death was real; and there was no resurrection of the victim, nor could there be without a miracle. Under the Ceremonial Law, on the great day of annual expiation, to typify the death and resurrection of our Saviour, two animals were employed in the ordinance of the scapegoat; one was slain, and the other let go free. (Lev. xvi. 5, &c.) But, by the sacrifice of Isaac, both these particulars were figuratively represented in one and the same person. As the principal design of God's command to Abraham was to reveal to him, in compliance with his earnest wish and importunate request, the Redemption of Mankind, it was proper that by some suitable trial, in some degree proportioned to this high privilege, he should prove himself worthy of it. That this revelation should be made by a representative or typical action, was in conformity with the custom of early times and the usual methods of Divine revelation in the Old Testament. And it is a striking instance of the Divine wisdom, that the same transaction constituted the favour for which the patriarch longed, and the trial by which he was to prove himself deserving it. Further, as the trial of Abraham, by the figurative offering up of Isaac, was a trial unprecedented, a transaction which was never to be repeated; so the Great Sacrifice which it prefigured was offered "once for all!" He needed not to "offer Himself often......but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb. ix. 25, 26; x. 10.) This is the great distinction between it and the legal sacrifices: because they were symbolical and inefficient, they were many and oft-repeated; but because this is real and effectual, its repetition was unnecessary. "For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. x. 14.) But if the sacrifice of Isaac was typical, and its representative character formed the principal reason of the command, why was not this reason distinctly mentioned by the sacred historian? To this we answer, that this is in entire accordance with Old-Testament usage, where few, if any, of the types are accompanied with their explanation; but they are left to be explained only by their evangelical fulfilment. This is obviously the case with the whole system of sacrifice, from Abel's offering to the completion of the Pentateuch. For what was it, but a shadow of good things to come, a faint outline or dim resemblance? The veil which Moses put upon his face was itself a symbol of that veil of mystery which partially concealed the gracious purposes of Heaven, which the Ceremonial Law obscurely revealed; making that economy the means of preparing the minds of men for a fuller display of Divine truth, when life and immortality should be brought to light by the Gospel. In the ancient sanctuary, the inner and most sacred portion was covered with a veil, which only the high priest could pass: "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was. not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." Heb. ix. 8.) In the time of Moses, and long after, the Jewish nation generally were a carnal race, as we see from their whole history— from the complaints of their lawgiver and their prophets, the censures on them by our Saviour, and the testimony of their countrymen, St. Paul and Josephus. They were therefore placed "under the law of a carnal commandment," as best suited to their condition. And as they were thus unprepared for a full and complete revelation of the great scheme of human redemption, had the narrative of Isaac's sacrifice been accompanied with a full explanation, and a statement of the principal reason for it, the information would certainly have been premature. And yet it seems to us, that the Oracle gave a plainer indication of the Antitype in this case, than in almost any other of the types in the Old Testament. For Moses records that the Angel spake to Abraham the second time from heaven, saying, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed My voice." The principal and peculiar reward of Abraham's faith and obedience was a revelation to him of the Messiah, and of the mystery of redemption. But if the Old Testament was reserved or silent respecting the reason of its precepts and commands, the New Testament makes ample compen sation for that reticence. For not only does it illustrate by its facts the types and ceremonies of the ancient law, but in many cases affords a direct and formal explanation of them. Thus in the Epistle to the Galatians, (iv. 22-26,) an incident in the history of Abraham and Isaac, which we should hardly have supposed to have a figurative sense, is declared to have been "an allegory," and is applied to "the two covenants." And almost the whole of the Epistle to the Hebrews is employed in expounding the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Mosaic institution, in their evangelical meaning and application. In the command given to Moses respecting the brazen serpent, no explanation is given, no reason assigned why that method of cure was adopted. (Num. xxi. 7-9.) But this is given by our Lord in His conversation with Nicodemus, John iii. 14, 15: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." To the important narrative under consideration, respecting Abraham and Isaac, there are several references in the New Testament. St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Galatians, (iii. 8, 16,) makes the following observation thereon. "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham," (i. e., before the law was given,) "saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed... Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." In the Epistle to the Hebrews, we have the following, which could scarcely have been more express in asserting the typical character of the action: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him kaì év tapaßoλîj, even for a parable," or " IN A PARABLE."* In Chapter ix. 9, it is said, that the Tabernacle was a parable, apaßoλý, * The first is Macknight's rendering, the second is Warburton's, and that of the Latin Vulgate. a type, "a figure for the time then present," a prophetic representation of "a greater and more perfect tabernacle," which, in the fulness of time, the Messiah was to establish. And thus Abraham is said to have received Isaac from the dead in, or for, a parable, or figurative representation of Him "who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Romans iv. 25.) Again, our Saviour, in one of His addresses to the Jews His countrymen, said, "Your father Abraham longed to see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced." There is no part of Abraham's history to which these words can so properly apply as the figurative death and resurrection of Isaac. He might have said, as another father did, (Luke IV. 24,) in a sense equally figurative, "This my son was dead, and is alive again." And if Abraham "saw the day" of Christ, it is, as observed by Warburton, utterly incredible that so important a fact should have been omitted by Moses in his history of that patriarch. It could not, indeed, for the reasons already stated, be so described in Genesis as to be clearly and fully understood by the Hebrew people, during the first periods of a preparatory dispensation. It was, therefore, with the utmost propriety and the greatest wisdom, that when "the father of the faithful" was permitted to see the Messiah's day, a representation was employed which admitted of a strictly literal narration, without a too complete explanation of its figurative and spiritual meaning. The types and figures of the Old Testament may not appear of the same value to us, as they must