CHAPTERXIX.THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM OF THE HEBREWS.

CHAPTERXIX.THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM OF THE HEBREWS.THISsystem contemplates as its ultimate end the obedience, homage, and worship due from men to God. As a prime means toward this end, it prescribes modes and forms of worship. It proposes to bring God near to men and men near to God; and for this purpose would cultivate in men the spirit of penitence and of faith—impressing them with a sense of their sins and suggesting to them how sin may be forgiven; and how, on the basis of God’s own provision for pardon, he can accept the humble, reverent worship of his people.——These fundamental ideas respecting the sinner’s acceptance with God, the system now before us sought especially to develop by means of visible symbols—these symbols constituting the very elaborate and minutely describedreligious system of the Hebrews.——This system, having long since “waxed old and vanished away” is no longer in practice, and therefore can not be useful as a rule of present duty, but is useful for the light it throws on the great and fundamental questions—How shall man—a sinner—become just before God? Is an atonement necessary? What are the fundamental ideas of “atonement”? How were they developed in the Mosaic system, and what light does this development bring to the atonement presented to view in the New Testament?With superlative wisdom God began to give lessons on this great subject very early in the history of our race. It was wise to give such lessons long and carefully before the Great Atoning Sacrifice came in human flesh. It was also wise to give them largely by visible illustrations—by the aid of a system having so much of the external and the visible that minds not disciplined to abstract thought might see the truth and feel its power by means of sensible manifestations.The reader will now see readily the purpose of the ensuing examination of this religious system. It is not for historic curiosity—in which case we might selectpoints amusing or strange or sensational; it is not to guide the worshiper (as Moses sought to do) in the minutest details of the system that he might make no mistake in obeying it:—but it is to gather as best we may its designed moral impression, to study its underlying assumptions, and evolve its true doctrine in regard to the great question of the sinner’s acceptance before a holy and righteous God.Briefly and comprehensively we may classify the leading features of this system viewed externally, on this wise:I.Its prescribed sacrifices and offerings.II.Its stated times and seasons of worship.III.Its sacred edifices and apparatus for worship.IV.The religious orders—classes designated for sacred service.I.The sacrifices and offerings of this system may be classified variously:——e. g.(1.) Bloody, or not bloody:—terms which will be readily understood. The former were slain animals, a portion of whose blood was sprinkled. The latter included offerings of flour, oil, wine,etc.——Or (2.) Some were specially required: others were voluntary or free-will offerings.——​(3.) They may be classified with reference to the times and seasons when they were to be made; some being daily, as the morning and evening sacrifice; others for the Sabbath; others for the new moons; others on occasion of the three great yearly festivals; and, among the most useful for its suggestive import, those of the great day of atonement.——​(4.) Or we might classify them under the somewhat distinctive names given them in the law, of which we find a large number. We have (a.) The generic word sacrifice [Heb.Zebah]—a word which implies slaying, taking life:——​(b.) Another quite generic term, “offering,” which is used to translate several Hebrew words, and of course with very considerable latitude of meaning:——​(c.) “Burnt-offering”—[which is the quite constant translation of theHeb.“Olah”] signifying whatgoes up upon the altarand is consumed there. The phrase “whole burnt-offering” gives according to the Hebrew, the sense ofcompleteness—the whole of the animal being burned on the altar:——​(d.) “Sin-offering”—in Hebrew, one ofthe most common words forsin—[hatta]. Paul’s use of the corresponding Greek word (2 Cor.5: 21) follows this usage of the word for sin: “God hath made him to be sin” [a sin-offering] “for us who knew no sin,”etc.:——​(e.) “Trespass offering”;—which is another of the Hebrew words for sin, offense [“asham”]:——​(f.) “Meat-offering”; some variety of food or drink other than flesh:——​(g.) “Peace-offering”—which seems closely related to the “thank-offering,” being an expression of gratitude to God; the animal sacrificed being in large part eaten socially by the offerer and his friends; also by the poor, the widow, servants,etc.:——​(h.) Wave and heave offerings—terms which refer to ceremonies of elevating or waving certain parts of the sacrifice.(5.) A much more important distinction in the Mosaic sacrifices lies between those which wereexpiatoryand those which were not specially so, the former class being slain animals whose fat at least was burned on the altar and whose blood was sprinkled in specified and various ways; the latter class having somewhat various objects, but chiefly that of expressing gratitude for blessings or joy in the God of their salvation.Two other points in respect to sacrifices are of importance,viz.—(a.)The choice of animals to be slain in sacrifice.(b.) The killing itself, coupled with the use made of the blood, of the fat, and in some cases of the flesh—with the attendant ceremonies.(a.) It should be carefully noted that animals for sacrifice were not taken up at random. It was not merely life and blood that were sought. They were not the wild, but the tame, domesticated; not the savage, flesh-eating animals, but the docile, grass-eating; not animals mostly or altogether useless to man, but precisely those which were most useful; not animals of the sort nobody loves or cares for, but those most loved and cared for, between whom and the human family there often arises a special intimacy and affection. In a word they were the representatives of utility, docility, and innocence. The ox, patient of toil, in his early years invaluable for food; the goat, useful for flesh and milk; the lamb—the symbol of affection, attachment,innocence:—these three classes of animals formed the staple material for bloody sacrifice. [Of birds, the turtle-dove and young pigeon, being less expensive, were permitted to the poor. As naturally representing innocence and loveliness, they are quite of the same class].——It sometimes escapes notice that the Orientals brought these animals much nearer to their hearts and homes than our Western notions and habits know of. We forget that not infrequently to this day they live under the same roof along with sons and daughters. The prophet Nathan in that touching verse about the “one little ewe lamb” (2 Sam.12: 3) drew not from his imagination but from Oriental life. “The poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb which he had bought and nourished up, and it grew up together with him and with his children: it did eat of his own meat” [food] “and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom, and was to him as his daughter.”——Moreover, the Hebrew might not select for sacrifice the deformed, the torn, the lame, the sickly; but evermore, the unblemished, the perfect—those specially lovable and choice pets around which the hearts of the household, young and old, were wont to cling: of these must the worshiper take for the altar.Let us think of the scene at that altar of sacrifice. The place is in the front court of the tabernacle, whose inner sanctuary was made glorious with the visible presence of Jehovah. The one all-engrossing thought associated with this sacred spot, was—God is here. I go up to meet God. Before his face I bring this prescribed offering. It is one of my sweet lambs of the flock, or as the case may be, a young bullock of one or two years old. I know that the animal must die there. Either in my own person or through the priest, acting in my behalf, I am to lay my hand on the head of the victim and thus confess my sin. From that moment the innocent lamb takes my place and stands before the executioner, as if guilty of capital crime. The sight and the smell of blood; the struggle and the recoil; the outcry of horror—the only awful, horrible sound uttered by these animals—go to make up a scene which, once witnessed, can never be forgotten. We of this age might see it in some of its aspects if we would; we rarely do. We should find it, not in our worshiping sanctuariesbut in the secluded slaughter-house whither no one is ever attracted—whither none ever go save those who must. Think of the blood, the death-groans, the struggle, the whole dying scene. Is there any meaning in it? Is there any thing in it appropriate to the sanctuary of God and to his solemn worship?The transaction is by no means so mysterious as it might be. It would be profoundly mysterious were it not that man is a sinner before the holy law of God—a sinner under condemnation of death. It would be utterly inexplicable if there were not in nature, in thought, in fact, something which we may call substitution, to which we give the name vicarious—something which involves, not indeed an entire exchange of one personality for another, but something which approximates toward it. One being suffers in the place and stead of another. An innocent being steps into the place of a guilty one and takes upon himself the guilty man’s doom. We need not pause here to hunt up analogies of this sort in human life; suffice it that God signifies by these striking symbols that he has found a place for this principle in his great scheme for the pardon of sinners condemned to death by his holy law, and that he saw fit to fill this Hebrew religious system absolutely full of illustrative typical representations of this stupendous fact. The elementary facts in this system of sacrifices, considered as illustrating the scheme of pardon are few and simple; thus—(a.) Man has sinned against God and stands condemned by his law to eternal death.(b.) God loves this sinning man and longs to save him—but must not break down his law.——So he finds a Lamb for a sacrifice whose death for sinners will abundantly sustain the majesty of law, and proceeds thereupon to “lay on him the iniquity of us all.” This done, it only remains that the sinner repent of his sin, and humbly, thankfully accept the death of this Lamb of sacrifice in place of his own eternal death.——These few and simple elements comprise substantially the essence of this wonderful system.This system seeks a symbolic representation in these bloody sacrifices. The offerer brings forward his lamb of the flock; he lays his hand upon that innocent head and confesses there his sin: he in a sort transfers hisown personality—or more precisely, his own sin and guilt, to that animal victim; he stands by and witnesses the death-scene with a deepened sense that he deserves a death far worse than that himself. But when the fires from heaven descend and consume his offering, and he finds himself not only spared but blessed of God and bidden to go in peace, he gets a sense unknown before, of the peace and joy of pardoned sin. The blood sprinkled upon and around the altar and toward the most holy place and upon himself becomes a memorial of what his salvation cost; the pardon himself receives testifies how much it is worth, “speaking better things than the blood of Abel.”If any special argument should seem called for to prove that this is the true significance of these bloody sacrifices, we shall come to it with better preparation after the main points of the system are more fully before us.As an illustrative system, there is yet one other point of great significance,viz.that in many of these sacrificesa portion of the animal was eatenby the offerer and by his family and friends. This great amount of animal flesh was not all consumed by the fires of the altar. Yet we are not to suppose that public economy—the saving of so much valuable human food—was the prime consideration. We must go deeper than this. Nor was it that the Lord would cultivate the social nature of his worshiping people, and therefore provided these materials for agreeable social feasting. We must go very much deeper than even this. This feasting upon the flesh of the slain animal is in germ what the gospel gives us in full development,viz.that the same Lamb of Calvary who “washed us from our sins in his own blood” “gave us his flesh to eat” as “the bread of life.” The memorial supper carries in it the same double symbol—bloodandbread—the blood looking toward pardon; the bread toward sustenance for the spiritual life. So the pious Israelite might on the one hand see the blood of his sacrifice gurgling forth, caught, sprinkled toward the mercy-seat and upon his own person; and on the other hand, might take of the flesh of his slain lamb and sit down, not merely in peace but in joyful thanksgiving that death brings life—that sacrificial blood brings after it the new life of the redeemed, restored sinner, and sustenancetherefor from the very animal whose body and blood became symbols of his pardon.Besides these sacrifices of a general character, the system provided others of a special and personal character for individuals under peculiar circumstances,e. g.for the case of vows; of purification from ceremonial uncleanness; for the restored leper,etc.Of these I need say only that they suggest the fitness of recognizing God’s hand every-where, in all possible events and under all the various dispensations of providence. These events are never barren of significance. It behooves us to study their meaning and adjust ourselves to God’s hand with resignation and with gratitude—with a sense of our unworthiness and of God’s great mercy.——The detailed methods of that ancient system have at this day no vital interest.Scarcely of the nature of sacrifice, yet intensifying the idea of ceremonial uncleanness was the burning of the “red heifer”—the gathering up of her ashes and the preparation from them of “the water of separation”—a purification from sin in the ceremonial sense.Num.19 gives the details, specifying the sorts of uncleanness which this purifying water washed away. The writer to the Hebrews (9: 13, 14) gave the great moral inference thus: “For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unto God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God”?II.STATEDTIMESANDSEASONSOFWORSHIP.1.The Morning and Evening Sacrifice.Two lambs of one year were offered every day; the one in the morning and the other at evening [Heb.