Section II: Holy Things, Namely, the Sacraments and Sacrifices of the Old Testament.

SECTION II: HOLY THINGS, NAMELY, THE SACRAMENTS AND SACRIFICES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

How the sacraments of the Old Testament pertain to the ceremonial laws.

§ 11. Commentators relate the sacraments of the Old Testament to the ceremonial laws, yet this does not come without difficulty, given that sacraments, properly speaking, are seals of Gospel promises. In this respect, they belong to the Gospel rather than to the Law. Furthermore, if sacraments are to be applied to the ceremonial laws absolutely, the consequence will be that Christ, in instituting new sacraments, also gave new laws. The Scholastics do indeed argue that the sacraments of the Old Testament did not confer grace because the Lord imposed them for burden and servitude. Thomas tries to prove this ([ST,] part 3, q. 62, art. 6) “because the sacraments of the old Law did not have any power from the Passion of Christ. They only signified it.” Biel (Sent., bk. 4, dist. 1, q. 3) uses this proof: “Every grace is justifying for him to whom it is given, but no one is justified by the sacraments of the old Law.” Thus, at the Council of Florence in 1439, it was decreed under Pope Eugene: “The sacraments of the old Law did not cause grace but only prefigured the grace that was going to be given through the Passion of Christ.” This position was also embraced by the Council of Trent (session 7, canon 2) and by its champion Bellarmine (De sacram., bk. 2, ch. 13). If this hypothesis were to stand, one could easily say how the Old Testament sacraments belong to legal ceremonies, but we shall prove the falseness of this assertion in its own place [On the Sacraments (Commonplace XXI), §§ 60–77].

Clearly this truly evangelical promise has been connected to circumcision (Gen. 17:7): “I shall be your God and the God of your descendants.” According to the interpretation in Lev. 26:12; Jer. 31:[1]; Matt. 22:32; and elsewhere, this promises the grace, presence, and special indwelling of God and, therefore, eternal life itself. That is why the apostle calls circumcision “the seal of the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4:11). Therefore the sacraments of the Old Testament cannot and should not be considered as a sort of slavish burden that was imposed upon the Israelites to discipline the flesh.

Therefore consider it in the following way. If we understand “ceremonies” in general to mean any external, visible rites, then we concede that the sacraments can be assigned to the ceremonial laws since in the New Testament, with regard to their external element, they were removed along with the rest of the Levitical ceremonies, and others took their place. However, if we understand “ceremonies” to mean specifically the lawful ordinances about the sort of rituals that were only reminders about sin but not the remedy for sin; that were merely the mainstays of public assemblies but not the means through which the Israelites were accepted into the covenant of grace; that were merely types of the benefits of Christ but not the imparting instruments [organa μεταδoτικά]—then we say that the sacraments of the Old Testament must not be assigned to the ceremonial laws, since by God’s intent and their very nature they were seals of the Gospel promise, remedies for sin, instruments of the benefits of Christ. We shall speak in greater detail about this subject in our commonplace On the Sacraments [(Commonplace XXI), §§ 60–77], where we shall also treat the question “Were there other sacraments in the Old Testament in addition to circumcision and the paschal lamb, such as the sacrifices, the Levitical washings, the eating of manna, the gushing forth and drinking of water from the rock, etc.?” [cf. On the Sacraments (Commonplace XXI), § 70].

Classification of the sacrifices.

§ 12. There were various kinds of sacrifices. We shall enumerate their differences in order to understand [the various kinds] more correctly. The differences of the sacrifices are taken:

From the efficient cause.

(1) From the efficient cause.⁷ You see, [sacrifices] were offered either by the high priest or the lesser priests. Here note that we are discussing the sacrifices commanded and prescribed by a certain Mosaic law. Prior to Moses, the ministry of sacrifices had not yet been restricted to a certain tribe and persons, but individual patriarchs were allowed to sacrifice. Nevertheless after Moses, when the hierarchy of the Israelite church had been established, that divine worship was committed to a certain tribe and to certain persons. Every year the high priest, and only he, would enter the Holy of Holies just one time. The lesser priests were joined to him, and they, too, offered their own sacrifices and conducted other public sacred rites, though not in the actual Holy of Holies but in the secondary part of the tabernacle. In turn these were served by the Levites, though not in sacrificing but in keeping watch in front of the tabernacle and in carrying out the duties of the office entrusted to them. This arrangement of God where only the priests were allowed to sacrifice was observed so religiously and scrupulously that to transgress it made one guilty of death. Num. 3:10: “If anyone else comes near, let him be put to death.”

From the material cause.

(2) From the material cause.⁸ In the sacrifices, either animals or produce were offered. The animals were either four-footed or flying. The former were either large (such as a kind of cattle: a calf, bullock, ox, cow, for instance) or small (such as a kind of goat: the he-goat and kid, for instance; or a kind of sheep: such as the lamb and the ram). From the category of flying creatures the dove and the turtledove were offered. The produce or things coming from the earth that were offered were either liquid (such as wine and oil) or dry (such as incense, salt, grain, produce, bread—baked in an oven, a baking pan, on a griddle, or the like).

From the formal cause.

(3) From the formal cause.⁹ Every sacrifice had its own rituals and feast days assigned to it. These can be found from Leviticus. Thus a whole burnt offering [holocaustum] would be burned in its entirety. In a peace offering [sacrificium pacificorum] only the fat would be burned as a pleasing aroma to God, but the breast and side would go to the priests while the laity ate the rest of the meat, etc.

From the final cause.

