SCRIPTURAL TYPES.
1. The _material world_ is full of _analogies_ adapted to the
illustration of spiritual things. No teacher ever drew from this
inexhaustible storehouse such a rich variety of examples as our Saviour.
His disciples are the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and a
city set on a hill. From the ravens which God feeds and the lilies which
God clothes, he teaches the unreasonableness of worldly anxiety. The
kingdom of heaven is like seed sown in different soils, like a field of
wheat and tares growing together, and like seed that springs up and
grows the sower knows not how. Again it is like a net cast into the sea,
like a grain of mustard seed, and like leaven hid in three measures of
meal. When the Saviour opens his lips the whole world of nature stands
ready to furnish him with arguments and illustrations; as well it may,
since the God of nature is also the God of revelation. _The world of
secular activity_ abounds in like analogies, on which another class of
our Lord's parables is based; like that of the vineyard let out to
husbandmen, the servants intrusted with different talents, the ten
virgins, the importunate friend, the unjust judge, the unfaithful
steward, the prodigal son, and others that need not be enumerated.
Analogies like these, however, do not properly constitute _types_. Types
rest on a foundation of analogy, but do not consist in analogy alone.
2. In the history of God's people, moreover, as well as of the world
which he governs with reference to them, the _present_ is continually
foreshadowing _something higher in the future_. This must be so, because
the train of events in their history constitutes, in the plan of God,
neither a loose and disconnected series nor a confused jumble of
incidents, like a heap of stones thrown together without order or
design, but a well-ordered whole. It is a building, in which the parts
now in progress indicate what is to follow. It is the development of a
plant, in which "the blade" foreshadows "the ear," and the ear, "the
full corn in the ear." The primal murder, when "Cain rose up against
Abel his brother, and slew him," "because his own works were evil and
his brother's righteous," was the inauguration of the great conflict
between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent--the
forerunner of the higher struggle in Egypt between Pharaoh on the side
of the devil, and the covenant people on the side of the seed of the
woman. This struggle in Egypt, again, foreshadowed the still higher
contest between truth and error in the land of Canaan--a contest which
endured through so many centuries, and enlisted on both sides so many
kings and mighty men; and which, in its turn, ushered in the grand
conflict between the kingdom of Christ and that of Satan, a conflict
that began on the day of Pentecost, and is yet in progress. This
continual foreshadowing of the future by the present is essentially of a
typical nature, yet it does not constitute, in and of itself, what we
understand by a type in the ordinary usage of the term.
3. _A type_ is _a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate something higher
in the future_, which is called the _antitype_. This definition includes
three particulars: (1.) The type must be a _true adumbration_ of the
thing typified, though, from the very nature of the case, the
adumbration must be inadequate--a _shadow only_ of the antitype, and not
its substance. Thus the paschal lamb was a type of Christ, though there
is infinitely more in the antitype than in the type. (2.) The symbol
must be _of divine appointment_, and as such, designed by God to
represent the antitype. We must carefully remember, however, that, from
the very nature of the case, the divine intention cannot be clearly
announced when the type is instituted. The paschal lamb typified "the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;" but it was not
till centuries after the institution of the passover that God began to
intimate by the prophets the approaching sacrifice of the great Antitype
(Isa. chap. 53; Zech. 13:7), and the full import of the type was
revealed only when the sacrifice of "Christ our passover" had been
accomplished on Calvary. (3.) Since the type is "a shadow of good things
to come," it follows that the antitype must _belong to the future_. A
pure symbol may belong to the present or the near future. It may
represent something that now exists, or is coming into existence, in
respect to which concealment is not necessary. Hence we find the sacred
writers freely explaining the meaning of the symbols which they employ
(Numb. chap. 17; Josh. 4:1-7; 1 Sam. 7:12; 10:1, and the same symbol of
anointing often elsewhere; 1 Kings 11:29-39; 22:11, where a false
prophet uses a symbol; Isa. chap. 20; Jer. 1:11-14; 13:1-11, and
elsewhere; Ezek. chap. 3, and in many other passages; Amos 7:1-9; 8:1-3;
Zech. 1:8-11, and elsewhere). The true type, on the contrary, reckoned
from the time of its institution, looks forward to the distant future.
The high reality which it foreshadows may be intimated by the prophets
"as in a glass darkly," but the appearance of the antitype can alone
furnish a full explanation of its meaning.
The types of the Old Testament have been variously classified. We
propose to consider them under the two divisions of _historical_ and
_ritual_ types.
I. HISTORICAL TYPES.
4. The extravagance of a class of Biblical expositors in converting the
Old Testament history into allegory typical of persons and events under
the gospel dispensation has produced a strong reaction, leading some to
deny altogether the existence of historical types. But this is going to
the other extreme of error. No man who acknowledges the writers of the
New Testament to be true expositors of the meaning of the Old can
consistently deny the existence in the Old Testament of such types, for
they interpret portions of its history in a typical way. But it is of
the highest importance that we understand, in respect to such history,
that it has _a true and proper significance_ of its own, without respect
to its typical import. It is not allegory, which has, literally taken,
no substance. It is not mere type, like the rites of the Mosaic law, the
meaning of which is exhausted in their office of foreshadowing the
antitype. It is veritable history, valid for the men of its own day,
fulfilling its office in the plan of God's providence, and containing,
when we look at it simply as history, its own lessons of instruction. We
call it typical history because, following the guidance of the New
Testament writers, we are constrained to regard it as so ordered and
shaped by God's providence as to prefigure something higher in the
Christian dispensation.
No careful student of the New Testament can for a moment doubt that
David's kingdom typified the kingdom of Christ. There is, indeed, a very
important sense in which David's kingdom was identical with that of
Christ; for its main element was the visible church of God, founded on
the covenant made with Abraham, and therefore in all ages one and
indivisible. Rom. 11:17-24; Gal. 3:14-18; Ephes. 2:20. But we now speak
of David's kingdom in its outward form, which was temporary and typical
of something higher. In this sense it is manifest that God appointed it
to foreshadow that of the Messiah. David's headship adumbrated the
higher headship of the Redeemer; his conflicts with the enemies of God's
people and his final triumph over them, Christ's conflicts and
victories. The same thing was true of Solomon, and in a measure of all
the kings of David's line, so far as they were true to their office as
the divinely appointed leaders of the covenant people. Unless we adopt
this principle, the view which the New Testament takes of a large number
of Psalms--the so-called _Messianic_ psalms--becomes utterly visionary.