“between the evenings”]; burnt offerings, consumed wholly upon the altar. They were accompanied with a small portion of flour, oil, and wine. This was a perpetual ordinance, never to be omitted. The original institution (Ex.29: 38–46) is accompanied with God’s very gracious promise to meet with his people and dwellamong them, sanctifying the place of this meeting by his glory. Nothing could suggest more pertinently and tenderly that God loves to see the face of his worshiping people and to meet them as each day opens in the morning and as it closes with the setting sun. Let this communion between God and his sons and daughters never be in any wise interrupted.——The usage seems to have led pious Jews in later times to adopt these hours for their morning and evening prayer, as we may see in the case of Daniel (9: 21), and in the New Testament history.——The ritual for these sacrifices is given in detail (Num.28: 3–8).2.The Sacrifices for the Sabbath.Each Sabbath had an extra service in addition to the continual morning and evening sacrifice—two lambs of the first year without spot; with the attendant meat and drink-offerings (Num.29: 9, 10).3.The sacrifices at each new moonwere on a larger scale than either of the preceding,viz.two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs for the burnt-offering; one kid of goats for the sin-offering. As the Hebrew months were lunar (not solar), these sacrifices upon the appearance of the new moon inaugurated the successive months. It was probably for this reason that they were announced with blowing of trumpets (Num.10: 10). The calendar was thus regulated—a matter of special importance, since it fixed the time of their three great religious festivals as also the great day of atonement.4.The Three Great Religious Festivals.Of these the first in order (the Passover) has been considered already.The next in order of time was thePentecost—otherwise called “the feast of weeks, of the first-fruits of wheat-harvest” (Ex.34: 22); “the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labors which thou hast sown in the field” (Ex.23: 16); also “the day of first-fruits” (Num.28: 26). The other passages which treat of it areLev.23: 15–21 andDeut.16: 9–12)——The namePentecostis not from the Hebrew but from the Greek, meaning thefiftiethday,i. e.after the great Sabbath, which fell during the Passover week (Lev.23: 15, 16).——On the first day after that Sabbath, the first-fruits of their barley harvest were brought before the Lord. From that point seven full weeks were numbered, and on the fiftieth day the feast of Pentecost occurred.This festival, unlike the other two in duration, was of one day only—at least this is plainly assumed: “Inthe dayof the first-fruits” (Num.28: 26), also inLev.23: 21, only one day is spoken of.——It was specially a day of thanksgiving for the first-fruits of the wheat harvest. Two loaves made of the new wheat flour were waved before the Lord on this hallowed day.——The reference (inDeut.16: 10–12) gives prominence to the social and joyful character of the day. “Thou shalt keep the feast unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a free-will offering of thy hand which thou shalt give according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou and thy son and thy daughter, and thy man-servant and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, the fatherless and the widow that are among you.”As a feast of joyful thanksgiving over the first-fruits of their principal grain harvest, it was eminently the appropriate occasion for the Pentecostal scene of the first great Christian ingathering. How suggestive of the gratitude due to God for the shedding forth of the Holy Ghost and the glorious fruitage from this gospel power!Some have supposed (not without reason) that the Hebrew Pentecost commemorated the completion of the giving of the laws by the hand of Moses, which they suppose was brought within fifty days from the first Passover. Of this however the books of Moses affirm nothing explicitly.The third and last of the three great festivals was “theFeast of Tabernacles,” otherwise called “the feast of ingathering at the end of the year when thou hast gathered in thy labors out of the field” (Ex.23: 16).——The speciality of this feast was the dwelling in booths or tabernacles, made of “boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees and the boughs of thick trees and willows of the brook” (Lev.23: 40). This feastbegan on the fourteenth day of the seventh month and continued during eight days, the first and the last being days of special solemnity. It had a double purpose,viz.to commemorate the forty years wandering of the fathers in the wilderness, dwelling in tents; and to give thanks to God for the last harvests of the year—the fruits of the olive and the grape—last in order—being now all gathered in.Thus none of these three great feasts omitted the element of thanksgiving for the fruits of the season, the first barley sheaves being brought with grateful thanks before the Lord during the Passover; the first-fruits of the wheat harvest giving a special thanksgiving character to the Feast of Pentecost; and the latest fruits, the olive and the grape, reminding them of God’s crowning blessing upon the labors of the year at the Feast of Tabernacles. What a beautiful training into the service of thanksgiving for the fruits of the earth!This last of the festivals was pre-eminently one of joyful festivity, and of loud and high praises to the Lord, their Great Benefactor. The Jews have a saying—that “whoever has not seen the rejoicing of the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles has never seen a day of joy in his life.”The principal passages of Moses that treat of it areEx.23: 16, and 34: 22, andLev.23: 34–43, andNum.29: 12–40, andDeut.16: 13–15.The celebration of this feast in the age of Nehemiah (8: 14–18) the reader should not fail to notice. At this time the law was read daily in the hearing of the people. The law of Moses provided for this public reading on each seventh,i. e.the Sabbatic year, during the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut.31: 10–13).The striking allusion (Jn.7: 37) to the scenes on the last great day of the feast will be readily recalled. A custom unknown to the law of Moses had then come into practice—that of going in vast procession to the fountain of Siloam for water, and bearing it with joyful acclaim to the temple to pour it out there before the Lord. While this procession was passing, Jesus lifted up his voice and cried—“If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” May we suppose that possibly the words of Isaiah were before him:—“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters”—to these waters of life which I give for the life of the world!Upon these three great festivals all the males of Israel were required to appear before the Lord at the one place of his choice—the tabernacle or the temple—ultimately in Jerusalem “whither the tribes go up.” The women of Israel manifestly went when they chose and could. According to Oriental usage they traveled in groups—little caravans—several adjacent families, or as the case might be by households, the patriarch with his children and children’s children together, moving on with many a song of social cheer and grateful praise till at length they lifted up their eyes to the hills of the goodly city. The so-called “songs of degrees” (Ps.120–134)—more strictly songs of the stages or upgoings—are specimens of this free and outflowing worship of the traveling companies, bound upward to Jerusalem. The allusion in Luke 2: 41–45, is pleasant to think of.We must not overlook the fact that the Lord relieved their minds of all fear lest their defenseless homes might be assailed and robbed and perhaps their wives and little ones murdered by foreign enemies while all their able-bodied men were away from their homes in Jerusalem. “Neither shall any man desire thy land when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year” (Ex.34: 24). None but a God of universal providence and omnipotent resources could safely make such a promise. In their own Jehovah they might safely trust.Of sacred seasons, the most peculiar and striking yet remains to be noticed,viz.the great day of atonement. This was one day only; was not a feast day but afast—a day “in which ye shallafflict your souls,”i. e.subject yourselves to the discomforts and pains of entire abstinence from food for the whole day, “from even to even.” Whoever would not afflict his soul on this day must be “cut off from his people.” All labor was forbidden under the same penalty. The passagesLev.23: 26–32 andNum.29: 7–11 give these general features of the institution. Only inLev.16 do we find a full description. In this chapter it appears that the original appointment of this day stands connected with the saddeath of Nadab and Abihu, the two eldest sons of Aaron for their rash unauthorized offering of strange fire before the Lord (Lev.10: 1–8). That awful scene of death suggested the great necessity of ceremonial purity in the priesthood and of the utmost care and self-control when they came before God. There would be sins in the priesthood and sins among the people of which they might not be aware: hence the propriety of one comprehensive, all-embracing service for atonement.The points to be specially noted in this service are—That the High Priest washed himself clean; put on white linen garments, symbolic of purity, and then made a special offering for his own sins and for the sin of all the people. The latter had this striking peculiarity—that two goats were taken for a sin-offering, upon whom lots were cast to select one for the Lord and one for Azazel [Eng.“scape-goat”]. Another still more important peculiarity was that on this day only (never on any other) the High Priest went alone into the most holy place, bearing both the blood of the sin-offering and incense. First he bore into the most holy place the blood of a bullock as a sin-offering for himself, and sprinkled it with his finger upon the mercy-seat and in front of the mercy-seat seven times. He also bore a censer full of coals from the great altar and upon it burned incense, the smoke of which enshrouded the mercy-seat. Then the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord was slain, and the High Priest bore his blood also into the most holy place and sprinkled it there to make atonement for the whole people. No other man save the High Priest might go in at any time on pain of death.The other goat, called in our English version “the scape-goat” was then disposed of thus: Aaron “laid both his hands upon the head of this goat and confessed 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 then sent him away by a fit man into the wilderness—the goat bearing upon himself all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.” He was then set at liberty in the wilderness (Lev.16: 20–22).——The precise meaning of the word Azazel [“scape-goat”] and the reason for usingthis name have been much disputed. Our English Bible fails to give a satisfactory translation ofv.8 where by a most obvious antithesis the sacred lot selects one of the two goats for Jehovah and the other for Azazel. Was it, as many suppose, for Satan, conceived of as “walking through those dry and desolate places, seeking rest but finding none”—to whom this goat, symbolically bearing the sins of the whole people, is sent? If so, what is implied and signified in this sending of the goat to him? I must say I am not wise on these points. If any ideas were current in that age in respect to Satan which might illustrate this transaction, they have not come down to us. It must I think suffice for us to see in these two goats for a sin-offering a sort of double figure to indicate the atonement—the first one slain in the usual way and his blood sprinkled before the mercy-seat—a solemn witness that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin: the other, supplementing the great idea of atonement by a most vivid representation ofsins borne away—forever away, to be known and remembered no more. The sins of the whole people were transferred to the head of this second goat; he takes them away into the unknown desolate wilderness, never to return. Symbolically, the sins are gone forever!——The prophet Micah (7: 19) gives a turn to the same thought only slightly different—“Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” Jeremiah also (31: 34)—“I will remember their sins no more.” No symbol could give more precisely, more unequivocally, more forcibly, the great idea oftaking away sins. You see them transferred to this second goat by means of hands imposed and formal declaration, “putting them[the sins]upon the head of the goat”; and then he is driven away, bearing his burden into an unknown, desolate land, never to be heard from again!——The sacrifice of the first goat for a sin-offering and the sprinkling of his blood before the sacred Presence of Jehovah had the usual significance of an innocent animal substituted for the guilty sinner—the former dying that the latter might not die—thus showinghowGod could safely forgive sin. These two goats therefore represent respectively the two great ideas which make up the atonement—the first signifyingby what meansGod can testify duly against sin while yet he forgives the sinner; and the second certifying that—the innocent victim having been substituted for the sinner and slain in his stead—God does trulytake sins forever away. In briefest phrase these coupled ideas stand out before us in the New Testament: “Behold the Lamb of God whotaketh awaythe sin of the world” (John 1: 29).III.Sacred Edifices and Apparatus.A system of worship which included altars and sacrifices, and much more, one which had the ark of the covenant and the visible manifestation of Jehovah’s presence, demanded anedificefor its center and home. It was essential to the proper reverence that this edifice should provide a place of seclusion as well as of safe-keeping for its most sacred things.——Moreover, so long as the people were unsettled—subject to removal any day—this structure must be movable, like the tents of all nomadic people. Hence the first structure was theTabernacleorSacred Tent.——A general idea of it may be presented to the reader thus:—Conceive of an inclosed court, one hundred cubits long by fifty wide [the cubit being eighteen inches]; this inclosure being made by hanging curtains of linen five cubits high, suspended from horizontal rods which were supported by posts. The entrance to this inclosure was always at its eastern end, and the eastern section, forming the outer or first court, was twenty cubits in depth, cut off from the rest of the inclosed area by curtains.