings and promises, delivered by the hand of Moses, and which it was the part of the priests and Levites to teach continually, and on the seventh or sabbatical year to read throughout in the audience of the people, this being put beside, or in the ark of the covenant, testified God's care to provide his people with a full revelation of his will, and stood there as a perpetual witness before God against his ministering servants, in case they should prove unfaithful to their charge (Dent. xxxi. 26.)-- But these things were rather accessories to the furniture of the Most Holy Place, than essential parts of it. The ark of the covenant, with the tables of testimony within, and the mercy-seat with the cherubim of glory above, upon the testimony, these alone were the sacred things, for the reception of which that interior Sanctuary was properly reserved and set apart. With these only, then, we have here to do.
II. Now, considered in themselves, and without respect to any service connected with them, what a clear and striking representation did they present to the Israelite of the spiritual and holy nature of God! How much was here to be learned of his perfections and character! It is true, as certain writers have been at pains to tell us, there was nothing absolutely original in the plan of a sacred building or structure, having an inner sanctuary, with a chest or shrine of the Deity deposited there, in whose honour the house was erected. But what then? Does this general similarity account for what we have here, or place the one upon a level with the other? Far from it. For what do we perceive, when we look into those shrines that stood in the innermost recesses, more especially of Egyptian temples? Some paltry or hideous idol, formed after the similitude of a beast, sacredly preserved and worshipped as a representative of the Deity, and this only as a substitute for the living creatures themselves, which appear to have been kept in the larger temples. "Living animals (says Jablonsky, Pan. Proll. p. 86), such as were worshipped for images or statues, and treated with all divine honours, were to be found only in temples solemnly consecrated to the gods, and indeed only in certain of these. But effigies of these animals were to be seen in many other temples through the whole of Egypt, and are still discovered among their ruins." And another says: "Some of the sacred boats or arks contained the emblems of life and stability, which, when the veil was drawn aside, were partially seen; and others presented the sacred beetle of the sun, overshadowed by the wings of two figures of the goddess Thmei or Truth." [2] But what, on the other hand do we perceive, when we turn from these instruments of a debasing and abominable superstition, to look into the innermost sanctuary of the tabernacle? No outward similitude of any kind, that might be taken for an emblem or an image of God; nor any representation of him, but what was to be found in that revelation of law, which unfolds what he is in himself, by disclosing what he requires of moral and religious duty from his people---a law which the more reason is enlightened, the more does it consent to as "holy, just and good," and which, therefore, reveals a God infinitely worthy of the adoration and love of his creatures. We here discern an immeasurable gulph between the religion of Moses and that of the nations of heathen antiquity; and also see, how the Israelites were taught, in the most central arrangements of their worship, the necessity of serving God in spirit, and of rendering all their worship subservient to the cultivation of the great principles of holiness and truth.
But considered farther, with reference to the professed object and design of the whole, what correct and elevated views were here presented of the fellowship between God and men? Had God only appeared as represented by the law of perfect holiness, who then could stand before him? Or if without law, as a God of mercy and compassion, stooping to hold converse with sinful men, and receiving them back to his favour, what security should have been taken for guarding the rectitude of his government? But here, with the ark and the mercy-seat together, we behold Him in perfect adaptation to the circumstances of men, appearing at once as the just God and the Saviour----keeping in his innermost sanctuary, nay, placing underneath his throne, as the very foundation oil which it rested, the revelation of his pure and holy law, and, at the same time, providing for the transgressions of his people a covering of mercy, that they might still draw near to him and live. It is already in principle the mystery of redemption-- the manifestation of a God himself just, and yet the justifier of the ungodly--of a God, whose throne is alike the dwelling-place of righteousness and mercy--righteousness upholding the claims of law, mercy stretching out the sceptre of grace to the penitent: Both, even then, continually exercised, but rising at length to unspeakably their grandest display oil the cross of Calvary, where justice is seen pouring out on the Lamb of God the wrath to the uttermost against sin, and mercy providing at an infinite cost a way for sinners into the Holiest of all.
