reach perfection in the parallelogram of the sanctuary. We have called five the number of free-choice, Rev. xi. On the materials of the tabernacle, see WANGEMANN, p. 7; also on the coverings, p. 8, where the relation of the hidden to the revealed, according to the law of theocratic appearance, is to be emphasized. The taste of the world presents the best and most beautiful side without; the aesthetics of the theocracy turns the most beautiful side within. For the symbolism of the three places, and of the priestly attire, we refer to the exegesis.

2. LEVITICUS.

BIBLICAL ALLEGORY, SYMBOL AND TYPE.-The theory of the figures of Holy Scripture belongs in general to the hermeneutics of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but in a special sense it belongs to an introduction to Leviticus. To avoid repetitions we refer for the general theory to this Comm. Introd. to Matt. xiii.; for the special theory to Introd. to Rev. These points will be touched upon in the exegesis of the three books. See also my Dogmatik, p. 360 f. As the symbolism of Leviticus is largely treated by many authors, we append a list of the more important works.

SPENCER: De legibus Hebræorum ritualibus earumque rationibus, Tübingen, 1732. HILLER, Die Vorbilder der Kirche des Neuen Testaments (see above). BAEHR: Die symbolik des mosaischen Kultus, 1876. BAEHR: Der salomonische Tempel, 1841. FRIEDRICH: Symbolik der mosaischen Stiftshütte, 1841. HENGSTENBERG: Beiträge zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament. THE SAME: Die Opfer der Heiligen Schrift, 1852. LISCO: Das Ceremonialgesetz des Alten Testaments. Darstellung desselben und Nachweis seiner Erfüllung im Neuen Testament, 1842. KURTZ: Das mosaische Opfer, 1842. THE SAME: Beiträge zur Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus, 1 Bd. (Die Kultus-stätte), 1851. THE SAME: History of the Old Covenant, CLARK, Edinburg. THE SAME: Der alttestamentliche Opferkultus, 1 Theil (Das Kultusgesetz), Mitau, 1862. THE SAME: Beiträge zur Symbolik des alttestamentlichen Kultus, 1859. SARTORIUS: Ueber den all- und neutestamentlichen Kultus, 1852. THE SAME: Die Bundeslade, 1857. KLIEFOTH: Die Gottesdienstordnungen in der deutschen Kirche, 1854. KARCH (Cath.): Die mosaischen Opfer als Grundlage der Bitten im Vater-Unser, 1856. KUEPFER: Das Priesterthum des Alten Bundes, 1865. WANGEMANN: Das Opfer nach der Heiligen Schrift, alten und neuen Testaments, 1866. THOLUCK: Das alte Testament im neuen Testament, 1868. BRAMESFELD: Der alttestamentliche Gottesdienst, 1864. HOFF: Die mosaischen Opfer nach ihrer sinnbildlichen und vorbildlichen Bedeutung, 1859. BACHMANN: Die Festgesetze des Pentateuch, 1858. SCHOLTZ, Die heiligen Alterthümer des Volkes Israel, 1868. SOMMER: Biblische Abhandlungen, 1846. THIERSCH: Das Verbot der Ehe innerhalb der nahen Verwandtschaft, 1869.

This part of Biblical theology is greatly in need of clear explanation to free it from the confusion which frequently attaches to it. Allegorical figures ought to be carefully distinguished from those which are typical or symbolical. We are to avoid the confusion which results from commingling the exegesis of real allegories with an allegorizing of histories that are not allegorical. Nor, to satisfy our prejudices, are we arbitrarily to allegorize history and precept, or interpret severely according to the letter unmistakable allegorical figures,—a mode of exegesis in which BAUR of Tübingen excels. (See this Comm. Introd. to Rev.) The distrust aroused by this arbitrary allegorizing has led to a long-continued misunderstanding of all really symbolical and typical forms. But even when these forms are in general rightly understood, the types may be permitted to pass away into mere symbols; that is, the classes of typical representations of the future into the classes of symbolical representations of similarity, although both sorts of representations should be carefully distinguished. As an allegory, the priest was a pre-eminent representative of his people; as a symbol, he was the expression of their longing after righteousness in perfect consecration to God; as a type, he was the forerunner of the perfect High Priest who was to come.