But neither David's kingdom nor his headship over it was mere type. The
nation over which he presided was a historic reality, a true power among
the other nations of the earth. His leadership also, with its conflicts
and triumphs, belongs to true history. It brought to the people of his
own day true deliverance from the power of their enemies; and it
contains, when we study it without reference to its typical character,
true lessons of instruction for all ages.
The declarations of Scripture in respect to the typical nature of the
_prophetical_ office are not so numerous and decisive as those which
relate to the kingly office. There is, however, a remarkable passage in
the book of Deuteronomy, from which we may legitimately infer that it
was truly typical of Christ. When God had addressed the people directly
from the midst of the cloud and fire on Sinai, unable to endure this
mode of communication between God and man, they besought God that he
would henceforth address them through the ministry of Moses: "Speak thou
with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die."
Exod. 20:19. With reference to this request, God said to Moses: "They
have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a
prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words
in his mouth: and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words
which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." Deut.
18:17-19. The essential points of this promise are, that the promised
prophet shall be like Moses, one whose words shall be invested with
supreme authority; and, especially, that he shall be raised up from
among their brethren, and shall therefore be a man like themselves. The
promise was manifestly intended to meet the wants of the covenant people
_from that day and onward_. Yet the great Prophet in whom it was
fulfilled did not appear till after the lapse of fifteen centuries or
more. But in the mean time the promise was truly fulfilled to God's
people in a _typical_ way through the succession of prophets, who spake
in God's name, and who were men like their brethren to whom they were
sent. In these two essential particulars the prophetical office truly
prefigured Christ, its great Antitype.
The Old Testament contains not only typical _orders of men_, but
_typical transactions_ also; that is, transactions which, while they had
their own proper significance as a part of the history of God's church,
were yet so ordered by God as to shadow forth with remarkable clearness
and force the higher truths of Christ's kingdom. Such are the
transactions between Melchizedek and Abraham recorded in the fourteenth
chapter of Genesis. Considered simply in itself, Melchizedek's
priesthood belongs to the class of _ritual_ types. But in the record of
his intercourse with Abraham there is an accumulation of historic
circumstances arranged by God's providence to shadow forth the higher
priesthood of Christ. (1.) He united in his person the _kingly and
priestly offices_, as does the Messiah. In the hundred and tenth Psalm
it is, in like manner, a king invested by God with universal
sovereignty, to whom the declaration is made: "The Lord hath sworn, and
will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of
Melchizedek." (2.) In _official dignity_ he was higher than Abraham, and
thus higher than any of Abraham's descendants by natural generation; for
Abraham paid tithes to him, and received from him the priestly blessing
(Gen. 14:19, 20); "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of
the better." Heb. 7:7. (3.) His priesthood _was without limitation_, and
had thus the attribute of _universality_. It was not restricted in its
exercise by nationality, for Abraham was not one of his people. (4.) He
did not belong to a line of priests, who transmitted their office from
father to son. He was, so far as we know from the record, _without
predecessors, and had no successor_ in his priesthood. The author of the
epistle to the Hebrews describes him as one who is "without father,
without mother, without pedigree" (marginal rendering), "having neither
beginning of days nor end of life: but made like unto the Son of God;
abideth a priest continually." Heb. 7:3. In the interpretation of this
difficult passage, we must begin with the axiomatic principle that
Melchizedek was a _human being_. He could not have been, as some have
thought, the Son of God himself; for how could the Son of God be "made
like unto the Son of God?" Nor could he have been an angel; for angels
are not partakers of human nature, and cannot therefore typify him who
came in human nature to deliver those who are "partakers of flesh and
blood." Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15; 5:1, 2. And if he was a proper man, then he
was "without father, without mother, without pedigree," not in an
absolute sense, but with reference to his priesthood. He was a priest
whose genealogy is not mentioned, because his priesthood was not
restricted, like that of the Levitical priests, to any particular line
of descent. He held his priesthood from God, without predecessors or
successors. The words that follow--"having neither beginning of days nor
end of life: but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest
continually"--are more difficult. It is certain, however, that they
cannot be understood absolutely. They are commonly interpreted upon the
same principle as the preceding words; namely, that in omitting from the
inspired record every limitation of Melchizedek's life as well as
descent, it was God's purpose to shadow forth the unlimited nature of
Christ's priesthood; that, in truth, the apostle describes Melchizedek,
the type, in terms which hold good in their full meaning only of Christ
the great Antitype. They who, admitting that Melchizedek was a human
being, find the interpretation unsatisfactory, must leave the apostle's
words shrouded in mystery.
But whatever obscurity there is in the scriptural notices of
Melchizedek, they abundantly affirm the typical nature of his priesthood
as distinguished from that of the Levitical priests. He was a type of
Christ not simply as a priest, but also in the peculiar character of his
priesthood. He united with his priesthood the kingly office; was
superior in dignity to Abraham himself, and thus to the Levitical
priests; and his priesthood had the attribute of universality. Here,
then, we have an undoubted example of a historic type.
It is not without reason that the deliverance of the covenant people
from Egypt, their journey through the wilderness of Arabia under God's
guidance, and their final settlement in the land of promise, have been
regarded as typical of the higher redemption, guidance, and salvation
received through Christ. From the earliest ages of the Christian church
this wonderful history has been an inexhaustible storehouse of analogies
for the illustration of Christian experience. In his pilgrimage through
this vale of tears, the believer instinctively turns to it for
instruction and encouragement. The mighty interposition of God when the
Israelites were "yet without strength" in their bondage; their
protection through the blood of the paschal lamb sprinkled on the doors
of their houses when the destroyer passed through Egypt; the opening of
a way through the Red sea when all human means of escape failed them;
the journey through the wilderness; the pillar of cloud by day and of
fire by night to guide, the water from the rock to refresh, the manna
from heaven morning by morning to feed them; God's faithful discipline
in contrast with human unbelief, waywardness, and folly; the final
preparation for the conquest of Canaan and its successful
accomplishment--this whole series of events is wonderfully adapted to
illustrate the course of Christian experience, and who shall say that
God did not order it with a view to this end? We do not resolve it into
mere type. We acknowledge it to be true history, valid to the men of
that age--a true earthly deliverance, guidance, and sustenance in the
wilderness, conducting to the possession of a true earthly inheritance.
But we say that it is a history so ordered by God as to typify the
higher pilgrimage of the believer to the heavenly Canaan. It is
undeniable that the writer to the Hebrews regards the rest of the
covenant people in the land of promise as a type of the rest of heaven.
Heb. 3:7-4:11. And if that part of the history was typical, it is
reasonable to infer that the whole was typical. It belongs to the nature
of a type that it should, on the one hand, come short of the fulness of
meaning that belongs to the antitype, and, on the other, should contain
some things which find no correspondence in that which it adumbrates.