Since the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat contained such a complete revelation of what God was in himself and toward his people, we can easily understand why the symbol of his presence, the overshadowing cloud of glory, should have been immediately in connection with that, and why the life and soul of the whole Jewish theocracy should have been contemplated as residing there. There peculiarly was "the place of the Lord's throne, and the place of the soles of his feet, where he had his dwelling among the children of Israel." (Ex. xliii. 7). Hence, it was called emphatically, "the glory of the Lord," and on their possession or loss of this sacred treasure, the people of God felt that all, which properly constituted their glory, depended--(Ps. Ixxviii. 61; 1 Sam. iv. 21, 22.) It was before this, as containing the symbol of a present God, that they came to worship (Josh. vii. 6; 2 Chron. v. 6); and from a passage in the life of David (2 Sam. xv. 32), where it is said according to the proper rendering: "And it came to pass that when David was come to the top (of the Mount of Olives, where the last look could be obtained of the sacred abode), where it is wont to do homage to God," it would appear, that as soon as they came in sight of the place of the ark, or obtained their last view of it, they were in the habit of prostrating themselves in adoration. Happy, if they had but sufficiently remembered that Jehovah, being in himself, and even there representing himself, as a spiritual and holy God, while he condescended to make the ark his resting-place, and to connect with it the symbol of his glory (Lev. xvi. 2; "for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat)," yet could not so indissolubly bind his presence and his glory to it, as if the one might not be separated from the other! By terrible things in righteousness the Israelites were once and again made to learn this salutary lesson, when rather than appear their patron and guardian in sin, the Lord shewed that he would, in a manner, leave his throne empty, and give up his glory into the enemy's hands. The cloud of glory was still but a symbol, which must disappear when the glorious Being who resided in it could no longer righteously manifest his goodness; and the ark itself, and the tabernacle that contained it, became but a common thing. Nor is it otherwise now, when men hold the truth of God's salvation in unrighteousness. The partial extent to which they exercise belief in the truth utterly fails to secure for them any real tokens of his regard. Even while they handle the symbols of his presence, he is to them an absent God; and when the hour of trial comes, they find themselves forsaken and desolate. [3]
III. But it is only when viewed in connection with the service of the day of atonement--the one day on which the Most Holy Place was entered by the High-priest, that we can fully perceive either the symbolical import or the typical bearing of its sacred furniture. We, therefore, notice this service here, in connection with the place, which it chiefly respected, rather than postpone the consideration of it to the time when it was performed. That not only no Israelite, but that no consecrated priest, that not the High-priest himself, was permitted at all times to enter within the veil, that even he was limited in the exercise of this high privilege to one day in the year, "lest he should die;" this most impressively bespoke the difficulties which stood in the way of a sinner's approach to the righteous God, and how imperfectly these could be removed by the ministrations of the earthly tabernacle, and the blood of slain beasts. It indicated, that the holiness which reigned in the presence of God, required on the part of men a work of righteousness to lay open the way of access, such as could not then be brought in, and that while the church should gladly avail itself of the temporary and imperfect means of reconciliation then placed within her reach, she should be ever looking forward to a brighter period, when every obstruction being removed, her members would be able to go with freedom into the presence of God, and with open face behold the manifestations of his glory.
1. In considering more closely the service in question, we have first to notice the leading character of the day's solemnities. The day was to be "a Sabbath of rest" (Lev. xvi. 31), yet, not like other Sabbaths, a day of repose and satisfaction, but a day on which "they should afflict their souls." This striking peculiarity in the mode of its observance, arose from the nature of the service peculiar to it; it was the clay of atonement, or, literally, of atonements (Lev. xxiii. 