SACRIFICE OR TYPICAL WORSHIP.

The antecedent and basis of sacrificial worship, of the typical completion of religious consecration, is religion itself or the relation between God and man, who answers the end of

his being by self-consecration to God. The expressed will of God is therefore the foundation of sacrifices, and He manifests Himself to the offerer by His presence, deciding the place and time of sacrifice, and by His ritual of sacrifice and His word, which explains the sacrifice.

The sacrifice needs explanation because in the life of the sinner it has taken the form of a symbolic act. God, as the Omnipresent, primarily and universally demands the entire consecration of man, the sacrifice of his will, as is proved by the sacrifice of prayer, "the calves of the lips," and by the daily sacrifice of the powers of life in active service of God (Rom. xii. 1).

Man's religious nature, conscious of the imperfection of this spiritual sacrifice, has set up religious sacrifices as a sort of substitution. Therefore, from the beginning they have been only conditionally acceptable to Jehovah (Gen. i.); they had their influence on the natural development of heathenism, and in heathenism sank to the sacrifice of abomination; for this reason, when Jehovah initiated the regeneration of man, He took them as well as man himself under his care (Gen. xxii.). Hence in His first giving of the law He did not prescribe but regulated by a few words a simple sacrificial worship (Ex. xx. 24); He accompanied the sacrifice with His explanation, and gradually caused the antithesis between the external act and the idea of sacrifice to appear (1 Sam. xv. 22; Psalm li.); afterwards he proclaimed the abomination of a mere external sacrifice (Isa. lxvi.), as he had from the beginning abhorred the sacrifice of self-will (Isa. i.); but finally, with the fulfilment of all prophecy of sacrifice, in the obedience and death of Christ, He made an end of all external sacrifices (Heb. ix. 10, 14).

Sacrifice can no more be turned by man into a mere outward act than religion itself. If he does not offer to God sacrifices that are well-pleasing, he offers sacrifices of abomination, even though they may not bear the name of sacrifices in the Christian economy. The theocratic ritual of sacrifice was the legal symbolic course of instruction which was to educate men to offer to their God and Redeemer the true sacrifices of the heart as spiritual burnt-offerings and sacrifices of thanksgiving.

The immediate occasion of sacrifice is God's manifestation of Himself by revelation and personal presence, which arouses man to sacrifice. Its symbolic locality was indicated by a sign from heaven, Gen. xii. 7; xxviii. 12, or was a grove, Gen. xiii. 18, a hill (Moriah), afterwards, when established by law, the sanctuary, the tabernacle, the temple.

The temple was not merely the place for sacrifice, but primarily the dwelling-place of Jehovah, indicated by the laver in the court, by the golden lamp-stand in the Holy Place, by the cherubim and the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies. But, secondarily, it was the place for sacrifice, as was shown by the brazen altar, by the altar of incense in the Holy Place, by the mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies. Thirdly, the temple was the place where man came most closely in communion with God. In the court every priest, and so relatively every Israelite (in the peace-offerings), had his part in the sacrifice; in the Holy Place this communion with God was represented in the show-bread; and in the Holy of Holies He was granted the vision of the glory of God (the Shekinah).

The decisive act in the performance of the sacrifice was, on man's side, his approach to God (Jer. xxx. 21), to God's altar with his sacrifice; on God's side, it was the reception of the offering by fire; the divine-human union in both acts was the burden of the temple praises and of the priest's blessing.