have appeared to the faithful before the coming of the Messiah. This is owing to our abundant light, compared with theirs. When the sun is risen, the stars, which in his absence were so bright, are concealed from our view; the "morning star" itself, which heralded the day, is then hardly discernible; † and Thus the the moon grows pale, and seems no more than a cloud. discoveries made to Abraham and to Moses wax pale in the surpassing light of the New Testament. The oracles of God, which were committed to the Hebrew people, have been supplemented by clearer knowledge; and therefore "that which was made glorious hath no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth." But, before the Sun of Righteousness arose, the glory of types and symbolical representations was great. The day may utter speech, but the night, which preceded the dawn, showed knowledge; for it was Night with all her stars. Yet the faithful were not satisfied: they knew that their dispensation was but introductory. "Many prophets, and righteous men, and kings, have desired to see those things which ye * This is Campbell's rendering. The Authorized Version reads, “rejoiced to sce My day." The words va top, immediately following hyaλdσaro, show that the meaning is, "he desired earnestly that he might see," &c. 'Rejoiced to see, and was glad," is a tautology which should be avoided. Doddridge says, "The expression may with the strictest propriety siguify, leaping forward with joy to meet the object of our wishes." † On several occasions we have seen the planet Venus by day, and for a considerable time. This was when that planet was a morning star, sec, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” (Matt. xiii. 17; Luke x. 24.) There were those "who looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Like benighted mariners on a perilous coast, they cast out the anchor of hope, and waited for the day. But Abraham, whose piety was pre-eminent, whose faith was illustrious, and who is called "the Friend of God," was peculiarly favoured. He exulted to anticipate the coming glory, the far-off advent and sacrifice of the world's Redeemer. He rose above the level of his contemporaries and of his dispensation; like one who climbs the mountain, that he may catch the first sight of the sun, before his beams have reached the valleys, or lightened the plains below. The mountain which God told him of in the land of Moriah, was to him "the Specular Mount," from whence he saw, not "the kingdoms of the world" and "the glory of them," but "the day of Christ." There, in that typical sacrifice, that death and resurrection of an only and beloved son, which the Great Inspirer taught him to interpret and apply,he saw that "day, and was glad." But although this action of Abraham, and the other types of the Old Testament, are not now of the same importance that they were before their fulfilment, they are still of great use on more than one account. 1. They furnish clear evidence of the Divine Inspiration of the Bible, and the truth of the Christian religion. They constitute a series of predictions, by action and representation, commencing with the sacrifice offered by Abel, and ending only with Him who came “to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." There is a real and strict relation between the Old and New Testaments, both proceeding from the same Divine Inspirer; but, so far as human authorship is concerned, the history of Christ, and that of the Old-Testament types, are independent of each other. The custody of the Old Testament by the Jews, and their rejection of the New Testament, is decisive on this point, and places the agreement of the two above suspicion. Between the time of Abraham and the day of Christ, more than eighteen hundred years clapsed. The striking correspondence, therefore, which we have shown to have existed between the two transactions on Mount Moriah, with such an interval between the type and the antitype, demonstrates, to the confusion of infidelity, the unity and truth of Divine Revelation. 2. This action of Abraham, regarded in its typical character, proves its Antitype to have been a real Sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. The schools of Arius and Socinus regard the death of Christ only as that of a Martyr, and not as a Sacrifice, except in a figurative sense, the figure being borrowed from the sacrifices under the Old Covenant. The New Testament, however, uniformly represents those ancient sacrifices as figurative, "a shadow of good things to come." But if the sacrifice of Christ was figurative and not real, then the Old Testament sacrifices were figurative of nothing, the shadow of a shade; which is absurd. A shadow implies a substance as its cause: a figure or type supposes the existence of a real object corresponding with it. "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." And the typical character of Isaac's figurative death and resurrection implies the reality of that sacrifice which He made, who died upon the cross, and rose triumphant from the tomb. 3. Abraham is doubtless to be regarded as an example of faith in God, of submission to His will, and obedience to His commands. Although the one command by which Isaac was rendered a type of Him that was to come, and the trial to which Abraham was thereby subjected, were singular, special, and incapable of repetition, yet we are not without law to God, but under law to Christ. We have to deny ourselves, to take up our cross, and to follow the Saviour. Let us then, like faithful Abraham, be unwavering in our trust, unhesitating in our obedience, and ready to do whatever God commands us to do, and to surrender whatever He requires us to give up. Our privileges are in some respects much greater than those of "the father of the faithful:" the day of Christ which he saw afar off and in figure, we see clearly and in reality. For "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." And our responsibility is great in proportion to our advantages; for "where much is given much shall be required." Abraham's eager desire for a higher knowledge of Divine things is also worthy of our imitation. For still " we know" but "in part;" and in the mystery of redemption there are heights unscaled and depths unfathomed of Divine love, surpassing our present knowledge; things which the angels desire to look into. " 'Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection." "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." J. W. T. THE TALMUD: 66 THE "Scattered Nation"† Magazine for January contains an article from the pen of Dr. Delitzsch, on the subject of the Talmud, in reference to the attack on the foundations of Christianity, under cover of No apology will be required for laying before the reader the two following brief papers, though they are both on the subject indicated by this title. It is already evident that this latest assault upon the Christian faith will turn out, as so many others have dine, to be an occasion of its further confirmation. An eminent Rabbi is reported, not many years ago, to have exclaimed, "Christianity is become a necessity for the Jew." Strange that his patrimony should be accepted by the Jew only as forced on him by a "sity,"—by social pressure, political expediency, the penalty of isolation, to a large extent, from that civilization which Christianity indeed sustains and develops, but which, for all the higher and nobler purposes of life, owes everything to the principles planted in the world by Judaism itself.-[ED. WES. METH. MAG.] + Edited by C. Schwartz, D.D. Elliot Stock, 62, Paternoster-row. |