The priesthood of the sons of Aaron, as we shall see, typified Christ's
priesthood, but only inadequately, as a shadow represents the substance;
while sinfulness, which belonged to all the priests of Aaron's line, not
only did not correspond to the character of the Antitype, but was in
contradiction with it. So is it also with the historical types that have
been under consideration. They represent the antitype inadequately, and
only in certain respects.
* * * * *
II. RITUAL TYPES.
5. The _sacrifices_ were the central part of the Jewish ritual. But
sacrifices imply _offerers_, a _personal God_ to whom the offering is
made, and a _priesthood_ through which it is presented. In the primitive
ages of the world, men offered sacrifices in their own behalf and that
of their household in whatever place it was their chance to sojourn.
Gen. 4:4; 8:20; 12:7, 8; 31:54; 33:20; 35:1, 7; 46:1; Job 1:5; 42:8. But
upon the establishment of the Mosaic economy, the priestly office was
restricted to the family of Aaron. Thenceforward all who wished to offer
sacrifices must bring them through the mediation of the priests of
Aaron's line. It belonged to the nature of the Mosaic economy, that God
should have a visible dwelling-place among the Israelites. The
directions for the construction of the tabernacle with its furniture are
introduced by the words: "Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell
among them." Exod. 25:8. The material sanctuary, then, was God's visible
dwelling-place, where he manifested himself to his people, and received
their worship according to the rites of his own appointment; the whole
being, as we shall see, typical of higher realities pertaining to our
redemption through Christ. And as this earthly sanctuary was God's
chosen dwelling-place, it followed, as a necessary consequence, that
after its erection all the sacrifices must be brought to its altar, and
presented there to God through the priesthood of his appointment.
6. The _Mosaic tabernacle_ was a movable structure very simple in its
plan. Its frame-work on three sides consisted of upright boards, or
rather timbers (for, according to the unanimous representation of the
Jewish rabbins, they were a cubit in thickness), standing side by side,
and kept in position by transverse bars passing through golden rings.
Thus was formed an enclosure ten cubits in height, thirty cubits in
length from east to west, and ten cubits in width; the eastern end,
which constituted the front, having only a vail suspended from five
pillars of shittim-wood. Over this enclosure, and hanging down on either
side, was spread a rich covering formed by coupling together ten
curtains of "fine-twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with
cherubim of cunning work." Over this was another covering, formed from
the union of eleven curtains of goats' hair; and above two other
coverings, the one of rams' skins dyed red, and the other, or outermost,
of badgers' skins. Surrounding the tabernacle was a court one hundred
cubits long and fifty wide, enclosed by curtains of fine-twined linen
supported on pillars five cubits high. The tabernacle itself was divided
by a vail supported on four pillars into two parts; the _inner_
sanctuary, or "holy of holies," ten cubits every way, and the _outer_,
or "holy place," twenty cubits long by ten in breadth and height.
In a wider sense the whole movable structure within the court is
called the tabernacle. But in a stricter sense the rich inner
curtain is distinguished in the Mosaic description as the
_tabernacle_, while the curtain of goats' hair is called the
_tent_. Exod. 26:1, 7; 36:8, 14, 19. The true meaning of the
word rendered in our version _badgers_ is uncertain. Some think
that the seal is referred to.
7. We have seen that the tabernacle was God's visible dwelling-place.
But the palace of a king has its _audience-rooms_, where he receives his
subjects and attends to their petitions. In like manner the Mosaic
tabernacle, and afterwards the temple, had its "holy of holies" and its
"holy place," the former being in a special sense the abode of Israel's
God. The tabernacle, with its furniture, priesthood, and services, is
declared in the New Testament to have been "a shadow of good things to
come." Heb. 10:1, and elsewhere. Unless we understand this its typical
character, we fail to gain any true apprehension of its meaning.
8. In contemplating the truths which the Mosaic tabernacle shadowed
forth, we begin with the _materials_ used in its construction. Here we
notice two things; their _preciousness_, and the _gradation_ observed in
this respect.
(1.) Their _preciousness_. All the materials were of the most durable
and costly character--gold, silver, fine-twined linen of blue and purple
and scarlet, acacia-wood (the shittim-wood of our version), brass being
allowed only in the external appointments. This obviously represented
the glory and excellence of God's service, and the corresponding
obligation on the part of the worshippers to give to God the best of all
that they had.
(2.) The _gradation_ in the preciousness of the materials had reference
to the inner sanctuary, where, as will presently be shown, God dwelt
between the cherubim that overshadowed the mercy-seat. The rule of
gradation was this: the nearer to God's dwelling-place the greater the
glory; and hence, as shadowing forth this glory, the more precious the
materials. The mercy-seat, where God dwelt between the cherubim, was
accordingly of pure gold. All the woodwork pertaining to the tabernacle
and its furniture was overlaid with gold. The inner or proper covering
of the tabernacle, as also the vail that hung before the ark, separating
the holy from the most holy place, was of "fine-twined linen, and blue,
and purple, and scarlet, with cherubim of cunning work." The outer vail,
at the entrance of the outer sanctuary, was of the same materials, but
without the cherubim; while the curtains of the court were made simply
of fine-twined linen, suspended from pillars of shittim-wood not
overlaid with gold. The sockets, again, that supported the timbers of
the tabernacle and the inner row of pillars before the ark were of
silver; but those beneath the outer pillars of the sanctuary, and all
the pillars of the court, were of brass.
9. Passing to the _appointments_ of the tabernacle, we naturally begin
with the _inner_ sanctuary. Here between the wings of the cherubim that
overshadowed the mercy-seat, or lid of the ark, was the _Shekinah_, or
visible dwelling-place of Jehovah. In the ark beneath the mercy-seat
were placed, by God's direction, the two tables of the law. Exod. 25:16
compared with 1 Kings 8:9. This was their appropriate place. It shadowed
forth the great truth that God is the fountain of law, and that they who
approach him must come in the spirit of true obedience.
That God's dwelling-place was between the cherubim we learn from
the original direction for the construction of the ark: "And
thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark
thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there
will I meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above
the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the
ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in
commandment unto the children of Israel." Exod. 25:21, 22. In
accordance with these words God repeatedly promised that he
would meet with Moses at the mercy-seat (Exod. 30:36; Lev. 16:2;
Numb. 17:4); and after the dedication of the tabernacle and its
altar, it is recorded that "when Moses was gone into the
tabernacle of the congregation to speak with Him, then he heard
the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy-seat that
was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim."
