the acceptance of our persons for the Redeemer's sake. (Exod. xxxiv. 1-28.) When Moses returned from this second sojourn of forty days on the summit of the mount, he found no idol among the people; the chastisement which they had suffered had produced its designed effect, and the Israelites had remained firm in their allegiance to their Divine King. On this occasion, it was observed that the skin of Moses' face shone with a remarkable splendour, which was, doubtless, a reflex of the Divine glory. (Exod. xxxiv. 29-35.) So great, indeed, was the lustre of his countenance that Aaron and the people were at first afraid to approach him; but, at length, encouraged by his summons, they came so near as to receive from him the instructions with which he had been charged. "And till [or rather, and when] Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face" (ver. 33.), which he laid aside whenever he went in before the Lord, to speak with Him, and resumed on his return. (Exod. xxxiv.) This veil was used, according to a learned Jewish expositor (Dr. Kalisch), "evidently as a symbol of deep and undivided reflection, such as behoved him who had been deemed worthy to experience the awful splendour of the Almighty." But although, as might have been the case, the veil served this purpose, we have the warrant of inspired authority for saying that it also served another end still higher. We read in 2 Cor. iii. 13., that "Moses. . . put a veil over his face that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished;" or, as Dean Alford translates the passage," Moses placed a veil on his face, in order that the sons of Israel might not look on the termination of the transitory." "Moses spoke to them," adds the same expositor, "without the veil, with his face shining and glorified; when he had done speaking, he placed the veil on his face; and that, not because they were afraid to look on him, but that they might not look on to the end, or the fading of that transitory glory; that they might only see it as long as it was the credential of his ministry, and then it might be withdrawn from their eyes. . . . The narrative in Exodus implies that the brightness of Moses' face had place, not on that one occasion only, but throughout his whole ministry between the Lord and the people. When he ceased speaking to them, he put on the veil; but whensoever he went in before the Lord to speak to Him, the veil was removed till he came out, and had spoken to the Israelites all that the Lord had commanded him, during which speaking they saw that his face shone, and after which speaking he again put on the veil. So that the veil was the symbol of concealment and transitoriness: the part revealed they might see; beyond that they could not; the ministry was a broken, interrupted one, but its end was wrapped in obscurity." After these things, Moses proceeded to recite to the people the Divine instructions which he had received concerning the structure and furniture of the Tabernacle. Bezaleel and Aholiab, who had been divinely designated and qualified for the construction of the sacred edifice, immediately entered upon the execution of the work; which was amply supported on the part of the people by voluntary contributions of materials. At length, on the first day of the second year after the departure from Egypt, the Tabernacle was reared, and Aaron and his sons were consecrated to their office. The first solemn act of Aaron was that of making an offering for himself and for the people; and on this signal occasion "there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed the burnt offering and the fat; which when all the people saw they shouted and fell on their faces." (Lev. ix. 24.) This fire was rightly esteemed sacred; and it was provided that it should be perpetually maintained, for the purpose of offering sacrifice and burning incense, distinct from all other, or common fire. Not long afterwards, two of the sons of Aaron Nadab and Abihu - wantonly presumed to burn incense with common, or 66 strange" fire; "and there went out fire from the Lord and devoured them; and they died before the Lord." Aaron submitted to this chastisement with reverent silence; and the people were forbidden by Moses to show any signs of mourning. It has been thought that this profane act was committed under the influence of intoxication; since the record of it is immediately followed by a statute prohibiting to the priests the use of wine or strong drink, whenever called to officiate in the Tabernacle. (Lev. x. 1-11.) ELEMENTARY AND GENERAL QUESTIONS. 255. How was Moses employed during his first forty days' absence on the mount? 256. What took place in the camp at that time? Relate the particulars of this transaction. 257. Describe the conduct of Moses on this occasion. How did it succeed? 258. What occurred to Moses during his second sojourn of forty days on the mount? 259. What did God in token of His pardon of the people's sin? 260. At what time was the Tabernacle complete, so that its appointed services began? 261. What was the first solemn act of Aaron after his consecration, and with what result? 262. Mention the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and their punishment. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. 263. What were possibly, according to the best interpretation, the views and intentions of the Israelites in the matter of the golden calf? 264. What were the results of this act of idolatry? 265. Repeat Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7. 266. Give the exact history of the Veil of Moses. bolical import? Read correctly Exodus xxxiv. 