As the temple was the holy place of sacrifice, so the festival days of sacrifice were made holy. Yet every week-day, according to the ideal, was a day of festival, over which the theocratic festivals were exalted as epochs, the higher symbolic units of time, just as all Israelite houses, from the tents of Abraham and Moses, were houses of God which were united and transfigured in the temple. The Passover was celebrated in houses, and so the principal sacrifice, the burnt offering, was offered daily, and not only on the Sabbath. The season of festivals had its three ascents, just as the temple had its three courts ascending one from the other. On the basis of the Sabbath appears the Passover in connection with the feast of unleavened bread; then the festival of weeks or Pentecost, and finally the great festival of

the seventh month, the feast of tabernacles, founded on the great day of repentance, the day of atonement. In the Sabbatic year man and nature rested, and the great year of Jubilee was a symbol of the restoration of all things. The year of Jubilee was a diminutive Eon.

THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE.

It is no more true that sacrifice was the product of the childlike conceptions of the original man, as a supposed means of obtaining the favor of God, than that it was intended by man as a means of atonement, and contained a confession of the sinner's guilt; nor is a magical effect to be ascribed to it, so that it became the source of superstition. Comp. Winer, Ueber die verschiedenen Deutungen des Opfers.

The basis of sacrifice is the use and waste of life in work and pleasure, both of which, according to the original destiny of man, should be, but are not in reality, sanctified to God. There is this consciousness in man, and external sacrifice, as a prayer and as a vow, is the confession of debt-a debt never paid.

But as the heathen, by reason of his carnal mind, changed God's symbols into myths (Rom. i. 21), so also he changed sacrifice into a pretended meritorious service, and as he had acted against nature and his myths, his sacrifices became abominable. On the contrary, theocratic sacrifice was exalted until it found its solution in the holy human life of Christ. This exaltation was accomplished by a clearer explanation of its spiritual meaning by the word of God, whilst heathen sacrifice was covered with gross misinterpretation, and given over to the corruption of demons. The first explanation of sacrifice is found in the revelation and promise which precede sacrifice; the second, in the principal of all sacrifices, the Passover-lamb, the spiritual meaning of which is plainly told (Ex. xii. 26); the third, in the distinctions and appointments of separate sacrifices in their relation to definite spiritual conditions; the last explanation, in prophecy accompanying the sacrifice.

As respects the significance of the sacrifices, we distinguish a legal, social and judicial, a symbolic, with special purpose of instruction, and a typical, prophetic significance. The legal aspect of sacrifice consists in the offerer's maintaining or restoring his legal relation to the theocratic people. This maintenance of law as respects the people by sacrifice Pharisaism charged to the acquiring of merit before God, and many in these days have attributed this heathen conception to sacrifice,

The symbolic significance of sacrifice is the chief point of worship by sacrifice. The offerer expresses by the sacrifice his obligation to render in spirit and in truth the same surrender which is represented by the animal to be sacrificed, that is, his sacrifice is a visible act representing a higher and invisible act, to wit, his confession, his vow and prayer, as the act of faith in hope with which he receives his absolution in hope (πápeσis, Rom. iii.). The typical significance of sacrifice corresponds to the general character of the Old Testament. The type is a description of that which is to come in prefigurative fundamental thought. And since the religion of Israel was a religion looking to the future, all its aspects were premonitions of its future. We distinguish typical persons, typical acts, typical customs and mental types. At the centre stand typical institutions, whose inner circle is sacrifice, and the ultimate centre the sacrifice of atonement on the great day of atonement. Mental types form the transition to oral prophecy, and often surround oral prophecy with significant expression as the calyx the bursting flower (Gal. iii. 16).

THE DESIGN OF SACRIFICE.

The design of sacrifice was its fulfilment in New Testament times. Similarly the law of worship as well as the law of the state was not abolished by being destroyed, but was elevated, exalted to the region of the Spirit.