Numb. 7:89. Hence Jehovah is described in the Old Testament as
he that dwells between the cherubim. 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2
Kings 19:15; Psa. 80:1; 99:1; Isa. 37:16.
10. In the _outer_ sanctuary, before the vail that separated it from the
holy of holies, stood, on the south side, the _golden candlestick_, with
its seven lamps burning always before the Lord (Exod. 27:20; 40:24, 25;
Lev. 24:25), and on the north side the _table of show-bread_, with its
twelve loaves renewed every week (Exod. 25:30; 40:22, 23; Lev. 24:5-9).
These typified the light and the life that come from God's presence
through the ordinances of his appointment; and since the end of these
ordinances is Jesus Christ, they shadowed him forth as the light of the
world and the bread of life. John 8:12; 12:46; 6:35-58; and especially
John 1:4. Between the golden candlestick and the table of show-bread,
consequently directly in front of the ark, and separated from it by the
inner vail, was the _golden altar of incense_, on which the priests
burned sweet incense every morning and evening before the Lord (Exod.
30:6-8; 40:26, 27), whereby was shadowed forth Christ's intercession,
through which the prayers of saints are made acceptable to God.
In the book of Revelation an angel is represented as offering
upon this golden altar much incense with the prayers of all
saints. "And the smoke of the incense, which came with the
prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's
hand." Rev. 8:3, 4. This passage seems to warrant the
interpretation above given to this symbol; not that the ancient
covenant people understood fully its meaning, or that of the
other symbolic rites, but that such was the mind of the Spirit,
to be made manifest in due time.
There is a view of the Mosaic ceremonial, which makes it simply
a _scenic representation_ of a king's court; in which the
tabernacle represents the royal palace, the incense the homage
rendered to the monarch (compare Dan. 2:46), the sacrifices,
show-bread, and other unbloody offerings the provision made for
his table, the priests his ministering servants, etc.; by which
the whole is reduced to the idea of service rendered to Jehovah
as the national monarch, and all typical representation of the
provision made by God for man's spiritual wants is excluded.
This interpretation of the Mosaic ritual is as superficial as it
is false. In this ritual, service is indeed rendered to God; but
it is a service which typically shadows forth the provision
which God makes for man's wants as a fallen being--light for his
darkened understanding, life for his spiritual nature dead in
trespasses and sins, and reconciliation to God through the blood
of Christ. This is the constant interpretation given in the New
Testament of the "carnal ordinances" of the Old.
11. In the court before the tabernacle stood the _brazen altar_ with its
_laver_. Here the blood of the sacrifices flowed from age to age--a lamb
every morning and evening, and on the Sabbath day two lambs morning and
evening, besides all the public sacrifices connected with the national
festivals, and the private sacrifices of individuals. The New Testament
teaches us that the _Levitical priests_ who ministered at the Jewish
altar _typified Christ_, our great High Priest. In the one hundred and
tenth psalm, which the Saviour himself quotes as written by David "in
spirit," and as referring to himself (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37) the
Messiah is represented as uniting in himself the kingly and the priestly
office. There is a remarkable symbolical transaction in Zechariah (chap.
6:9-14) which contains the same representation. The prophet is directed,
in the presence of competent witnesses, to "take silver and gold, and
make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua [the Hebrew word
answering to the Greek _Jesus_, which stands in the Septuagint rendering
of this passage] the son of Josedech, the high priest." In his office as
high priest Joshua typifies Christ our great High Priest. By the
symbolical act of crowning Joshua is typified _the kingly office of
Christ as united with the priestly_. Hence the prophet is directed by
God to add: "Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man
whose name is the BRANCH" (compare chap. 3:8, and Isa. 11:1; Jer.
23:4-6; 33:15, 16); "and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall
build the temple of the Lord: even he shall build the temple of the
Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his
throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of
peace shall be between them both." In accordance with these
representations a large part of the epistle to the Hebrews is occupied
with a discussion of our Lord's priestly office, in which, beyond
contradiction, he is exhibited as the great antitype of both Melchizedec
and the Levitical priests.
12. If the Levitical priests typified Christ, it follows that the
_sacrifices_ which they offered _were also typical of Christ's
sacrifice_ for the sins of the world. So the epistle to the Hebrews
argues: "Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices:
wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer."
Chap. 8:3. The Levitical priests stood "daily ministering, and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." Chap.
10:11. Their offerings were only _typical of expiation_, and needed
therefore to be continually repeated till the Antitype itself should
appear. But Christ offered his own blood on Calvary, by which he
obtained eternal redemption for us, so that his sacrifice needs no
repetition. He was "once offered to bear the sins of many;" and by this
"one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
Chaps. 9:11-14, 25, 26; 10:10-14.
But this doctrine respecting the typical character of the Levitical
sacrifices is not restricted to the epistle to the Hebrews. The New
Testament is full of it. John the Baptist, the Saviour's forerunner,
announced him as "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the
world." John 1:29. Whether we render, as in the margin of our version,
"which _beareth_ the sin of the world," or, as in the text, "which
_taketh away_ the sin of the world," the words contain the idea of a
_propitiatory_ sacrifice, or, which amounts to the same thing, an
_expiatory_ sacrifice; since it is by expiating our sin that Christ
propitiates the Father. By bearing the sin of the world Christ expiates
it, and thus takes it away. Thus he is "the propitiation for our sins,
and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John
2:2.
The Saviour himself announced his purpose to die for his people: "I lay
down my life for the sheep." "Therefore doth my Father love me because I
lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me,
but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."
John 10:15, 17, 18. And lest any should think that he died simply in the
character of a martyr, he elsewhere explains that "the Son of man came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom for many"--more literally, "a ransom instead of many" (Matt.
20:28; Mark 10:45), where the sacrificial and vicarious nature of our
Lord's death is explicitly affirmed.
But it was after our Lord's resurrection that the sacrificial and
propitiatory character of his death was most fully revealed. We have
seen the view taken of it in the epistle to the Hebrews. With this the
other writers of the New Testament are in harmony. Jesus Christ is the
great sufferer foretold in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, who "was
wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are
healed;" upon whom the Lord "laid the iniquity of us all;" who was
brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers
is dumb, so he opened not his mouth; whose soul God made "an offering
for sin;" who "was numbered with the transgressors," and "bare the sins
of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." 1 Pet. 2:24, 25;
Acts 8:32-35; Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37. He "hath once suffered for sins,
the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet. 3:18);
He has redeemed us to God by his blood (Rev. 5:9); has "loved us and
washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5); and his redeemed
"have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb"
(Rev. 7:14).