——In the center of the rear portion stood the sacred tent proper, thirty cubits in length from east to west, and ten cubits in width. This also was in two principal apartments, the eastern being twenty cubits by ten, known as “the holy place”; the western, “the most holy place,” or the “Holy of holies,” being ten cubits square. The perpendicular walls of this sacred tent were of boards set on end, ten cubits high, so supported as to be readily set up, taken down, and transported. The covering was four-fold, of cloth and skins, and was manifestly arranged like the roof of a house, the covering passing over a ridge-pole in the center. Such briefly was this sacred structure.Of its furniture, the important articles were as follows:(a.) In the open court in front of the tabernacle proper, were the great altar of burnt-offering and a laver—an immense reservoir or tank for water. (b.) In the holy place—the first section of the sacred tent—stood the altar of incense; the table of shew-bread; and the golden candlestick.——​(c.) In the most holy place, enshrouded in the thick darkness, stood the ark of the covenant, containing originally the two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written, the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded. Upon the lid of this ark, known as “the mercy-seat,” there reposed the refulgence of the Divine Presence—a visible brightness and glory, called by the later Jews “the shechinah”—itself overshadowed by the wings of cherubic figures which rested upon either end of the ark.The whole structure might be readily taken down and transported from place to place with all its furniture; parties being designated for this service.InNum.10: 35, 36 we have the words customarily used by Moses as a form of prayer, accompanying the order for striking and pitching tents: “When the ark set forward Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let those that hate thee flee before thee: and when it rested he said, Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of Israel.”Of the temple built by Solomon I need not say more than this—that its plan was essentially that of the tabernacle, differing in the following points: Its dimensions were twice as great; and it was built for a permanent, immovable edifice, of the most substantial and costly materials.IV.The Sacred Orders.The tribe of Levi was chosen and set apart for the services of worship and of religious instruction. Out of this tribe the family of Aaron was selected for the priesthood. The most sacred services devolved upon the priests, the High Priest only being permitted to enter the most holy place once a year, as we have seen. The Levites performed subordinate services, supplying the requisite wood and water for so vast a system ofsacrifices and offerings, and serving also in the transportation of the sacred tent and its furniture. At a later period the service of song in the house of the Lord was in their hands.The law provided a full ritual for the induction of the High Priest into his office and for the consecration of all the priests to their work. Their robes of office, their various dress on all occasions, are detailed with great minuteness.——The law also provided specially for their subsistence. A portion of various sacrifices fell to them as their perquisite. The great expense of the entire ritual service, including the cost of the animals offered for the people at large; the support of the priests, and to some extent of the Levites, was provided for by law in the tithes; the poll-tax of a half-shekel from every man of Israel; and from various other sources.In the ultimate settlement in Canaan, forty-eight cities with their suburbs were given to the Levites. They were thus distributed among the entire population of Canaan both east and west of the Jordan, and if true to their mission would fill a very important sphere in both the civil and the religious life of the nation. Of their civil and judicial duties I have spoken already. They were also teachers of religion.——Their suburban territory would afford them a small amount of land for cultivation; but the divine plan was that they who served at the altar should live from the altar. While religious services were conscientiously performed and the religious spirit was in due strength, both priests and Levites would be comfortably fed and clad. Idolatry and religious declension would cut their supplies short.The careful reader of those portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers which give the plan of the tabernacle, the ritual of the priests and Levites and the minute detail of numerous sacrifices and offerings and purifications, will not need the suggestion that in many respects the interest and the value of these details have mostly passed away. Of prime importance in that age; vital to the proper construction of the tabernacle; vital to the due consecration of priest and Levite and to their instruction in duty; entirely essential to the ends of a ritual system which was to be the religiouslaw of a great people—they were all in place then and were indispensable; but in most respects this interest and value have long since ceased. Whereas in the time of Moses not one word of this minute detail was superfluous, not one point could be safely omitted; now, it may be passed over with only brief notice. Few will care to read all its particulars.Yet two points deserve remark:1. That this very minuteness of detail is the strongest evidence of the genuineness and antiquity of these books. They were certainly written at the time of the events they record. They never could have been gotten up in any age subsequent to the events. The specifications for the tabernacle and for all its furniture had a purpose then; but could have had no purpose to justify such minuteness after the construction was finished. It would be the supremest folly to forge such documents ages after the events had passed. No man in his senses ever attempts such a forgery. Men never submit to such labor without an object; and the case precludes the possibility of any objectafterthe tent was built and after the ritual was fully understood and wrought into established usage.2. While these minute details neither require nor reward particular investigation in our day, yet taken in wholethey are pregnant with great moral lessons for all time.(1.) There was a perpetual inculcation of cleanliness, external purity; and the most careful avoidance of whatever was defiling. The ceremonial washings and cleansings, the removal from the camp, or as the case may be, the seclusion from the court of the tabernacle for a term of purification, occur frequently. By a natural law of mind, sin is associated with uncleanness; crime is defiling. Hence, with almost infinite pains the Lord was impressing upon his people the great idea that their God who deigned to dwell among them “was of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.” He could not abide with them save as they kept themselves clean and pure.(2.) On every hand we note the most solemn inculcation of care, thoughtfulness, consideration, especially in their religious worship, and the most impressive warnings against a rash and inconsiderate spirit. Hencewine was forbidden to the priests when about to go to the altar (Lev.10: 8–11). It seemed that God could have no patience with the thoughtless and irreverent. At whatever cost, the fear of the Lord must be impressed upon the people—else all effort for their religious culture would be vain.(3.) Their great thanksgiving festivals; their numerous thank-offerings; their vows; their required tithes—all concur in this one idea—the recognition of God as the Giver of all blessings, their great personal and national Benefactor. No pains was spared to impress and enforce this great truth. The long course of God’s redeeming mercies toward their nation; the rescue from Egyptian bondage; the miraculous supplies of bread and water forty years in the desert; the gift of the goodly land of Canaan;—these were the staple facts of their history which God sought to engrave upon the national heart and to work into the living thought of the thousands of Israel. By every hopeful appliance their religious system was shaped to keep alive and intensify these feelings.(4.) More important than all the rest were the great moral lessons set forthby the perpetual presence of atoning blood. The Israelites were never allowed to forget that they were sinners, and that their approach to God must always be through the blood of atonement. No day might begin, no day might close, without the shedding of animal blood—the sacrifice of an innocent animal’s life. The great days were great because of the multiplication of these sacrifices—evermore distinguished and memorable for the rivers of blood that flowed; for the struggles and throes of the dying; for the sprinkling of blood,blood,BLOOD, all round about the hallowed altar, toward the unseen Presence within the most holy place, and upon the assembled hosts of Israel.——It may cost us a few moments’ effort to reproduce those scenes before our mind’s eye so as to take in their full significance; but this effort to comprehend that ancient ritual would bring its reward. What a demonstration it would be in proof that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission”! that God never looks propitiously on guilty sinners save through the bleeding sacrifice of his crucified Son! As bearing upon the great questions—thefactand thenatureof the atonement—this bloody ritual has a most vital and impressive significance. No questions of deeper and more vital import can ever arise than such as these: Was the death of Christ expiatory? Was his blood shed for the sins of men? Did he lay down his life, an innocent victim, that the guilty sinners who place their hands upon his sacred head and there confess their sins may live and never die? In a word, was his death foreshadowed and its true significance pre-intimated by the bloody offerings enjoined in this Hebrew system?Argumentatively, it would seem that these great questions are decided forever by the following considerations:1. If the bloody sacrifices of this ancient system do not set forth the atoning death of Christ, they mean nothing; this, or nothing at all.2. The writer to the Hebrew Christians testifies that they mean this. To give the proof of this statement in full would repeat entire the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters of this epistle. It would be idle to say that this writer does not refer to the sacrificial system of ancient Israel; equally idle to claim that he does not speak of the bloody death of Christ; more than idle to deny that in his view that old system sought to illustrate this new one—those bloody scenes were foreshadowing pre-intimations of Christ’s death; that those priests were precursors of this greater High Priest; that the blood which Aaron bore once a year into the most holy place meant neither more nor less than that Jesus was in his time to enter once for all into a yet more holy place with his own blood and thus achieve for us eternal redemption. Jesus “needed not daily as did those priests to offer sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people’s; for this he did once” [for all] “when he offered up himself” (Heb.7: 27).3. All the New Testament writers were Jews; men of Jewish education, men of life-long training in religious ideas based on this Hebrew sacrificial system. They never speak of the purpose or results of Christ’s death save in terms and phrases taken from this system given through Moses. Jesus never speaks of his own death save in these same words and phrases. When he speaks of “giving his life a ransom for many” (Mat.20: 28); when he said, “This is my bloodof the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat.26: 28); when his great forerunner speaks of him as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world” (Jno.1: 29);—or Peter (1 Eps.2: 24) as “bearing our sins in his own body on the tree;” or Paul (2 Cor.5: 21) as being “made a sin-offering for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” it is simply impossible to disprove the reference of these terms and phrases to the Mosaic system—impossible to give them any other sense than that which is illustrated in the bloody death of the sin-offerings and burnt-offerings of that ancient law.Thus with bands which no sophistry can sever, the Old Testament and the New are bound together, and the atonement prefigured in the former is embodied and made perfect in the latter. The almost ceaseless blood-sheddings and blood-sprinklings of the former culminate in the latter in the one great scene of death-agony and blood on Calvary. The grand idea of expiatory suffering—of the vicarious death of the innocent in place of the guilty, which ages of ceremonial sacrifice had been setting forth and working into the minds of all reverent worshipers, had prepared the way for Christ’s disciples to understand the mystery of his bloody death and to teach the Christian world in the writings of the New Testamenthowthe blood of Jesus “takes away sin.”In closing our notice of this religious system, let us revert for a moment to the fact that all its important features were so many importantsteps of progressin the manifestation of God to man. These were lessons in advance of all that had preceded on that greatest of all questions—How shall man approach his Maker, and how shall he offer acceptable worship?——That God deigned to come down and dwell with his obedient people is the precious truth which underlies all these provisions for his worship. How shall man treat this Heavenly Guest; how adjust himself to this pure and majestic Presence; with what state of heart; with what purity and cleanliness of person; with what offerings and sacrifices and of what significance?——These are the points embraced in these great lessons taught in this religious system. The perpetual inculcation ofcleanliness and of conscientious, scrupulous care; the practice of perpetual thanksgiving; but above all, the copious illustrations of the great idea of bloody sacrifice to take away sin;—these have been already named as the salient features in this system, and all (it will be noticed) arepoints of progress. Bloody sacrifices and altars appear in the worship offered by Abraham, Noah, and even Abel. But how much more fully is their true import unfolded here? Here is confession of sin on the part of the worshiper; here is the symbolic transfer of sins by imposition of hands upon the head of the victim brought out to die: here is the sprinkling of his blood all round about the altar; upon the very mercy-seat and immediately in the presence of the Holy One who sat beneath the cherubim; upon the worshipers also gathered round the bloody altar: here are the special solemnities of the great day of atonement in which the whole sacrificial system culminated—all combining their significance to unfold the great idea of the vicarious sufferings of an innocent victim in place of guilty men.