Thus Christ, in the first place, is the High Priest (see Ep. to Hebr.), and the Temple (John ii.), yea, the mercy-seat, i2aornpov, in the Holy of Holies, brought out of the Holy of Holies, and set before all men, that all may draw near (Rom. iii., see Comm.). Every kind of sacrifice is fulfilled in Him; He is the true Passover (John i. 29; 1 Cor. v. 7), the

THE PURPOSES OF SACRIFICE AND THE VARIOUS KINDS OF SACRIFICES. 39

great burnt-offering for humanity (Eph. v. 2), the altar of incense by His intercession (John xvii.; Heb. v. 7); He is the trespass-offering (Isa. liii.) and the sin-offering (2 Cor. v. 21; Rom. viii. 3); on one side the curse (Gal. iii. 13), on the other the peace-offering in His Supper (Matt. xxvi. 26), the sanctified, sacrificial food of believers (John vi.). As He by entrance into the Holy of Holies of heaven has become the Eternal High Priest (Heb. ix. 10), so He accomplished His life-sacrifice by the eternal efficacy of the eternal Spirit. In Him was perfected the oneness of priest and sacrifice.

The High Priesthood of Christ imparts a priestly character to believers (1 Pet. ii. 9). By union with Christ they are built up a spiritual temple (1 Cor. iii. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 5), their prayer of faith is an entrance into the Holy of Holies (Rom. v. 2), and they take part in the sufferings of Christ in their spiritual suffering in and for the world (Rom. vi.; Col. i. 24). They keep the true Passover (1 Cor. v.), which is founded upon the circumcision of the heart, regeneration (John iii.). They consecrate their lives as a whole burnt-offering to God in spiritual worship (Rom. xii. 1), and offer the incense of prayer; they are a holy, separate people by their seclusion from the world, a sacrifice for others (Heb. xiii. 13), as opposed to the unholy separation of the world from God. By repentance they partake of the condemnation which Christ endured for them, and find their life in His sin-offering and atonement, whilst they pray for deliverance from guilt, not only for themselves, but also for others (the Lord's prayer); they enjoy their portion of the great sacrifice of peace and thanksgiving, and in life and death present themselves as a thank-offering. This life grows more and more manifest as life in the eternal priestly spirit, which is proved by obedience and consecration.

THE PURPOSE OF SACRIFICE AND THE VARIOUS KINDS OF SACRIFICES.

The Purpose.

It must not be forgotten that the sacrifices of the Israelites were not derived from rude and untaught men, but that they presuppose circumcision or typical regeneration, and commence with the celebration of the Passover, that is, of typical redemption. Hence it is just as one-sided to behold in each bloody sacrifice an expression of desert of death, on account of the blood, which signifies life, and not death, and as sacrificial blood signifies the consecration of the life to God through death, as it is to deny that each sacrifice, even of thanksgiving, presupposes the sinfulness of man as a liability to death, and that therefore each theocratic sacrifice is of symbolical significance.

Israel predestinated to be the holy people of the holy God, built upon a holy foundation, the covenant with Jehovah, should ever be holy unto Him. This holiness presupposes typical purity. Hence this holy life must be surrounded with the discipline of the law of purification. This holiness consists on the one side in utter rejection of sin and of that which is unholy; on the other side, in positive consecration to God; and both these aspects concur in every sacrifice (John xvii.). We can distinguish between the negative, exclusive sacrifices (trespass-offering, sin-offering and atoning sacrifices), to which belong also the restorative sacrifices, and the positive consecrating sacrifices (burnt-offerings, peace-offerings and food-offerings). But the distinction between the ideas of sin and guilt must precede that between the different kinds of sacrifices. Sin is opposition to law regarded as a purely spiritual state; guilt is sin conceived in its whole nature, in its consequences, a burdensome indebtedness which calls for satisfaction, suffering, expiation or atonement. Sin of to-day is guilt to-morrow, and perchance forever. The father's sin becomes the guilt of the family. The sin of the natural man falls as guilt on the spiritual man. Sin is ever guilt, and, by reason of the social nature of man, it falls not only on the transgressor, but also on his neighbors. Guilt also is generally sin; but in individuals it may be reduced to the minimum of sin and indebtedness. In the sphere of love, through sympathy it falls as a burden most upon the less guilty and the innocent through the medium of natural and historical connection; hence the touch of a dead body made one unclean. The sinner must suffer, and his innocent companion must suffer; but the suffering of the sinner, while he persists in sin, is quantitative, dark, immeasurable, while the suffering of his companion is qualitative,

illumined and efficacious expiation (Edipus, Antigone), and thus there are innumerable subordinate atonements in the history of the world which point to the only true atonement.