27), not a day so much for one act of atonement, as for atonement in general, for the whole work of propitiation. The main part of the Mosaic worship consisted in the presentation of sacrifice, as the guilt of sin was perpetually calling for new acts of purification; but on this one day the idea of atonement "by sacrifice rose to its highest expression, and became concentrated in one grand comprehensive series of actions. In suitable correspondence to this design, the sense of sin was in like manner to be deepened to its utmost intensity in the national mind, and exhibited in appropriate forms of penitential grief. It was a clay of humiliation and godly sorrow working unto repentance. But why all this peculiarly on the day of entrance into the Most Holy Place? Was it not a good and joyful occasion for men personally, or through their representative, to be admitted into such near fellowship with God? Doubtless it was; but that dwelling-place of God is a region of absolute holiness; the fiery law is there, which reveals the purity of heaven, and is ready to flame forth in indignation and wrath against all unrighteousness of men. And so the day of nearest approach to God, as it is on his part the day of atonement, must be on the part of his people a day for the remembrance of sin, and for the exercise of suitable feelings of sorrow and abasement concerning it. For to the penitent alone is there forgiveness; not simply to men as sinners, but to men convinced of sin, and humbled on account of it; to men viewing sin as God views it, and glorifying his justice in its deserved condemnation and doom. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them;" but without confession there can be no forgiveness, no atonement, as we have not yet entered into God's mind and judgment respecting sin. [4]
2. But if the remembrance of iniquity which was made on this day, gave to it a character of depression and gloom, the purpose and design of its services could not fail to render it in the result a season of blessed rest and consolation. For atonement was then made for all sin and transgression. It was virtually implied, that the acts of expiation which were ever taking place throughout the year, but imperfectly satisfied for the iniquities of the people, since the people were still kept outwardly at some distance from the immediate dwelling-place of God, and could not even through their consecrated head be allowed to go within the veil. So that when a service was instituted with the view of giving a representation of complete admission to God's presence and fellowship, the mass of sin must again be brought into consideration, that it might be blotted out by a more perfect atonement. And not only so, but as God's dwelling and the instruments of his worship were ever contracting defilement, from "remaining among men in the midst of their uncleanness," so these also required to be annually purified on this day by the more perfect atonement, which was then made in the presence of God. Not that these things were in themselves capable of contracting guilt, but were so viewed in respect to the sins of the people, which were ever proceeding around them, and in a sense, in the very midst of them. For the structure and arrangements of the tabernacle proceeded on the idea, that the people there dwelt (symbolically) with God, as God with them; and consequently the sins of the people in all their families and habitations were viewed as coming in to the sanctuary, and defiling by their pollutions the holy things that were there. No separate offering, therefore, was presented for these holy things, but they were sprinkled with the blood that was shed for the sins of the land, as these properly were what defiled the sanctuary. And that no remnant of guilt, or of its effects, might appear to be left behind, the atonement was to be made and accepted for sin in all its bearings--for the High-priest and his house, and for the people in all their families, for the tabernacle and its sacred utensils.
3. In this service, then, which contained the quintessence of all sacrifice, and gave the most exact representation the ancient worship could afford of the all-perfect atonement of Christ, there was every thing in the manner of accomplishing it to mark its singular importance and solemnity. The High-priest alone had here to transact with God; and as the representative of the entire spiritual community, to go with their sins as well as his own, into the immediate presence of God. After the usual morning oblations, at which, if he had personally officiated, he had to strip himself of the rich and beautiful garments with which he was wont to be attired, as unsuitable for the services of a day which so peculiarly stained the glory of all flesh; and after having washed himself, he put on the plain garments, which, from the stuff (linen), and from the colour (white), were denominated "garments of holiness" (v. 4,) and were peculiarly appropriated for the work of this day. Then, when thus prepared, he had first of all to take a bullock for a sin-offering for himself and his house, that is, the whole sacerdotal family, and go with the blood of this offering within the veil. Yet not with this alone, but also it is said with a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord (viz. the altar of incense, though the coals for it must have been got from the altar of burnt-offering), and to this he was to apply handfuls of incense, that there might arise a cloud of fragrant odours as he entered the Most Holy Place--the emblem of acceptable prayer. The meaning was, that with all the pains he had taken to purify himself, and with the blood, too, of atonement in his hand, he must still go as a suppliant into that region of holiness, as one who had no right to demand admittance, but humbly imploring it from the hand of a gracious God. Having thus entered within, he had to sprinkle with the blood upon the mercy-seat, and again before the mercy-seat seven times--seven times the number of the oath or the covenant--and a double act of atonement, the one apparently having respect to the persons interested, and the other to the apartments and furniture of the sanctuary, as defiled by their defilements.