THISsystem contemplates as its ultimate end the obedience, homage, and worship due from men to God. As a prime means toward this end, it prescribes modes and forms of worship. It proposes to bring God near to men and men near to God; and for this purpose would cultivate in men the spirit of penitence and of faith—impressing them with a sense of their sins and suggesting to them how sin may be forgiven; and how, on the basis of God’s own provision for pardon, he can accept the humble, reverent worship of his people.——These fundamental ideas respecting the sinner’s acceptance with God, the system now before us sought especially to develop by means of visible symbols—these symbols constituting the very elaborate and minutely describedreligious system of the Hebrews.——This system, having long since “waxed old and vanished away” is no longer in practice, and therefore can not be useful as a rule of present duty, but is useful for the light it throws on the great and fundamental questions—How shall man—a sinner—become just before God? Is an atonement necessary? What are the fundamental ideas of “atonement”? How were they developed in the Mosaic system, and what light does this development bring to the atonement presented to view in the New Testament?

With superlative wisdom God began to give lessons on this great subject very early in the history of our race. It was wise to give such lessons long and carefully before the Great Atoning Sacrifice came in human flesh. It was also wise to give them largely by visible illustrations—by the aid of a system having so much of the external and the visible that minds not disciplined to abstract thought might see the truth and feel its power by means of sensible manifestations.