33. plain 2 Cor. iii. 13. What is its sym- In order to a correct understanding of the Mosaic Institutes, in themselves and in their relation to each other, we must always bear in mind the fact that the constitution which Moses was commissioned to establish was, in the full and best sense of the expression, a Theocracy, -i. e. a government in which the Lord Himself was acknowledged as King, or Head of the whole body politic, to whom all persons, together with all civil offices, acts, and institutions, were directly subordinate. This Theocracy was engrafted on the patriarchal government, as modified by the growth of families into tribes; which, however, it did not destroy or supersede. As subjects of Jehovah, the Israelites were still divided into twelve tribes; and, although one tribe was taken for the service of the sanctuary, still the number twelve was preserved by the division of the tribe of Joseph into two (Ephraim and Manasseh). The subdivision of the tribes into leading families, which had already taken place, was likewise retained. So that, in the kingdom of Jehovah, the rulers of the tribes, and the elders or heads of houses, were the natural representatives of the people, forming a lower estate of the realm. During the life of Moses, certain subordinate officers (Shoterim) also possessed such consideration that they are frequently mentioned together with the elders (heads of families) and princes (heads of tribes). (See Num. xi. 16.; Deut. xvi. 18., xx. 6-9., xxix. 10., xxxi. 28.) In addition to these natural heads and representatives of the people, Moses appointed, as we have already seen, for the better administration of justice, certain rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens, with an appeal lying from the lower of these officers to the higher, and ultimately to himsef, or, afterwards, to the High Priest. Every tribe accordingly possessed its judges, officers, heads of families, and prince or chief ruler. The judges attended to the administration of justice. The officers kept the genealogies and public archives.* To the heads of families, and the princes, belonged the general supervision of affairs, with the oversight of judges and officers.† Assembled together, these rulers formed the council, or diet, of the tribe. (Judges, xx. 12-14.) And when the rulers of all the tribes were convened they formed the great council, or general Diet, of the nation. But these parties formed only the executive power in the state; they had nothing to do with sovereign and legislative authority. For this we must look to the Theocracy; the nature of which we now proceed more particularly to consider. Jehovah was the King or Head of the state, the fundamental law of which was obedience to this invisible sovereign. The Lord, the Eternal God, maker of heaven and earth, is by no means represented in the writings of Moses as a mere national Deity, but He is distinctly set forth as the national King of the Jews. This great King may be considered as having reared His palace, and having appointed the servants and ceremonies of His court, when He gave directions respecting the Tabernacle, the priests and Levites, the sacrifices, and other religious rites. The representatives and officers of this Sovereign were those persons whom He raised up and commissioned for the declaration or execution of His will, as Moses, Joshua, the Judges, and the Prophets. Idolatry was high treason; and the peculiar honour which the Almighty put upon the Israelites, when He took them as His own people, involved the necessity of their careful separation from all idolatrous nations, a separation essential to the accomplishment of the great design of their selection, which was the preservation and propagation of true religion in the world. At the same time, not only was the civil law engrafted on the moral, but the moral law itself was incorporated in the laws of the realm. Canaan was the property of the great theocratic King, which He delivered into the possession of the Israelites, on condition that they should give Him back two-tenths. (1 Chron. xxix. 15.; Lev. xxvii. 30—38.; Num. xviii. 21, 22.; Deut. xii. 17-19., xiv. 22. 29., xxvi. 12-15.) And not only did the Lord claim to be the King of * Whence, probably, are derived certain particulars of history not found in the books of Moses. (1 Chron. iv. 21-23. 39-45., v. 10. 19 -22., vii. 20-24.) After the conquest of Canaan all these magistrates were distributed in the cities, with jurisdiction over the surrounding country. (Deut. xxv. 1-8., xix. 12., xxii. 15., xxv. 7. 9.; Judges, viii. 14., ix. 3. 6., &c., xi. 5.; 1 Sam. viii. 4., xvi. 4.) the Israelites, but He caused them as it were to elect Him to this office. (Exod. xix. 4-8. comp. Judges viii. 23.; 1 Sam. viii. 7., x. 18., xii. 1.; 1 Chron. xxix. 23.) So that the Israelites were thus, as a nation, the covenant people of Jehovah; and it was distinctly understood that national prosperity or adversity would follow, in the way of reward or punishment, upon obedience or disobedience to His declared will. "The We may here pause to notice, in the words of Dr. Kalisch, the difference between this true Theocracy and others. Israelites were not the only people who had a theocratical form of government; the Egyptian kings also pretended to rule in the name and as the representatives of the gods, and so even at present the monarchs of Persia and Thibet. But these theocracies had, and have, no influence on the character and position of the people; the monarchs assumed their presumptuous titles The only to raise themselves and to degrade their nations. heathen theocracies were, therefore, but other names for the most absolute despotism, and sources of the grossest abuse and the darkest superstition; whilst the Hebrew Theocracy had an immediate and ennobling influence upon the citizens, whom it elevated into the rank of priests, and who all enjoyed the same political and religious privileges. It consisted merely in the one elevating idea that God, invisible, omniscient, and eternal, hovered over the people; that the king* was but the first servant of the Lord; and that both the people and the king had to render account for all their deeds before His supreme tribunal. The Hebrew Theocracy was thus also widely different from a hierarchy, or government of priests, who had, constitutionally [i. e. in the Jewish constitution] no political power whatever. The tribe of Levi furnished merely the priests, not the judges and kings, nor even necessarily the prophets; it was not in the exclusive possession of the knowledge of the Law, and could not therefore acquire any dangerous spiritual ascendence: it was, on the other hand, the only tribe which obtained no landed property, and it was thus deprived of the chief means of gaining material influence. How different was all this in the Egyptian caste of priests!"† We have already glanced at the fact that the fundamental laws of this Theocratic State were declared in the Ten Commandments, which contain the principles of religious and moral duty; and that, in this instance, civil and moral laws were blended The kings, when afterwards appointed, were only the viceroys of Jehovah. This will be considered in its proper place. † Commentary on Exodus xix. 5. |