When this more personal act of expiation was completed, that for the sins of the people commenced. Two goats were presented at the door of the tabernacle, which, though two, are still expressly named one victim (v. 5. "two kids of the goats for a sin-offering"), so that the sacrifice consisted of two merely from the natural impossibility of otherwise giving a full representation of what was to be done; the one being designed more especially to exhibit the means, the other the effect of the atonement. And this circumstance, that the two goats were properly but one sacrifice, and also that they were together presented by the high-priest before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle (v. 7), indisputably stamped the sacrifice as the Lord's, Nor was the same obscurely intimated in the action which there took place respecting them, viz. the casting of lots upon them; for this was wont to be done only with what peculiarly belonged to God, and for the purpose of ascertaining what might be his mind in the matter. The point to be determined respecting the two, was not, which God might claim for himself, and which might belong to another, but simply to what particular destination he appointed the two parts of a sacrifice, which was wholly and exclusively his own. And, indeed, the destination itself of each as thus determined could not be materially different; it could not have been an entirely diverse or heterogeneous destination, since it appeared in itself an immaterial thing, which should take the one place and which the other, and was only to be determined by the casting of the lot. [5]
Of these lots, it is said, that the one was to be for the Lord, and the other for the scape-goat, as in our version, but literally for Azazel. The one on which the Lord's lot fell was forthwith to be slain as a sin-offering for the sins and transgressions of the people; and with its blood, as with that of the bullock previously, the high-priest again entered the Most Holy Place, and sprinkled, as before, the mercy-seat first, and then before it seven times; making atonement for the guilt of the congregation, both as regarded their persons and the furniture of the tabernacle. After which, having come out from the Most Holy into the Holy Place, he sprinkled the altar of incense seven times with the blood both of the bullock and of the goat, "to cleanse and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." (v. 19, comp. with Ex. xxx. 10.)
It was now, after the completion of the atonement by blood, that the high-priest confessed over the live goat still standing at the door of the tabernacle, "all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions," and thereafter sent him away, laden with his awful burden, by a fit person into the wilderness, into a land of separation, where no man dwelt. It is expressly said, v. 22, that this was done with the goat that he might bear all their iniquities thither; but these iniquities, as already atoned by the blood of the other goat--the other half, so to speak, of the sacrifice--for as on the one hand without shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin by the law of Moses, so on the other hand, where blood was duly shed, in the way and manner the law required, remission followed as a matter of course. The action with this second goat, therefore, is by no means to be dissevered from the action with the first; but rather to be regarded as the continuation of the latter, and its proper complement. Hence the second or live goat is represented as standing at the door of the tabernacle, v. 10, while atonement was being made with the blood of the first, as being himself interested in the work that was proceeding, and in a sense the object of it. He was presented there --not to have atonement made with him, as is unhappily expressed in our version--but to be covered upon, atoned for or absolved. And it is only after this process of atonement and absolution is accomplished that the high-priest returns to him, and lays on him the now atoned for iniquities, that he might carry them away into a desert place. So that the part he has to do in the transaction, is simply to bear them off and bury them out of sight, as things concerning which the justice of God had been satisfied, which were no more to be taken into account, fit tenants of a land of separation and forgetfulness. [6]
Thus from the circumstances of the transaction, when correctly put together and carefully considered, we can have no difficulty in ascertaining the main object and intent of the action with the live goat--without determining anything as to the exact import of the term Azazel. [7] We shall give in the Appendix a brief summary of the views which have been entertained regarding it, and state the one which we are inclined to adopt. But for the right interpretation of this part of the service, nothing material, we conceive, depends on it. What took place with the live goat was merely intended to unfold, and render palpably evident to the bodily eye, the effect of the great work of atonement. The atonement itself was made in secret, while the high-priest alone was in the sanctuary, and yet, as all in a manner depended on its success, it was of the utmost importance that there should be a visible transaction, like that of the dismissal of the scape-goat, embodying in a sensible form the results of the service. Nor is it of any moment what became of the goat after being conducted into the wilderness. It was enough that he was led into the region of drought and desolation, where, as a matter of course, he should never more be seen or heard of. With such a destination, he was obviously as much a doomed victim as the one whose life-blood had already been shed and brought within the veil; he went where "all death lives and all life dies "and so exhibited a most striking image of the everlasting oblivion into which the sins of God's people are thrown, when once they are covered with the blood of an acceptable atonement.