The reader will now see readily the purpose of the ensuing examination of this religious system. It is not for historic curiosity—in which case we might selectpoints amusing or strange or sensational; it is not to guide the worshiper (as Moses sought to do) in the minutest details of the system that he might make no mistake in obeying it:—but it is to gather as best we may its designed moral impression, to study its underlying assumptions, and evolve its true doctrine in regard to the great question of the sinner’s acceptance before a holy and righteous God.

Briefly and comprehensively we may classify the leading features of this system viewed externally, on this wise:

I.Its prescribed sacrifices and offerings.

II.Its stated times and seasons of worship.

III.Its sacred edifices and apparatus for worship.

IV.The religious orders—classes designated for sacred service.

I.The sacrifices and offerings of this system may be classified variously:——e. g.(1.) Bloody, or not bloody:—terms which will be readily understood. The former were slain animals, a portion of whose blood was sprinkled. The latter included offerings of flour, oil, wine,etc.——Or (2.) Some were specially required: others were voluntary or free-will offerings.——​(3.) They may be classified with reference to the times and seasons when they were to be made; some being daily, as the morning and evening sacrifice; others for the Sabbath; others for the new moons; others on occasion of the three great yearly festivals; and, among the most useful for its suggestive import, those of the great day of atonement.——​(4.) Or we might classify them under the somewhat distinctive names given them in the law, of which we find a large number. We have (a.) The generic word sacrifice [Heb.Zebah]—a word which implies slaying, taking life:——​(b.) Another quite generic term, “offering,” which is used to translate several Hebrew words, and of course with very considerable latitude of meaning:——​(c.) “Burnt-offering”—[which is the quite constant translation of theHeb.“Olah”] signifying whatgoes up upon the altarand is consumed there. The phrase “whole burnt-offering” gives according to the Hebrew, the sense ofcompleteness—the whole of the animal being burned on the altar:——​(d.) “Sin-offering”—in Hebrew, one ofthe most common words forsin—[hatta]. Paul’s use of the corresponding Greek word (2 Cor.5: 21) follows this usage of the word for sin: “God hath made him to be sin” [a sin-offering] “for us who knew no sin,”etc.:——​(e.) “Trespass offering”;—which is another of the Hebrew words for sin, offense [“asham”]:——​(f.) “Meat-offering”; some variety of food or drink other than flesh:——​(g.) “Peace-offering”—which seems closely related to the “thank-offering,” being an expression of gratitude to God; the animal sacrificed being in large part eaten socially by the offerer and his friends; also by the poor, the widow, servants,etc.:——​(h.) Wave and heave offerings—terms which refer to ceremonies of elevating or waving certain parts of the sacrifice.

(5.) A much more important distinction in the Mosaic sacrifices lies between those which wereexpiatoryand those which were not specially so, the former class being slain animals whose fat at least was burned on the altar and whose blood was sprinkled in specified and various ways; the latter class having somewhat various objects, but chiefly that of expressing gratitude for blessings or joy in the God of their salvation.

Two other points in respect to sacrifices are of importance,viz.—

(a.)The choice of animals to be slain in sacrifice.

(b.) The killing itself, coupled with the use made of the blood, of the fat, and in some cases of the flesh—with the attendant ceremonies.

(a.) It should be carefully noted that animals for sacrifice were not taken up at random. It was not merely life and blood that were sought. They were not the wild, but the tame, domesticated; not the savage, flesh-eating animals, but the docile, grass-eating; not animals mostly or altogether useless to man, but precisely those which were most useful; not animals of the sort nobody loves or cares for, but those most loved and cared for, between whom and the human family there often arises a special intimacy and affection. In a word they were the representatives of utility, docility, and innocence. The ox, patient of toil, in his early years invaluable for food; the goat, useful for flesh and milk; the lamb—the symbol of affection, attachment,innocence:—these three classes of animals formed the staple material for bloody sacrifice. [Of birds, the turtle-dove and young pigeon, being less expensive, were permitted to the poor. As naturally representing innocence and loveliness, they are quite of the same class].——It sometimes escapes notice that the Orientals brought these animals much nearer to their hearts and homes than our Western notions and habits know of. We forget that not infrequently to this day they live under the same roof along with sons and daughters. The prophet Nathan in that touching verse about the “one little ewe lamb” (2 Sam.12: 3) drew not from his imagination but from Oriental life. “The poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb which he had bought and nourished up, and it grew up together with him and with his children: it did eat of his own meat” [food] “and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom, and was to him as his daughter.”——Moreover, the Hebrew might not select for sacrifice the deformed, the torn, the lame, the sickly; but evermore, the unblemished, the perfect—those specially lovable and choice pets around which the hearts of the household, young and old, were wont to cling: of these must the worshiper take for the altar.

Let us think of the scene at that altar of sacrifice. The place is in the front court of the tabernacle, whose inner sanctuary was made glorious with the visible presence of Jehovah. The one all-engrossing thought associated with this sacred spot, was—God is here. I go up to meet God. Before his face I bring this prescribed offering. It is one of my sweet lambs of the flock, or as the case may be, a young bullock of one or two years old. I know that the animal must die there. Either in my own person or through the priest, acting in my behalf, I am to lay my hand on the head of the victim and thus confess my sin. From that moment the innocent lamb takes my place and stands before the executioner, as if guilty of capital crime. The sight and the smell of blood; the struggle and the recoil; the outcry of horror—the only awful, horrible sound uttered by these animals—go to make up a scene which, once witnessed, can never be forgotten. We of this age might see it in some of its aspects if we would; we rarely do. We should find it, not in our worshiping sanctuariesbut in the secluded slaughter-house whither no one is ever attracted—whither none ever go save those who must. Think of the blood, the death-groans, the struggle, the whole dying scene. Is there any meaning in it? Is there any thing in it appropriate to the sanctuary of God and to his solemn worship?

The transaction is by no means so mysterious as it might be. It would be profoundly mysterious were it not that man is a sinner before the holy law of God—a sinner under condemnation of death. It would be utterly inexplicable if there were not in nature, in thought, in fact, something which we may call substitution, to which we give the name vicarious—something which involves, not indeed an entire exchange of one personality for another, but something which approximates toward it. One being suffers in the place and stead of another. An innocent being steps into the place of a guilty one and takes upon himself the guilty man’s doom. We need not pause here to hunt up analogies of this sort in human life; suffice it that God signifies by these striking symbols that he has found a place for this principle in his great scheme for the pardon of sinners condemned to death by his holy law, and that he saw fit to fill this Hebrew religious system absolutely full of illustrative typical representations of this stupendous fact. The elementary facts in this system of sacrifices, considered as illustrating the scheme of pardon are few and simple; thus—

(a.) Man has sinned against God and stands condemned by his law to eternal death.

(b.) God loves this sinning man and longs to save him—but must not break down his law.——So he finds a Lamb for a sacrifice whose death for sinners will abundantly sustain the majesty of law, and proceeds thereupon to “lay on him the iniquity of us all.” This done, it only remains that the sinner repent of his sin, and humbly, thankfully accept the death of this Lamb of sacrifice in place of his own eternal death.——These few and simple elements comprise substantially the essence of this wonderful system.

