Companion to the Bible Part 38

Especially will he be careful that no obscure or doubtful pa.s.sage of Scripture be allowed to contradict the plain teachings of inspiration.

The practical study of the Bible, that is, the study of it as "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," resolves itself in a great measure into the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, especially the comparison of _doctrinal parallelisms_. All that the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation concerning G.o.d's being and attributes, his providential government over man, the person and offices of Christ and the way of salvation through him, and the final destiny of the righteous and the wicked, should be diligently compared, that from the whole we may gather a full and well-proportioned system of faith and practice as it is contained in the pages of inspiration. So far as we fail to do this our view of divine truth is defective and disproportioned. The solemn warning in respect to the last book of revelation applies with equal force to revelation as a whole: "If any man shall add unto these things, G.o.d shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, G.o.d shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book." Rev.

22:18, 19.

CHAPTER x.x.xVII.

SCRIPTURAL TYPES.

1. The _material world_ is full of _a.n.a.logies_ adapted to the ill.u.s.tration 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 G.o.d feeds and the lilies which G.o.d 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 ill.u.s.trations; as well it may, since the G.o.d of nature is also the G.o.d of revelation. _The world of secular activity_ abounds in like a.n.a.logies, on which another cla.s.s 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.

a.n.a.logies like these, however, do not properly const.i.tute _types_. Types rest on a foundation of a.n.a.logy, but do not consist in a.n.a.logy alone.

2. In the history of G.o.d'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 const.i.tutes, in the plan of G.o.d, 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 const.i.tute, 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 G.o.d to adumbrate something higher in the future_, which is called the _ant.i.type_. 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 ant.i.type, and not its substance. Thus the paschal lamb was a type of Christ, though there is infinitely more in the ant.i.type than in the type. (2.) The symbol must be _of divine appointment_, and as such, designed by G.o.d to represent the ant.i.type. We must carefully remember, however, that, from the very nature of the case, the divine intention cannot be clearly announced when the type is inst.i.tuted. The paschal lamb typified "the Lamb of G.o.d, which taketh away the sin of the world;" but it was not till centuries after the inst.i.tution of the pa.s.sover that G.o.d began to intimate by the prophets the approaching sacrifice of the great Ant.i.type (Isa. chap. 53; Zech. 13:7), and the full import of the type was revealed only when the sacrifice of "Christ our pa.s.sover" had been accomplished on Calvary. (3.) Since the type is "a shadow of good things to come," it follows that the ant.i.type 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 pa.s.sages; 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 inst.i.tution, looks forward to the distant future.

The high reality which it foreshadows may be intimated by the prophets "as in a gla.s.s darkly," but the appearance of the ant.i.type can alone furnish a full explanation of its meaning.

The types of the Old Testament have been variously cla.s.sified. We propose to consider them under the two divisions of _historical_ and _ritual_ types.

I. HISTORICAL TYPES.

4. The extravagance of a cla.s.s 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 ant.i.type. It is veritable history, valid for the men of its own day, fulfilling its office in the plan of G.o.d'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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d appointed it to foreshadow that of the Messiah. David's heads.h.i.+p adumbrated the higher heads.h.i.+p of the Redeemer; his conflicts with the enemies of G.o.d'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 heads.h.i.+p 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 leaders.h.i.+p 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 pa.s.sage in the book of Deuteronomy, from which we may legitimately infer that it was truly typical of Christ. When G.o.d had addressed the people directly from the midst of the cloud and fire on Sinai, unable to endure this mode of communication between G.o.d and man, they besought G.o.d that he would henceforth address them through the ministry of Moses: "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not G.o.d speak with us, lest we die."

Exod. 20:19. With reference to this request, G.o.d 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 pa.s.s, 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 G.o.d's people in a _typical_ way through the succession of prophets, who spake in G.o.d'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 Ant.i.type.

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 G.o.d's church, were yet so ordered by G.o.d 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 cla.s.s of _ritual_ types. But in the record of his intercourse with Abraham there is an acc.u.mulation of historic circ.u.mstances arranged by G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 t.i.thes 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 G.o.d; abideth a priest continually." Heb. 7:3. In the interpretation of this difficult pa.s.sage, 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 G.o.d himself; for how could the Son of G.o.d be "made like unto the Son of G.o.d?" 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 G.o.d, without predecessors or successors. The words that follow--"having neither beginning of days nor end of life: but made like unto the Son of G.o.d; 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 G.o.d'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 Ant.i.type. 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 G.o.d'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 a.n.a.logies for the ill.u.s.tration 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sed 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; G.o.d'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 ill.u.s.trate the course of Christian experience, and who shall say that G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 ant.i.type, 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 Ant.i.type, but was in contradiction with it. So is it also with the historical types that have been under consideration. They represent the ant.i.type 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 G.o.d_ 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's visible dwelling-place, where he manifested himself to his people, and received their wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sing 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 const.i.tuted the front, having only a vail suspended from five pillars of s.h.i.+ttim-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 G.o.d's visible dwelling-place.

But the palace of a king has its _audience-rooms_, where he receives his subjects and attends to their pet.i.tions. 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 G.o.d. 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 s.h.i.+ttim-wood of our version), bra.s.s being allowed only in the external appointments. This obviously represented the glory and excellence of G.o.d's service, and the corresponding obligation on the part of the wors.h.i.+ppers to give to G.o.d 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, G.o.d dwelt between the cherubim that overshadowed the mercy-seat. The rule of gradation was this: the nearer to G.o.d's dwelling-place the greater the glory; and hence, as shadowing forth this glory, the more precious the materials. The mercy-seat, where G.o.d 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 s.h.i.+ttim-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 bra.s.s.

9. Pa.s.sing 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d is the fountain of law, and that they who approach him must come in the spirit of true obedience.

That G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d.

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 G.o.d out of the angel's hand." Rev. 8:3, 4. This pa.s.sage 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 unb.l.o.o.d.y 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d; but it is a service which typically shadows forth the provision which G.o.d makes for man's wants as a fallen being--light for his darkened understanding, life for his spiritual nature dead in trespa.s.ses and sins, and reconciliation to G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage] 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 G.o.d 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 ant.i.type 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 Ant.i.type 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 repet.i.tion. 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 G.o.d 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 chastis.e.m.e.nt 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d" (1 Pet. 3:18); He has redeemed us to G.o.d 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).