The remaining parts of the service were as follows: The high-priest put off the plain linen garments in which, as alone appropriate for such a service, the whole of it had been performed, and laid them up in the sanctuary till the next day of atonement should come round. Then having washed himself with water--which he had to do at the beginning and end of every religious service--and having put on his usual garments, he came forth and offered a burnt-offering for himself, and another for the people--by the blood of which, atonement was again made for sin (implying that sin mingled itself even in these holiest services), as by the action with the other parts there was expressed anew the dedication of their persons and services to the Lord. The fat of the sin-offering also--as in cases of sin-offering generally--the high-priest burnt upon the altar; while the bodies of the victims were--as in the case of sin-offerings generally for the congregation, or the high-priest as its head, Lev, iv. 1-21--carried without the camp into a clean place and burned there. This could not be in consequence of any defilement properly inhering in them--for then it should not have been provided that the burning was to be done in a clean place, and, besides, after the atonement had been made and accepted with the blood, the blood itself became most holy, and as a necessary consequence, the flesh also must have been holy. Hence in ordinary cases of sin-offerings it was to be eaten only by holy persons, by the priests; and that the flesh in this case, and others of a like nature, was to be wholly burnt, and not eaten, arose from the priesthood themselves, and as representatives of the congregation being concerned in the sacrifice; so that it was fit the whole should be consumed by fire. Finally, the person employed in burning them, as also the person who had conducted the scapegoat into the wilderness, were on their return to the congregation to wash themselves--as being relatively impure; not in the strict and proper sense, for if they had really contracted guilt, an atonement would have had to be offered for them; and the relative impurity could only have arisen, from their having been engaged in handling what, though in itself not unclean, but rather the reverse, yet in its meaning and design carried a respect to the sins of the people. [8]
IV. It is the less necessary that we should enlarge on the correspondence between this most important service of the Old Testament dispensation, and the work of Christ under the New, since it is the part of the Mosaic ritual, which of all others has received the most explicit application from the pen of inspiration. It is to this that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews most especially and frequently refers when pointing to Christ for the great realities, which were darkly revealed under the ancient shadows. He tells us, that through the flesh of Christ, given unto death for the sins of the world, a new and living way has been provided into the Holiest, as through a veil, no longer concealing and excluding from the presence of God, but opening to receive every penitent transgressor--of which, indeed, the literal rending of the veil at Christ's death (Matth. xxvii. 51) was a matter-of-fact announcement;--that through the blood of Jesus we can enter not only with safety, but even with boldness into the region of God's manifested presence--that this arises from Christ himself having gone with his own blood into the heavens, that is, presenting himself there as the perfected Redeemer of his people, who had borne for them the curse of sin, and for ever satisfied the justice of God concerning it;--and that the sacrifice, by which all this has been accomplished, being that of one infinitely precious, is attended with none of the imperfections belonging to the Old Testament service, but is adequate to meet the necessities of a guilty conscience, and to present the sinner, soul and body, with acceptance before God (Heb. ix. x.) This is the substance of the information given us respecting the things of Christ's kingdom, in so far as these were foreshadowed by the services of the day of atonement; in which, it will be observed, our attention is chiefly drawn to a correspondence in the two cases of essential relations and ideas. We find no countenance given to the merely outward and superficial resemblances, which have so often been arbitrarily, and sometimes even with palpable incorrectness, drawn by Christian writers; such as that in the high-priest's putting on and again laying aside the white linen garments, was typified Christ's assuming, and then, when his work on earth was finished, renouncing the likeness of sinful flesh; in the two goats, his twofold nature; in their being taken from the congregation, his being purchased with the public money; in the slain goat a dying, in the live goat a risen Saviour; or, in the former Christ, in the latter Barrabbas, or, as the older Cocceians more commonly have it, the Jewish people sent into the desert of the wide world, with God's curse on them. This last notion has been revived by Professor Bush in the Biblical Repository for July 1842, and in his notes on Leviticus, who gravely states, that the live goat made an atonement simply by being let go into the desert, and that the Jewish people made propitiation for their sins by being judicially subjected to the wrath of Heaven! In which case, of course, the region of the lost should be pre-eminently the place for propitiations; for there certainly in the fullest sense the wrath falls on men to the uttermost!