This system seeks a symbolic representation in these bloody sacrifices. The offerer brings forward his lamb of the flock; he lays his hand upon that innocent head and confesses there his sin: he in a sort transfers hisown personality—or more precisely, his own sin and guilt, to that animal victim; he stands by and witnesses the death-scene with a deepened sense that he deserves a death far worse than that himself. But when the fires from heaven descend and consume his offering, and he finds himself not only spared but blessed of God and bidden to go in peace, he gets a sense unknown before, of the peace and joy of pardoned sin. The blood sprinkled upon and around the altar and toward the most holy place and upon himself becomes a memorial of what his salvation cost; the pardon himself receives testifies how much it is worth, “speaking better things than the blood of Abel.”

If any special argument should seem called for to prove that this is the true significance of these bloody sacrifices, we shall come to it with better preparation after the main points of the system are more fully before us.

As an illustrative system, there is yet one other point of great significance,viz.that in many of these sacrificesa portion of the animal was eatenby the offerer and by his family and friends. This great amount of animal flesh was not all consumed by the fires of the altar. Yet we are not to suppose that public economy—the saving of so much valuable human food—was the prime consideration. We must go deeper than this. Nor was it that the Lord would cultivate the social nature of his worshiping people, and therefore provided these materials for agreeable social feasting. We must go very much deeper than even this. This feasting upon the flesh of the slain animal is in germ what the gospel gives us in full development,viz.that the same Lamb of Calvary who “washed us from our sins in his own blood” “gave us his flesh to eat” as “the bread of life.” The memorial supper carries in it the same double symbol—bloodandbread—the blood looking toward pardon; the bread toward sustenance for the spiritual life. So the pious Israelite might on the one hand see the blood of his sacrifice gurgling forth, caught, sprinkled toward the mercy-seat and upon his own person; and on the other hand, might take of the flesh of his slain lamb and sit down, not merely in peace but in joyful thanksgiving that death brings life—that sacrificial blood brings after it the new life of the redeemed, restored sinner, and sustenancetherefor from the very animal whose body and blood became symbols of his pardon.

Besides these sacrifices of a general character, the system provided others of a special and personal character for individuals under peculiar circumstances,e. g.for the case of vows; of purification from ceremonial uncleanness; for the restored leper,etc.Of these I need say only that they suggest the fitness of recognizing God’s hand every-where, in all possible events and under all the various dispensations of providence. These events are never barren of significance. It behooves us to study their meaning and adjust ourselves to God’s hand with resignation and with gratitude—with a sense of our unworthiness and of God’s great mercy.——The detailed methods of that ancient system have at this day no vital interest.

Scarcely of the nature of sacrifice, yet intensifying the idea of ceremonial uncleanness was the burning of the “red heifer”—the gathering up of her ashes and the preparation from them of “the water of separation”—a purification from sin in the ceremonial sense.Num.19 gives the details, specifying the sorts of uncleanness which this purifying water washed away. The writer to the Hebrews (9: 13, 14) gave the great moral inference thus: “For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unto God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God”?

II.STATEDTIMESANDSEASONSOFWORSHIP.

1.The Morning and Evening Sacrifice.

Two lambs of one year were offered every day; the one in the morning and the other at evening [Heb.“between the evenings”]; burnt offerings, consumed wholly upon the altar. They were accompanied with a small portion of flour, oil, and wine. This was a perpetual ordinance, never to be omitted. The original institution (Ex.29: 38–46) is accompanied with God’s very gracious promise to meet with his people and dwellamong them, sanctifying the place of this meeting by his glory. Nothing could suggest more pertinently and tenderly that God loves to see the face of his worshiping people and to meet them as each day opens in the morning and as it closes with the setting sun. Let this communion between God and his sons and daughters never be in any wise interrupted.——The usage seems to have led pious Jews in later times to adopt these hours for their morning and evening prayer, as we may see in the case of Daniel (9: 21), and in the New Testament history.——The ritual for these sacrifices is given in detail (Num.28: 3–8).

2.The Sacrifices for the Sabbath.

Each Sabbath had an extra service in addition to the continual morning and evening sacrifice—two lambs of the first year without spot; with the attendant meat and drink-offerings (Num.29: 9, 10).

3.The sacrifices at each new moonwere on a larger scale than either of the preceding,viz.two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs for the burnt-offering; one kid of goats for the sin-offering. As the Hebrew months were lunar (not solar), these sacrifices upon the appearance of the new moon inaugurated the successive months. It was probably for this reason that they were announced with blowing of trumpets (Num.10: 10). The calendar was thus regulated—a matter of special importance, since it fixed the time of their three great religious festivals as also the great day of atonement.

4.The Three Great Religious Festivals.

Of these the first in order (the Passover) has been considered already.

The next in order of time was thePentecost—otherwise called “the feast of weeks, of the first-fruits of wheat-harvest” (Ex.34: 22); “the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labors which thou hast sown in the field” (Ex.23: 16); also “the day of first-fruits” (Num.28: 26). The other passages which treat of it areLev.23: 15–21 andDeut.16: 9–12)——The namePentecostis not from the Hebrew but from the Greek, meaning thefiftiethday,i. e.after the great Sabbath, which fell during the Passover week (Lev.23: 15, 16).——On the first day after that Sabbath, the first-fruits of their barley harvest were brought before the Lord. From that point seven full weeks were numbered, and on the fiftieth day the feast of Pentecost occurred.

This festival, unlike the other two in duration, was of one day only—at least this is plainly assumed: “Inthe dayof the first-fruits” (Num.28: 26), also inLev.23: 21, only one day is spoken of.——It was specially a day of thanksgiving for the first-fruits of the wheat harvest. Two loaves made of the new wheat flour were waved before the Lord on this hallowed day.——The reference (inDeut.16: 10–12) gives prominence to the social and joyful character of the day. “Thou shalt keep the feast unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a free-will offering of thy hand which thou shalt give according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou and thy son and thy daughter, and thy man-servant and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, the fatherless and the widow that are among you.”

As a feast of joyful thanksgiving over the first-fruits of their principal grain harvest, it was eminently the appropriate occasion for the Pentecostal scene of the first great Christian ingathering. How suggestive of the gratitude due to God for the shedding forth of the Holy Ghost and the glorious fruitage from this gospel power!

Some have supposed (not without reason) that the Hebrew Pentecost commemorated the completion of the giving of the laws by the hand of Moses, which they suppose was brought within fifty days from the first Passover. Of this however the books of Moses affirm nothing explicitly.

The third and last of the three great festivals was “theFeast of Tabernacles,” otherwise called “the feast of ingathering at the end of the year when thou hast gathered in thy labors out of the field” (Ex.23: 16).——The speciality of this feast was the dwelling in booths or tabernacles, made of “boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees and the boughs of thick trees and willows of the brook” (Lev.23: 40). This feastbegan on the fourteenth day of the seventh month and continued during eight days, the first and the last being days of special solemnity. It had a double purpose,viz.to commemorate the forty years wandering of the fathers in the wilderness, dwelling in tents; and to give thanks to God for the last harvests of the year—the fruits of the olive and the grape—last in order—being now all gathered in.

Thus none of these three great feasts omitted the element of thanksgiving for the fruits of the season, the first barley sheaves being brought with grateful thanks before the Lord during the Passover; the first-fruits of the wheat harvest giving a special thanksgiving character to the Feast of Pentecost; and the latest fruits, the olive and the grape, reminding them of God’s crowning blessing upon the labors of the year at the Feast of Tabernacles. What a beautiful training into the service of thanksgiving for the fruits of the earth!

This last of the festivals was pre-eminently one of joyful festivity, and of loud and high praises to the Lord, their Great Benefactor. The Jews have a saying—that “whoever has not seen the rejoicing of the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles has never seen a day of joy in his life.”

The principal passages of Moses that treat of it areEx.23: 16, and 34: 22, andLev.23: 34–43, andNum.29: 12–40, andDeut.16: 13–15.

The celebration of this feast in the age of Nehemiah (8: 14–18) the reader should not fail to notice. At this time the law was read daily in the hearing of the people. The law of Moses provided for this public reading on each seventh,i. e.the Sabbatic year, during the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut.31: 10–13).

The striking allusion (Jn.7: 37) to the scenes on the last great day of the feast will be readily recalled. A custom unknown to the law of Moses had then come into practice—that of going in vast procession to the fountain of Siloam for water, and bearing it with joyful acclaim to the temple to pour it out there before the Lord. While this procession was passing, Jesus lifted up his voice and cried—“If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” May we suppose that possibly the words of Isaiah were before him:—“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters”—to these waters of life which I give for the life of the world!