To recite all the declarations of the apostle Paul on this great theme
would be a superfluous work. It is not through Christ's example or
teachings, but _through his blood_ that we have "redemption, the
forgiveness of sins." Ephes. 1:7. "Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13), words which
teach as explicitly as human language can, that Christ has delivered us
from the penalty of the divine law, which is its curse, by bearing the
curse in our behalf. This he did when he was hanged on the tree. His
death on the cross was, then, _vicarious_, a death in our stead; and
_propitiatory_, for in view of it God releases us from the curse of the
law. This is what is meant by a _propitiatory_ sacrifice. Finally, as if
to cut off all ground for the assertion that the efficacy of Christ's
death lies wholly in its moral influence upon the human heart--its
humbling, softening, and winning power--the apostle teaches that God has
set forth Christ Jesus as a propitiation through faith in his blood for
a manifestation of his righteousness, "_that he might be just, and the
justifier of him that believeth in Jesus_." Rom. 3:25, 26.
Every word of this weighty passage deserves serious
consideration. We give by the side of the English version
another translation, intended to be somewhat more literal:
Whom God hath set forth _to Whom God hath set forth, a
be_ a propitiation, through propitiation, through faith,
faith in his blood, to declare in his blood, for the
his righteousness for the manifestation of his
passing over [marginal righteousness in respect to
rendering] of sins that are the overlooking of sins that
past, through the forbearance are past, through the
of God. To declare, _I say_, forbearance of God--a
at this time, his manifestation of his
righteousness; that he might righteousness at the present
be just, and the justifier of time; in order that he may be
him which believeth in Jesus. just, and the justifier of him
that believeth in Jesus.
From these words we learn: (1.) That God has publicly set forth
Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. The following paraphrase
gives the probable connection of the words of the first clause:
Whom God, by means of his blood, hath set forth as a
propitiation through faith. But if we take the connection as
given in our version, the propitiation is still through Christ's
blood, and is thus a propitiatory or expiatory sacrifice. (2.)
That the appropriation to individual sinners of this
propitiation is conditioned on personal faith. Christ's
propitiatory sacrifice does not, in and of itself, justify any
man; but it provides a _ground_ whereby all may be justified, if
they will believe in Jesus. (3.) That through Christ's
propitiatory sacrifice God makes a public manifestation of his
righteousness in showing mercy to sinners. The phrase, "the
righteousness of God," may mean, in the usage of Paul, the
righteousness--justification--which _he gives_ through faith.
But in connection with the words that follow, "that he might be
just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus," it can
only mean righteousness as an attribute of God, his public
justice, namely, as the lawgiver and governor of the world. (4.)
That Christ's propitiatory sacrifice was necessary in order that
God might show mercy to sinners consistently with the demands of
his justice. For when the apostle says "that God might be just,
and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus," the words
necessarily imply that, without this sacrifice, he could not
have been just in justifying sinners. Christ's propitiation was
not needed to make God more merciful _in his nature_; for in
this respect he is unchangeably "the same yesterday, to-day, and
for ever." But it _opens a way_ by which he may show mercy
consistently with his justice and the sanctity of his law. When
we raise inquiries concerning the interior nature of the
atonement, we meet with deep mysteries, some of which are,
perhaps, above the comprehension of finite human understanding.
But we can comprehend, and believe upon God's testimony, the
great central fact of the gospel, that Christ offered himself to
the Father to bear in human nature the curse of the divine law
in behalf of sinners; and that God accepted this propitiatory
offering as a satisfaction to his justice in such a sense that
he can pardon all who believe in Christ without dishonor to
himself or injury to his moral government.
13. We have considered Christ as the great Antitype of the Levitical
priests and sacrifices. Let us now go back and consider the
_characteristics belonging to the types themselves_, beginning with the
priesthood.
(1.) The first point in which the Levitical priests typified Christ was
in their possession of _the same common human nature_ as those in whose
behalf they acted. "For both he that sanctifieth [Christ] and they who
are sanctified [believers] are all of one [one Father, having a common
sonship as members of the same family of Adam]: for which cause he is
not ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. 2:11); and again: "Forasmuch
then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself
likewise took part of the same" (ver. 14); and still further: "Wherefore
in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren; that he
might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to
God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he
himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are
tempted" (ver. 17, 18; and compare 4:15). Accordingly the priests who
typified Christ were taken from among men, not angels; and "able to have
compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way," being
themselves "compassed with infirmity." Heb. 5:1, 2.
(2.) The Levitical priests, again, were _appointed to their office by
God_: "And no man taketh this honor upon himself, but he that is called
of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a
high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I
begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for
ever after the order of Melchizedec." Heb. 5:4-6.
(3.) The Levitical priests, once more, were _mediators between God and
the people_. After the establishment of their priesthood, no Israelite
or sojourner in the land could approach God with sacrifices and
oblations in his own right, and be his own priest. He must come to God
through the priesthood of his appointment--an expressive type of the
great truth announced by Christ; "I am the way, and the truth, and the
life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6.
(4.) Finally, the Levitical priests were not only mediators between God
and men, but _mediators through propitiatory sacrifices_. They were
ordained to "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." Heb. 5:1; 8:3.
"Wherefore," adds the writer, "it is of necessity that this man [Christ]
have somewhat also to offer." Heb. 8:3. They offered the blood of bulls
and goats, which made expiation only in a typical way; he offered to God
his own blood as a real propitiation for sin. Heb. 7:27; 9:12-28;
10:10-14.
The points of _dissimilarity_ between the Levitical priests and Christ,
as stated in the epistle to the Hebrews, all serve to illustrate the
superior dignity and efficacy of his priesthood. They were sinful men,
and as such needing to offer sacrifice first for their own sins (chap.
5:3); but he is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
made higher than the heavens" (chap. 7:26). They were many, "because
they were not suffered to continue, by reason of death:" but he,
"because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." Chap.
7:23, 24. Their offerings could not take away sin. They were only
typical of expiation, and therefore needed to be continually repeated.
But Christ has by his one offering "perfected for ever them that are
sanctified"--perfected them in respect to the expiation of sin, which is
the foundation on which the work of personal sanctification rests. Heb.
10:11, 12.