We inevitably run into such erroneous and puerile conceits, or move at least amid shifting uncertainties, so long as we isolate the different parts of the outward transaction, and seek a distinct and separate meaning in each of them singly, apart from the grand idea and relations with which they are connected. But rising above this defective and arbitrary mode of interpretation, fixing our view on the real and essential elements in the respective cases, we then find all that is required to satisfy the just conditions of type and antitype, as well as much to confirm and establish the hearts of believers in the faith. For what do we not behold? On the one side, the high-priest, the head and representative of a visible community, all stricken with the sense of sin, going under the felt load of innumerable transgressions into the awful presence of Jehovah, as connected with the outward symbols of an earthly sanctuary; permitted to stand there in peace and safety, because entering with the incense of devout supplication and the blood of an acceptable sacrifice; and in token that all sin was forgiven, and all defilement purged away, sending the mighty mass of atoned guilt into the waste howling wilderness, to remain for ever buried and forgotten. On the other side, corresponding to this, we behold Christ, the head and representative of a spiritual and invisible church, charging himself with all their iniquities, and, having poured out his soul unto death for them, thereafter ascending into the presence of the Father, as with his own life-blood shed in their behalf; so that they also, sprinkled with this blood, or spiritually interested in this work of atonement and intercession, can now personally draw near with boldness to the throne of grace, having their sins blotted out from the book of God's remembrance, and shall in due time be admitted to dwell amid the bright effulgence of his most excellent glory. Does faith stagger, while it contemplates so free an absolution, ventures on so near an approach, or cherishes so elevating a prospect? Or, having once apprehended, is it apt to lose the clearness of its view and the firmness of its grasp, from having to do with things which lie so much within the territory of the unseen and eternal? Let it throw itself back upon the plain and palpable transactions of the type, which on this account also are written for our learning and comfortable assurance. And if truly conscious of the burden of sin, and turning from it with unfeigned sorrow to that Lamb of God, who has been set forth as a propitiation to take away its guilt, then, with what satisfaction Israel of old beheld the high-priest, when the work of reconciliation was accomplished, send their iniquities away into a land of forgetfulness, and with what joy they then rejoiced, let us assure ourselves that the same also, and on higher grounds, may be ours, and that in those outward transactions of the shadow, we have presented to our view in vivid outline the great and blessed realities of the substance.
1. Vol. I. B. ii. s. 3.
2. Wilkinson, v. p. 265, last ed. We should doubt if in any case emblems of life and stability formed the only, or even the chief figures, since beast-worship was the leading characteristic of Egyptian idolatry. But even in external form, none of the arks referred to, present any proper resemblance of that of God. They always possess the ship or boat form, with something like an altar in the midst; they have nothing corresponding to the mercy-seat; and the chief purpose for which they appear to have been used, was to preserve an image of the creature that was worshipped as emblematical of the god.
3. The tendency above referred to, of regarding God's presence and glory as inseparably and necessarily, instead of only symbolically and morally, connected with the ark and mercy-seat, was a fruit of the carnality of the people, and gave different manifestations of itself according to the circumstances and delusions of particular times. It was partly to shew them the folly of such a mode of thinking, to shew them that there was nothing peculiar to the ark but what might be found anywhere, that the prophet Jeremiah, ch. iii. 16, made promise of a time, when it should no longer be said, "The ark of the covenant of the Lord, neither would it be remembered, &c. for Jerusalem would be the throne of the Lord;" i. e. all Jerusalem, the whole city of God, would be as sacred and holy as the ark once was.--Compare Zech. xiv. 20, 21.
4. The day itself was the tenth of the seventh month, usually happening toward the middle or end of October, about the close of the busier occupations of the year, and before the commencement of winter. It was not expressly ordered to be kept as a fast (fasting as an ordinance nowhere occurs in the Pentateuch), but it would naturally be so observed for the most part, and indeed latterly, was familiarly named, The Fast. -- Acts xxvii. 9.
5. See Bahr, Symbolik, ii. p. 678.
6. That the sense here given to the expression in v. 10 respecting the live goat, ***, to cover upon him, or to make atonement for him, is the correct and only well-grounded one, may now be regarded as conclusively established. Bochart, Witsius, and many other eminent divines, did certainly render it as in our version, to make atonement with him. But Cocceius already stated that he could find no case in which the expression was used, "excepting for the persons in whose behalf the expiation was made, or of the sacred utensils," when spoken of as expurgated. Bahr expressly affirms, that the means of atonement is never marked by ***, but always by ***, and that the former regularly marks the object of the atonement (Symbolik ii. p, 683.) Hengstenberg also concurs in this view, Egypt and Books of Moses, p, 165, who further remarks, that by the live goat being said to be atoned for, "he was thereby identified with the first, and the nature of the dead was transferred to the living; so that the two goats stand here in a relation entirely similar to that of the two birds in the purification of the leper, of which the one let go was first clipped in the blood of the one slain."--When all this is duly considered, it will at once be seen how futile are the objections which many, and latterly Bahr, have raised from the case of the live goat against the necessity of death for atonement.
7. See Appendix C.
8. The full explanation and establishment of what is necessarily stated with much brevity here, both regarding the burnt offerings, and the burning of the sin-offerings, and the washings of men employed, must be reserved till we come to the different kinds of sacrifice.