Upon these three great festivals all the males of Israel were required to appear before the Lord at the one place of his choice—the tabernacle or the temple—ultimately in Jerusalem “whither the tribes go up.” The women of Israel manifestly went when they chose and could. According to Oriental usage they traveled in groups—little caravans—several adjacent families, or as the case might be by households, the patriarch with his children and children’s children together, moving on with many a song of social cheer and grateful praise till at length they lifted up their eyes to the hills of the goodly city. The so-called “songs of degrees” (Ps.120–134)—more strictly songs of the stages or upgoings—are specimens of this free and outflowing worship of the traveling companies, bound upward to Jerusalem. The allusion in Luke 2: 41–45, is pleasant to think of.

We must not overlook the fact that the Lord relieved their minds of all fear lest their defenseless homes might be assailed and robbed and perhaps their wives and little ones murdered by foreign enemies while all their able-bodied men were away from their homes in Jerusalem. “Neither shall any man desire thy land when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year” (Ex.34: 24). None but a God of universal providence and omnipotent resources could safely make such a promise. In their own Jehovah they might safely trust.

Of sacred seasons, the most peculiar and striking yet remains to be noticed,viz.the great day of atonement. This was one day only; was not a feast day but afast—a day “in which ye shallafflict your souls,”i. e.subject yourselves to the discomforts and pains of entire abstinence from food for the whole day, “from even to even.” Whoever would not afflict his soul on this day must be “cut off from his people.” All labor was forbidden under the same penalty. The passagesLev.23: 26–32 andNum.29: 7–11 give these general features of the institution. Only inLev.16 do we find a full description. In this chapter it appears that the original appointment of this day stands connected with the saddeath of Nadab and Abihu, the two eldest sons of Aaron for their rash unauthorized offering of strange fire before the Lord (Lev.10: 1–8). That awful scene of death suggested the great necessity of ceremonial purity in the priesthood and of the utmost care and self-control when they came before God. There would be sins in the priesthood and sins among the people of which they might not be aware: hence the propriety of one comprehensive, all-embracing service for atonement.

The points to be specially noted in this service are—That the High Priest washed himself clean; put on white linen garments, symbolic of purity, and then made a special offering for his own sins and for the sin of all the people. The latter had this striking peculiarity—that two goats were taken for a sin-offering, upon whom lots were cast to select one for the Lord and one for Azazel [Eng.“scape-goat”]. Another still more important peculiarity was that on this day only (never on any other) the High Priest went alone into the most holy place, bearing both the blood of the sin-offering and incense. First he bore into the most holy place the blood of a bullock as a sin-offering for himself, and sprinkled it with his finger upon the mercy-seat and in front of the mercy-seat seven times. He also bore a censer full of coals from the great altar and upon it burned incense, the smoke of which enshrouded the mercy-seat. Then the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord was slain, and the High Priest bore his blood also into the most holy place and sprinkled it there to make atonement for the whole people. No other man save the High Priest might go in at any time on pain of death.

The other goat, called in our English version “the scape-goat” was then disposed of thus: Aaron “laid both his hands upon the head of this goat and confessed 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 then sent him away by a fit man into the wilderness—the goat bearing upon himself all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.” He was then set at liberty in the wilderness (Lev.16: 20–22).——The precise meaning of the word Azazel [“scape-goat”] and the reason for usingthis name have been much disputed. Our English Bible fails to give a satisfactory translation ofv.8 where by a most obvious antithesis the sacred lot selects one of the two goats for Jehovah and the other for Azazel. Was it, as many suppose, for Satan, conceived of as “walking through those dry and desolate places, seeking rest but finding none”—to whom this goat, symbolically bearing the sins of the whole people, is sent? If so, what is implied and signified in this sending of the goat to him? I must say I am not wise on these points. If any ideas were current in that age in respect to Satan which might illustrate this transaction, they have not come down to us. It must I think suffice for us to see in these two goats for a sin-offering a sort of double figure to indicate the atonement—the first one slain in the usual way and his blood sprinkled before the mercy-seat—a solemn witness that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin: the other, supplementing the great idea of atonement by a most vivid representation ofsins borne away—forever away, to be known and remembered no more. The sins of the whole people were transferred to the head of this second goat; he takes them away into the unknown desolate wilderness, never to return. Symbolically, the sins are gone forever!——The prophet Micah (7: 19) gives a turn to the same thought only slightly different—“Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” Jeremiah also (31: 34)—“I will remember their sins no more.” No symbol could give more precisely, more unequivocally, more forcibly, the great idea oftaking away sins. You see them transferred to this second goat by means of hands imposed and formal declaration, “putting them[the sins]upon the head of the goat”; and then he is driven away, bearing his burden into an unknown, desolate land, never to be heard from again!——The sacrifice of the first goat for a sin-offering and the sprinkling of his blood before the sacred Presence of Jehovah had the usual significance of an innocent animal substituted for the guilty sinner—the former dying that the latter might not die—thus showinghowGod could safely forgive sin. These two goats therefore represent respectively the two great ideas which make up the atonement—the first signifyingby what meansGod can testify duly against sin while yet he forgives the sinner; and the second certifying that—the innocent victim having been substituted for the sinner and slain in his stead—God does trulytake sins forever away. In briefest phrase these coupled ideas stand out before us in the New Testament: “Behold the Lamb of God whotaketh awaythe sin of the world” (John 1: 29).

III.Sacred Edifices and Apparatus.

A system of worship which included altars and sacrifices, and much more, one which had the ark of the covenant and the visible manifestation of Jehovah’s presence, demanded anedificefor its center and home. It was essential to the proper reverence that this edifice should provide a place of seclusion as well as of safe-keeping for its most sacred things.——Moreover, so long as the people were unsettled—subject to removal any day—this structure must be movable, like the tents of all nomadic people. Hence the first structure was theTabernacleorSacred Tent.——A general idea of it may be presented to the reader thus:—Conceive of an inclosed court, one hundred cubits long by fifty wide [the cubit being eighteen inches]; this inclosure being made by hanging curtains of linen five cubits high, suspended from horizontal rods which were supported by posts. The entrance to this inclosure was always at its eastern end, and the eastern section, forming the outer or first court, was twenty cubits in depth, cut off from the rest of the inclosed area by curtains.——In the center of the rear portion stood the sacred tent proper, thirty cubits in length from east to west, and ten cubits in width. This also was in two principal apartments, the eastern being twenty cubits by ten, known as “the holy place”; the western, “the most holy place,” or the “Holy of holies,” being ten cubits square. The perpendicular walls of this sacred tent were of boards set on end, ten cubits high, so supported as to be readily set up, taken down, and transported. The covering was four-fold, of cloth and skins, and was manifestly arranged like the roof of a house, the covering passing over a ridge-pole in the center. Such briefly was this sacred structure.

Of its furniture, the important articles were as follows:

(a.) In the open court in front of the tabernacle proper, were the great altar of burnt-offering and a laver—an immense reservoir or tank for water. (b.) In the holy place—the first section of the sacred tent—stood the altar of incense; the table of shew-bread; and the golden candlestick.——​(c.) In the most holy place, enshrouded in the thick darkness, stood the ark of the covenant, containing originally the two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written, the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded. Upon the lid of this ark, known as “the mercy-seat,” there reposed the refulgence of the Divine Presence—a visible brightness and glory, called by the later Jews “the shechinah”—itself overshadowed by the wings of cherubic figures which rested upon either end of the ark.

The whole structure might be readily taken down and transported from place to place with all its furniture; parties being designated for this service.

InNum.10: 35, 36 we have the words customarily used by Moses as a form of prayer, accompanying the order for striking and pitching tents: “When the ark set forward Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let those that hate thee flee before thee: and when it rested he said, Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of Israel.”

Of the temple built by Solomon I need not say more than this—that its plan was essentially that of the tabernacle, differing in the following points: Its dimensions were twice as great; and it was built for a permanent, immovable edifice, of the most substantial and costly materials.

IV.The Sacred Orders.

The tribe of Levi was chosen and set apart for the services of worship and of religious instruction. Out of this tribe the family of Aaron was selected for the priesthood. The most sacred services devolved upon the priests, the High Priest only being permitted to enter the most holy place once a year, as we have seen. The Levites performed subordinate services, supplying the requisite wood and water for so vast a system ofsacrifices and offerings, and serving also in the transportation of the sacred tent and its furniture. At a later period the service of song in the house of the Lord was in their hands.

The law provided a full ritual for the induction of the High Priest into his office and for the consecration of all the priests to their work. Their robes of office, their various dress on all occasions, are detailed with great minuteness.——The law also provided specially for their subsistence. A portion of various sacrifices fell to them as their perquisite. The great expense of the entire ritual service, including the cost of the animals offered for the people at large; the support of the priests, and to some extent of the Levites, was provided for by law in the tithes; the poll-tax of a half-shekel from every man of Israel; and from various other sources.