Mediatorship between God and man through propitiatory sacrifice
constitutes the central idea of priesthood. The Levitical
priests did indeed make intercession for the people in the
burning of sweet incense (see above, No. 8), and in presenting
to God their unbloody offerings, but all this was done _through
the blood of atonement_. We see, then, how false and mischievous
is the idea that there can be true mediating priests under the
New Testament dispensation. Christ appeared once for all "to put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:25-28; 10:10-12),
since which no further sacrifice is needed, or can be lawfully
offered. Christ also opened to all believers through his blood a
new and living way of access to God, through which they can come
boldly to the throne of grace, having no need of human
mediators. Heb. 10:18-22. Believers as a body are "a holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God
by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 2:5. They present themselves to God "a
living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God." Rom. 12:1. They
"offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the
fruit of their lips, giving thanks to his name." Heb. 13:15.
These spiritual sacrifices offered by the body of believers
through Christ, their glorified High Priest, are the only
sacrifices known to the New Testament church.
Of the high priest's garments, made by divine direction "for
glory and for beauty," we cannot here speak in detail. Suffice
it to say that they represented in general the dignity and
excellence of his office, as the divinely appointed mediator
between God and the covenant people. The golden plate with the
inscription HOLINESS TO THE LORD is its own interpreter. The
twelve names of the tribes of Israel, graven on two precious
stones, and borne on the shoulders of the high priest, six on
each shoulder, and then the same twelve graven on twelve gems,
and borne on his breast as he ministered before the Lord,
beautifully typify Christ our great High Priest, who bears his
people on his shoulders by his almighty power and efficacious
atonement, and on his heart by his everlasting love.
14. From the typical priests we naturally pass to the consideration of
the _typical sacrifices_ offered by them. Upon Noah's leaving the ark,
God prohibited the eating of blood on the ground that it is the _life_
of the animal. Gen. 9:4. The reason of this prohibition is unfolded in a
passage of the Mosaic law, which clearly sets forth the nature and
design of bloody offerings: "And whatsoever man there be of the house of
Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any
manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the
flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make
an atonement for your souls: FOR IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKETH AN
ATONEMENT FOR THE SOUL." Lev. 17:10, 11. Hence the sprinkling of the
sacrificial blood by the priest as a sign of expiation, a rite that will
be more particularly considered hereafter (No. 15). The reason that the
_blood_ makes the atonement is that "the _life_ of the flesh is in the
blood." The scriptural idea, then, of a sacrifice is the offering to God
of one life in behalf of another that has been forfeited by sin--the
life of the innocent beast instead of the life of the guilty offerer.
This general idea of the vicarious and propitiatory nature of sacrifices
comes out with beautiful simplicity and clearness in the book of Job:
"And it was so when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job
sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered
burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, _It
may be that my sons have sinned_, and cursed God in their hearts." Chap.
1:5. And again: "My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two
friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my
servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven
rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a
burnt-offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I
accept: lest I deal with you after your folly." Chap. 42:7, 8. The
sacrifices of the Mosaic law were of various kinds, implying various
accessory ideas. But underlying them all was the fundamental idea of
_propitiation through blood_. Hence the writer to the Hebrews, when
commenting on the transaction recorded in Exodus, chap. 24:4-8, says:
"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without
shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22. The only exception was in
the case of the poor man who was "not able to bring two turtle doves or
two young pigeons." He was allowed to "bring for his offering the tenth
part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering" (Lev. 5:11), upon the
principle that God "will have mercy and not sacrifice."
No orderly classification of sacrifices is to be sought without the pale
of the Jewish ceremonial. The burnt-offerings, for example, mentioned in
the book of Job, had the force of proper sin-offerings. Chaps. 1:5;
42:8. The classification in the book of Leviticus is into
burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings.
But they may be most conveniently considered in the order of their
presentation, when two or more of them were offered on the same
occasion, as when Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the priesthood,
and the people sanctified in connection with this transaction (Lev.
chaps 8, 9), and in the offerings of the great day of atonement (Lev.
chap. 16).
Here the _sin-offering_ naturally held the first place; for this, as its
name indicates, was wholly expiatory and propitiatory, bringing the
offerer into a state of forgiveness and divine favor. The sin-offerings
had reference (1) to sin generally, as when Aaron and his sons were
consecrated and the people sanctified, and when, on the annual day of
atonement, expiation was made for the sins of the past year; (2) to
specific offences (Lev. chaps. 4, 5), The exact distinction between the
sin-offering and the _trespass-offering_ is of difficult determination.
Both were alike expiatory, were in fact subdivisions of the same class
of offerings. A comparison of the passages in which trespass-offerings
are prescribed (Lev. 5:1; 6:1-7; Numb. 5:6-8) seems to indicate that
they belonged especially to trespasses for which restitution could be
made.
Next in the order of sacrifices, though first in dignity, came the
_burnt-offering_, also called _holocaust_ (Heb. _kalil_) that is, _whole
burnt-offering_, the characteristic mark of which was the consuming of
the whole by fire (Lev. chap. 1). It is conceded by all that this was a
_symbol of completeness_; but in what respect is a question that has
been answered in different ways. Some refer the completeness to the
offering itself, as that form of sacrifice which embraces in itself all
others (Rosenmüller on Deut. 33:10); or, as the most perfect offering,
inasmuch as it exhibits the idea of offering in its completeness and
generality, and so concentrates in itself all worship. Bähr, Symbolik,
vol. 2, p. 362. But we cannot separate, in the intention of God, the
completeness of the form from the state of the offerer's mind. The
burnt-offering was indeed, in its outward form, the most perfect of all
sacrifices, for which reason it excluded female victims, as relatively
inferior to the male sex. But because of this its completeness and
generality it signified the _entire self-consecration of the offerer to
God_. Winer and others after Philo. But this, let it be carefully
remembered, was a self-consecration that could be made only _through the
blood of expiation_, to indicate which, the blood of the burnt-offering
was sprinkled by the priest "round about upon the altar;" or, in the
case of a bird, where the quantity was too small to be thus sprinkled,
was "wrung out at the side of the altar."
The _peace-offering_ (more literally, _offering of renditions_; that is,
offering in which the offerer rendered to God the tribute of praise and
thanksgiving which was his due) was in all its different
subdivisions--thank-offering, votive offering, free-will offering (Lev.
7:11-16)--a _eucharistic_ offering. Hence its _social_ character. After
the sprinkling of the blood, the burning of the prescribed parts on the
altar, and the assignment to the priest of his portion, the offerer and
his friends feasted joyfully before the Lord on the remainder. Lev.
chap. 3 compared with chap. 7:11-18. In the case of monarchs, like David
and Solomon, the whole nation was feasted. 2 Sam. 6:17-19; 1 Kings
8:62-66. Hence the Messiah, as the great King of all nations, is
beautifully represented as paying his peace-offerings to God for the
deliverance granted him from his foes, and as summoning all nations to
the sacrificial feast: "My praise shall be of thee in the great
congregation; I will pay my vows [vows in the form of peace-offerings]
before them that fear him. The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they
shall praise the Lord that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. All
the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord," etc. Psa.