With sharper indication of their relations, we can distinguish three kinds of sin: 1. Sins, which not only bring guilt upon the transgressor, but also cast a burden of guilt on others; 2. Guilt, which arises from the connection of the sinner with the usages of the world; 3. Trangressions, in which both of the above kinds more or less inhere, yet so that the idea of error is pre-eminent (1). A certain degree of error and possible exculpation was common to all sins committed unwittingly, not in conscious antagonism (with uplifted hand); these were objects of theocratic expiation, and did not make the transgressor a curse (cherem).

As regards this curse (cherem), it may be asked, how far it belongs to the category of sacrifice, as it is the antithesis of all sacrifices? Doubtless just so far as it is made sacred in accordance with the decree of God, and not as an object given over to a miserable destruction. Hence this curse (cherem) is not an absolute destruction, but only a conditional destruction in this world. Among the first-born of the Egyptians who were made cherem on the night of the Passover, there may have been innocent little children. The Canaanites were made cherem because they were an insuperable stumbling-block to Israel. Even on the great day of atonement, when all the sins of which the people were unconscious were to be put away, there yet remained a hidden remnant of unpardonable sins, an anathema in Israel, which was sent away with the goat of Azazel to Azazel in the wilderness, not as a theocratic sacrifice, but as a curse together with Azazel* under the decree of God (1 Cor. v. 3-5). Thus the curse in Israel sank out of sight into the depths of its life till it brought Christ to the cross in spite of all Levitical expiations. Then by the victory of grace the πάρεσις became άφεσις.

THE VARIOUS KINDS OF SACRIFICES.

The Chief Sacrifices by Fire; the Burnt-Offering and the Lesser Sin-Offerings and TrespassOfferings. Lev. i. and iii.

The burnt-offering derives its name from the fact that it was wholly burnt (?), only excepting the excrement. So also the real sin-offering. Yet this distinction marks a contrast; the burnt-offering, its fat and flesh, was burned on the brazen altar; while of the sinoffering of him who had brought guilt on others (Lev. iv. 3) only the fat, which, like the blood (and the kidneys and caul), especially belonged to the sanctuary, was burned on the altar; but of the sin-offering of a priest, or of the whole congregation, the entire body (the skin, flesh, etc., ch. iv. 11) was burned without the camp on the ash-heap in a clean place. The flesh of the sin-offering of a prince or of a common man was not burned (the priest should eat it, ch. vi. 26); only the fat was burned. In thank-offerings the fat, kidneys and caul were burned. Of the meal-offerings only a handful was burned, the rest was for the priest; but the meal-offering brought by a priest was wholly burned, as was all the incense with each meal-offering. The lesser sin-offerings were treated just as the trespass-offerings (ch. v. 6); the poor man brought a pigeon or a dove for a burnt-offering, and one for a sinoffering. In the class of trespass-offerings, in which trespass and sin coincide (ch. v, 15 f.), the burning took place just as in the lesser trespass and sin-offerings; the flesh was the priests'. These offerings were also burdened with regulations of restoration and compensation. More prominent still is the burning on the day of atonement of the goat which fell to Jehovah by lot; as a sin-offering of the congregation it was wholly burned. The red heifer, slaughtered and cut in pieces without the camp was also without the camp wholly burned (Num. xix. 3). The extreme contrast to these is found in the burning of the remnants of the Passover, which seem to have served in a certain way as an illumination of the Passovernight.

The offerings by fire form a contrast to the offerings of blood, the offerings by death, since they indicate the extinction of life by divine interposition. This interposition may be that of love and of the Spirit, taking up Elijah in a chariot of fire, or that of condemnation,

See note, p. 43.