In the ultimate settlement in Canaan, forty-eight cities with their suburbs were given to the Levites. They were thus distributed among the entire population of Canaan both east and west of the Jordan, and if true to their mission would fill a very important sphere in both the civil and the religious life of the nation. Of their civil and judicial duties I have spoken already. They were also teachers of religion.——Their suburban territory would afford them a small amount of land for cultivation; but the divine plan was that they who served at the altar should live from the altar. While religious services were conscientiously performed and the religious spirit was in due strength, both priests and Levites would be comfortably fed and clad. Idolatry and religious declension would cut their supplies short.

The careful reader of those portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers which give the plan of the tabernacle, the ritual of the priests and Levites and the minute detail of numerous sacrifices and offerings and purifications, will not need the suggestion that in many respects the interest and the value of these details have mostly passed away. Of prime importance in that age; vital to the proper construction of the tabernacle; vital to the due consecration of priest and Levite and to their instruction in duty; entirely essential to the ends of a ritual system which was to be the religiouslaw of a great people—they were all in place then and were indispensable; but in most respects this interest and value have long since ceased. Whereas in the time of Moses not one word of this minute detail was superfluous, not one point could be safely omitted; now, it may be passed over with only brief notice. Few will care to read all its particulars.

Yet two points deserve remark:

1. That this very minuteness of detail is the strongest evidence of the genuineness and antiquity of these books. They were certainly written at the time of the events they record. They never could have been gotten up in any age subsequent to the events. The specifications for the tabernacle and for all its furniture had a purpose then; but could have had no purpose to justify such minuteness after the construction was finished. It would be the supremest folly to forge such documents ages after the events had passed. No man in his senses ever attempts such a forgery. Men never submit to such labor without an object; and the case precludes the possibility of any objectafterthe tent was built and after the ritual was fully understood and wrought into established usage.

2. While these minute details neither require nor reward particular investigation in our day, yet taken in wholethey are pregnant with great moral lessons for all time.

(1.) There was a perpetual inculcation of cleanliness, external purity; and the most careful avoidance of whatever was defiling. The ceremonial washings and cleansings, the removal from the camp, or as the case may be, the seclusion from the court of the tabernacle for a term of purification, occur frequently. By a natural law of mind, sin is associated with uncleanness; crime is defiling. Hence, with almost infinite pains the Lord was impressing upon his people the great idea that their God who deigned to dwell among them “was of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.” He could not abide with them save as they kept themselves clean and pure.

(2.) On every hand we note the most solemn inculcation of care, thoughtfulness, consideration, especially in their religious worship, and the most impressive warnings against a rash and inconsiderate spirit. Hencewine was forbidden to the priests when about to go to the altar (Lev.10: 8–11). It seemed that God could have no patience with the thoughtless and irreverent. At whatever cost, the fear of the Lord must be impressed upon the people—else all effort for their religious culture would be vain.

(3.) Their great thanksgiving festivals; their numerous thank-offerings; their vows; their required tithes—all concur in this one idea—the recognition of God as the Giver of all blessings, their great personal and national Benefactor. No pains was spared to impress and enforce this great truth. The long course of God’s redeeming mercies toward their nation; the rescue from Egyptian bondage; the miraculous supplies of bread and water forty years in the desert; the gift of the goodly land of Canaan;—these were the staple facts of their history which God sought to engrave upon the national heart and to work into the living thought of the thousands of Israel. By every hopeful appliance their religious system was shaped to keep alive and intensify these feelings.

(4.) More important than all the rest were the great moral lessons set forthby the perpetual presence of atoning blood. The Israelites were never allowed to forget that they were sinners, and that their approach to God must always be through the blood of atonement. No day might begin, no day might close, without the shedding of animal blood—the sacrifice of an innocent animal’s life. The great days were great because of the multiplication of these sacrifices—evermore distinguished and memorable for the rivers of blood that flowed; for the struggles and throes of the dying; for the sprinkling of blood,blood,BLOOD, all round about the hallowed altar, toward the unseen Presence within the most holy place, and upon the assembled hosts of Israel.——It may cost us a few moments’ effort to reproduce those scenes before our mind’s eye so as to take in their full significance; but this effort to comprehend that ancient ritual would bring its reward. What a demonstration it would be in proof that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission”! that God never looks propitiously on guilty sinners save through the bleeding sacrifice of his crucified Son! As bearing upon the great questions—thefactand thenatureof the atonement—this bloody ritual has a most vital and impressive significance. No questions of deeper and more vital import can ever arise than such as these: Was the death of Christ expiatory? Was his blood shed for the sins of men? Did he lay down his life, an innocent victim, that the guilty sinners who place their hands upon his sacred head and there confess their sins may live and never die? In a word, was his death foreshadowed and its true significance pre-intimated by the bloody offerings enjoined in this Hebrew system?

Argumentatively, it would seem that these great questions are decided forever by the following considerations:

1. If the bloody sacrifices of this ancient system do not set forth the atoning death of Christ, they mean nothing; this, or nothing at all.

2. The writer to the Hebrew Christians testifies that they mean this. To give the proof of this statement in full would repeat entire the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters of this epistle. It would be idle to say that this writer does not refer to the sacrificial system of ancient Israel; equally idle to claim that he does not speak of the bloody death of Christ; more than idle to deny that in his view that old system sought to illustrate this new one—those bloody scenes were foreshadowing pre-intimations of Christ’s death; that those priests were precursors of this greater High Priest; that the blood which Aaron bore once a year into the most holy place meant neither more nor less than that Jesus was in his time to enter once for all into a yet more holy place with his own blood and thus achieve for us eternal redemption. Jesus “needed not daily as did those priests to offer sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people’s; for this he did once” [for all] “when he offered up himself” (Heb.7: 27).

3. All the New Testament writers were Jews; men of Jewish education, men of life-long training in religious ideas based on this Hebrew sacrificial system. They never speak of the purpose or results of Christ’s death save in terms and phrases taken from this system given through Moses. Jesus never speaks of his own death save in these same words and phrases. When he speaks of “giving his life a ransom for many” (Mat.20: 28); when he said, “This is my bloodof the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat.26: 28); when his great forerunner speaks of him as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world” (Jno.1: 29);—or Peter (1 Eps.2: 24) as “bearing our sins in his own body on the tree;” or Paul (2 Cor.5: 21) as being “made a sin-offering for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” it is simply impossible to disprove the reference of these terms and phrases to the Mosaic system—impossible to give them any other sense than that which is illustrated in the bloody death of the sin-offerings and burnt-offerings of that ancient law.

Thus with bands which no sophistry can sever, the Old Testament and the New are bound together, and the atonement prefigured in the former is embodied and made perfect in the latter. The almost ceaseless blood-sheddings and blood-sprinklings of the former culminate in the latter in the one great scene of death-agony and blood on Calvary. The grand idea of expiatory suffering—of the vicarious death of the innocent in place of the guilty, which ages of ceremonial sacrifice had been setting forth and working into the minds of all reverent worshipers, had prepared the way for Christ’s disciples to understand the mystery of his bloody death and to teach the Christian world in the writings of the New Testamenthowthe blood of Jesus “takes away sin.”

In closing our notice of this religious system, let us revert for a moment to the fact that all its important features were so many importantsteps of progressin the manifestation of God to man. These were lessons in advance of all that had preceded on that greatest of all questions—How shall man approach his Maker, and how shall he offer acceptable worship?——That God deigned to come down and dwell with his obedient people is the precious truth which underlies all these provisions for his worship. How shall man treat this Heavenly Guest; how adjust himself to this pure and majestic Presence; with what state of heart; with what purity and cleanliness of person; with what offerings and sacrifices and of what significance?——These are the points embraced in these great lessons taught in this religious system. The perpetual inculcation ofcleanliness and of conscientious, scrupulous care; the practice of perpetual thanksgiving; but above all, the copious illustrations of the great idea of bloody sacrifice to take away sin;—these have been already named as the salient features in this system, and all (it will be noticed) arepoints of progress. Bloody sacrifices and altars appear in the worship offered by Abraham, Noah, and even Abel. But how much more fully is their true import unfolded here? Here is confession of sin on the part of the worshiper; here is the symbolic transfer of sins by imposition of hands upon the head of the victim brought out to die: here is the sprinkling of his blood all round about the altar; upon the very mercy-seat and immediately in the presence of the Holy One who sat beneath the cherubim; upon the worshipers also gathered round the bloody altar: here are the special solemnities of the great day of atonement in which the whole sacrificial system culminated—all combining their significance to unfold the great idea of the vicarious sufferings of an innocent victim in place of guilty men.

Back to IndexNext