22:25-31. The peace-offering naturally followed the burnt-offering, as
that did the sin-offering in the sanctification of the Israelitish
congregation. Lev. 9:15-18. It signified joyful communion with God in
thanksgiving and praise; but this, too, only _through the blood of the
victim_ sprinkled upon the altar as a sign of expiation. Lev. chap. 3.
In these three classes of offerings, then, we have typically set forth,
first, _expiation_ restoring man to God's favor, then _self-consecration_,
then holy _communion_ in thanksgiving and praise--ALL THREE ONLY THROUGH
THE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, the great Antitype of the Levitical
priests and sacrifices.
The sacrificial nature of the _passover_ appears in the direction given
at its institution that the blood of the paschal lamb should be
sprinkled on the lintel and two side-posts of the house where it was
eaten as a protection against the destroyer of the first-born (Exod.
12:22, 23); and in the ordinance afterwards established, requiring that
it should be slain at the sanctuary (Deut. 16:1-8), and its blood
sprinkled upon the altar. 2 Chron. 30:16; 35:11. Its character
approached very near to that of the peace-offerings. It was a joyous
festival, commemorative of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian
bondage; and thus typically shadowing forth the higher redemption of
God's people from the bondage of sin. As the blood of the paschal lamb
sprinkled on the doors of the houses protected the inmates from the
destroyer of the first-born, so does the blood of Christ protect all who
through faith receive its expiatory power from the wrath to come. As the
Israelites feasted joyfully on the flesh of the paschal lamb, so does
the church feed by faith on the great antitypal Lamb of God, who is the
true Passover sacrificed for us. 1 Cor. 5:7.
There were some other sacrifices of a special character, such as those
by which the covenant between God and the people was ratified (Exod.
24:3-8); the ram of consecration, when Aaron and his sons were inducted
into the priesthood (Lev. 8:22-30); the sacrifice and other rites
connected with the cleansing of the leper (Lev. 14:1-32); the sacrifice
of the red heifer from which were prepared the ashes of purification
(Numb. chap. 19); the sacrifice of the heifer in the case of an
uncertain murder (Deut. 21:1-9). Respecting these, it is only necessary
to remark generally that, whatever other ideas were typified by them,
that of expiation through blood was not wanting.
It was required by the law that all the sacrificial victims should be
without blemish, not only because the offering to God of an imperfect
victim would have been an affront to his majesty (Mal. 1:8, 13, 14), but
especially because a perfect victim could alone typify the Lamb of God,
"without blemish and without spot," who was offered on Calvary as the
propitiation for the sins of the whole world. 1 Pet. 1:19, 20.
Of the _unbloody offerings_ [_oblations_, called in our version
_meat-offerings_], some were supplementary to the sacrifices, being
necessary to their completeness. Such was the salt which, as a symbol of
purity and friendship, was prescribed for all meat offerings (Lev.
2:13), and seems to have been used with all sacrifices also. Ezek. 43:24
compared with Mark 9:49. Such, also were the flour, wine, and oil
offered with the daily sacrifice (Exod. 29:40), and in certain other
cases. Lev. 8:26; 9:17; 14:10, etc. Other oblations, like those
prescribed in the second chapter of Leviticus, were presented by
themselves, as expressions of love, gratitude, and devotion to God on
the part of the offerers. After a portion of them, including all the
frankincense, had been burned on the altar, the rest went to Aaron and
his sons as their portion.
The priests also received specified portions from the peace-offerings of
the people, the trespass-offerings, and the sin-offerings the blood of
which was not carried into the sanctuary. See Lev. chap. 6:24-7:34.
15. Of the _typical transactions_ connected with the offering of
sacrifices and oblations we notice the following:
(1.) In all cases the offerer _laid his hands upon the head of the
victim_. The meaning of this act may be inferred from the first mention
of it in the Levitical ceremonial: "And he shall put his hand upon the
head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make
atonement for him." Lev. 1:4. The act in question was, then, the solemn
dedication to Jehovah of the victim for the end proposed. By the laying
on of his hands, he presented it to God as his offering to make
atonement for his soul, and God accepted it as such. From the very
nature of the offering, this act of presentation contained an
acknowledgment of guilt that needed expiation, but there was no formal
transfer of his sins to the victim, as in the case of the scape-goat.
See below, No. 16.
(2.) The _waving_ and _heaving_ of offerings belonged to the priests
alone. Both were manifestly acts of presentation and dedication to God.
For example, the loaf of bread, cake of oiled bread, and wafer of
unleavened bread employed upon the occasion of Aaron's consecration were
first placed in his hands to be waved before the Lord, and then burned
by Moses on the altar of burnt-offering. Exod. 29:23-25. So also the
breast of the ram of consecration was waved, and the right shoulder
heaved, before they were eaten by Aaron and his sons (Exod. 29:26-28);
the lamb of the leper who had been healed, with the accompanying
oblation, was waved by the priest before the Lord before slaying it.
Lev. 14:12, seq.
According to the rabbins, the waving consisted of a movement forwards
and backwards. Some think that there was also a lateral motion from
right to left and the reverse. The heaving was a movement upwards and
downwards. The ground of the distinction between these two forms of
presentation to Jehovah is uncertain. We only know that the ceremony of
heaving was restricted to certain cases. Thus the breast of the
peace-offerings was always waved, and the right shoulder heaved, before
they were given to the priests as their portion. Lev. 7:28-34.
(3.) The _sprinkling of the victim's blood_ was a most weighty part of
the ceremonial, for by this expiation was symbolized. It was accordingly
restricted to the priest, who was the appointed mediator between God and
the people. The sevenfold sprinkling of the blood that was carried into
the sanctuary (Lev. 4:6, 17; 16:14, 19), and in certain other cases
(Lev. 8:11; 14:7, 51) denoted the _completeness_ of the expiation, seven
being the well-known symbol of perfection. Hence the New Testament
beautifully represents believers as purified from sin by the sprinkling
of the blood of Christ, the great Antitype of the Mosaic sacrifices.
Heb. 9:13, 14; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2.
Kindred to the rite of sprinkling was the application of the victim's
blood to the horns of the altar and to the person of the offerer. Exod.
29:12, 20; Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30; 8:15, 24; 14:14, etc.
(4.) The _burning_ of the offering, or of certain specified parts of it,
upon the altar, whereby its odor ascended up to heaven, was a natural
expression of dedication to God. Compare Gen. 8:21, Lev. 1:9, etc.
16. We have seen the typical import of the furniture of the tabernacle
(Nos. 8 and 9 above). That the _tabernacle itself_, considered
generally, had also a typical meaning, is admitted by all who believe in
revelation. But when we come to the consideration of details, we
encounter diversities of interpretation which cannot be here considered.
We notice only the following points:
(1.) The Mosaic tabernacle was, as we have seen, God's visible earthly
dwelling-place. As such, it shadowed forth his real presence and glory,
first, in the church of the redeemed on earth through Jesus Christ;
secondly, in the glorified church in heaven. Some think that the outer
sanctuary, with its altar of incense, its golden candlestick, and its
table of show-bread, typified God's presence with the church militant,
through her divinely-appointed ordinances; and the inner sanctuary, his
presence with the church triumphant in heaven.
(2.) Under the Mosaic economy, the people were not admitted to either
sanctuary. They could approach God only through the mediation of the
priests. The priests themselves entered the outer sanctuary daily to
burn incense and perform the other prescribed services; but the high
priest alone was permitted to enter the most holy place once every year
with the blood of the sin-offering. This represented that, under the old
dispensation, the way of access to God on the part of sinners was not
yet made manifest. In respect to the holy of holies, we have the express
statement of inspiration: "But into the second went the high priest
alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself,
and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that
the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the
first tabernacle was yet standing." Heb. 9:7, 8. By parity of reason,
the principle holds good in respect to the exclusion of the people from
the outer sanctuary. We are informed, accordingly, that when Christ
cried upon the cross with a loud voice, "It is finished," and gave up
the ghost, "the vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
bottom." Matt. 27:50, 51; Mark 15:37, 38; Luke 23:45, 46. By this was
signified that now the way of access to God was opened through Christ's
blood to all believers; so that they constitute a spiritual priesthood,
having access to God within the vail without the help of any earthly
mediation, that they may there "offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." Heb. 7:25; 10:19, 20; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9;
Rev. 1:6.
(3.) The typical character of the tabernacle appears very strikingly in
the ceremonies of the great day of atonement. Lev. chap. 16. After the
high-priest had first offered a sin-offering for himself, and sprinkled
its blood in the inner sanctuary upon and before the mercy-seat seven
times, he brought the two goats that had been appointed for the
expiation of the people, one for a sin-offering, the other for a
scape-goat, the office of each being determined by lot. When he had
slain the goat of the sin-offering, he carried its blood into the most
holy place, and sprinkled it also seven times upon and before the
mercy-seat, to "make an atonement for the holy place, because of the
uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their
transgressions in all their sins (ver. 16)." Then it was directed that
the live goat should be brought: "And 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, and shall send him away by
the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon
him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited; and he shall let go
the goat in the wilderness." Ver. 21, 22. By this double ceremonial was
signified, first, that Christ should _expiate_ our sins by his own
blood; secondly, that through this expiation he should _bear_ them in
his own person, and thus _remove_ them far away from us. The Jewish high
priest entered year by year through the earthly tabernacle into God's
presence with the blood of the sin-offering, that he might sprinkle it
before the mercy-seat. But Christ, our great High Priest, has entered
"by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands" into
heaven itself, to present his own blood before the throne of God as a
perfect propitiation for our sins. Heb 9:11, 12, 24.
The striking ceremonial connected with the scape-goat on the great day
of atonement (Lev. chap. 16) is never to be interpreted separately, but
always in connection with the other goat, which was slain as a
sin-offering, and its blood carried within the vail into the most holy
place. The inadequacy of the type made it necessary that _two_ goats
should be used in this _one_ service, one to represent the expiation of
the people's sin through the sprinkling of its blood; the other, the
vicarious bearing and taking away of their sin. Whatever difficulties
are connected with the interpretation of the Hebrew word rendered in our
version "for a scape-goat" (Hebrew, _la-azazel_), the typical meaning of
the transaction is clear, and it has its fulfilment only in Christ, who
has _expiated_, and so _taken away_, the sin of the world.
(4.) In the case of the more solemn sacrifices--the sin-offerings for
the high-priest and for the congregation (Lev. 4:1-21; chap. 16)--the
expiatory blood was carried into the sanctuary to be presented before
God. But the victim was in all cases slain without the sanctuary; and
when its blood was carried into the sanctuary, its body typically
bearing the curse of the violated law, was burned without the camp. In
correspondence with this, the writer to the Hebrews reminds us that
"Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood,
suffered without the gate." Heb. 13:11, 12. He suffered "without the
gate" in a two-fold sense. As a condemned malefactor, he was thrust out
of the holy city, which answered to the ancient Israelitish camp, and
there he expiated on the cross the sin of the world. He also suffered
"without the gate" of the true holy city, the heavenly Jerusalem, which
he left that he might tabernacle among men and die for their redemption;
and having accomplished this work, he went "by his own blood" into the
heavenly holy of holies, there to make intercession for us.
The dignity and sacredness of these solemn sin-offerings made it
necessary that a clean place should be selected for the burning of the
flesh; but inasmuch as they were typically laden with the curse of sin,
they were carried without the precincts of the camp where God dwelt, and
there consumed, where the ashes of all the bloody offerings were poured
out. Lev. 4:11, 12, 21; 16:27. The man, moreover, who performed the
service of burning the sin-offering on the day of atonement, having been
typically defiled by contact with it, was required to wash his clothes
and bathe his flesh in water before coming into the camp. Lev. 16:28. In
the case of the scape-goat, "the wilderness," the "land not inhabited,"
answered to the place without the camp where the sin-offering was
burned; and the man that led him away was, in like manner, required to
wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water before reentering the
camp. Lev. 16:26.
17. The _distinctions between clean and unclean_ in respect to articles
of food and various other particulars, had also a typical meaning. That
the regulations in regard to these matters were promotive of physical
purity and health is undoubtedly true; yet we are not to consider them
as simply a sanitary code. They reached to the inner man. Through these
physical distinctions of clean and unclean God educated the people to an
apprehension of the difference between moral purity and impurity.
The Levitical view of sickness and every bodily infirmity is deep and
fundamental. All is referred to sin as the primal cause. The sufferer
from leprosy and various other infirmities (Lev. chaps. 12-15) is
regarded not as a sinner above other men (Luke 13:1-5), but yet as
suffering in the character of a sinner. Hence the ceremonial uncleanness
of such persons, and the expiatory offerings required in the case of
those who have been healed.