(4) From the final cause.¹⁰ In this way the whole burnt offering was burned to reverence God’s majesty or, as Philo says, to honor and propitiate God. The sin or guilt sacrifice was for the remission of sins. The peace offering was made either to give thanks for benefits received or because of a vow made to obtain benefits. Suidas classifies all the sacrifices as: (a) δωρoφoρικά, offering a gift to God; (b) ἀπoλυτρωτικὰ, redeeming; (c) διαλλακτικά, appeasing or reconciling; (d) ἀπoπληστικόν, fulfilling vows. Sacrifice is commonly divided into propitiatory [ἱλαστικόν] and thanksgiving [εὑχαριστικόν]. In the former, a type was offered of the one-and-only propitiatory sacrifice which Christ was going to offer on the altar of the cross; but in the latter the children of Israel demonstrated their obedience and gratitude to God.

From the object.

(5) From the object. One sacrifice would be offered for the priests—either to consecrate or to propitiate them—another for rulers, another for the whole population, another for a private person.

From the subject.

(6) From the subject. One sacrifice would be offered in the Holy of Holies; another, in the secondary part of the tabernacle. Likewise, some would be slain at the north side of the altar, and these were said to be the most holy; and some would be killed in any place in the atrium, and they were said to be commonly holy.

From additional circumstances.

(7) From additional circumstances. In this way, with respect to dignity, the whole burnt offering held first place since the entire thing was burned with no remains but the skin. The sin offering had second place, for only the priests would eat it in the atrium, and only on the day of the sacrifice. The peace offerings had third place, for they were eaten on the actual day of the sacrifice, not everywhere, but only in Jerusalem. The peace offerings that were made due to a vow had fourth place, for they could be eaten even on the following day.

With respect to time, some sacrifices were perpetual while others were offered at various times.

An account of the Levitical sacrifices.

§ 13. ** Gualterus lists the Levitical sacrifices in this way (commentary on Mark 12):

Sacrifice is either ἱλαστικόν (“propitiatory”) or εὐχαριστικόν (“of thanksgiving”). Propitiatory sacrifice is either universal or particular. The universal was διαλλακτικόν [“mediating”] for all sins, or it signified the expiation of all sins through Christ, for instance, the whole burnt offering of large and small livestock. It was known as ὁλόκαυστoν or ὁλoκαύτωμα to the Greeks, and to the Hebrews as (“going up”) from the root (“he went up”). This was either because the whole thing would go up on or be placed on the altar (Rabbi David Kimchi favors this position); or because the whole thing would ascend and go up in smoke; or because the first kind of sacrifice was the holiest of all, and it would therefore “ascend,” that is, surpass the others in excellence. The particular [propitiatory sacrifice] was for certain sins, otherwise called ἀπoλυτρωτικόν[“redeeming”], and is of two kinds: one which is said to be for sin [peccatum] and the other for transgression [delictum]. The Septuagint calls the sacrifice for sin θυσίαν περὶ ἁμαρτίας; Luther, Sündopfer; and the Hebrews, from the root (“he sinned”). This kind of sacrifice expiated for sins committed involuntarily or from error or ignorance. The sacrifice for transgression the Septuagint calls θυσίαν περὶ ἁμαρτίας; Luther, Schuldopfer [“guilt offering”]; and the Hebrews, (“transgression, blame, guilt”) from the root (“he trespassed shamefully”). A sacrifice for transgression was where a sin committed willfully, knowingly, willingly, and deliberately was expiated by sacrificing a ram. The sacrifice of thanksgiving is twofold: simple and mixed. The simple was where the offerings were of one kind, and this again was twofold: the peace offering and the minchah (or “oblation”). The peace sacrifice or [peace] offering the Septuagint calls θυσὶαν σωτηρὶoυ; Luther, Dankopfer [“thankoffering”]; and the Hebrews, [“peace offering”]. It was either spontaneous and offered from heartfelt devotion apart from any compulsion, or¹¹ it was votive and given due to an agreement [ex pacto]; that is, it was something one promised in [times of] danger or need that he would give to God in the church if delivered. Minchah (or “oblation”) the Septuagint calls δῶρoν [“gift”] and θυσία [“sacrifice”]; Luther, Speisopfer [“food offering”]. It is from the root (“to offer”), for they would offer an honorary gift to God from the fruits of the earth to show that God was their Creator and to show some indication of their gratitude. The mixed sacrifice of thanksgiving the Septuagint calls θυσὶαν αἰνέσεως (“sacrifice of praise”); Luther, Lobopfer [“sacrifice of praise”]; and the Hebrews, [“thanksgivthanksgiving”]. It consisted of different kinds of things—namely, of animals and fruits of the earth—and was offered to God to express gratitude for benefits received. **

First, the burnt offering.

We shall recount the sacrifices in this order. (1) First was the whole burnt offering [holocaustum], , from “elevating” or “ascending,” because it was elevated above the altar, and its fragrance would ascend on high into the presence of the Lord. The Septuagint renders it ὁλoκαύτωμα and ὁλoκαύτωσις because the entire thing was burned. Luther calls it Brandopfer [“burnt offering”], in which respect it is also called (Lev. 1:9 and passim), which means “a sacrifice destined for the fire.” Some translate it “aflame.” In Ps. 51:19 it is called (“complete, absolute”) because the whole thing was consumed by fire. Sometimes the Septuagint renders it ὁλoκάρπωμα, ὁλoκάρπωσις and, in general, θυσία.

It was the kind of sacrifice in which, to propitiate and honor God, the entire sacrificial victim was consumed on the altar by fire, with no remains except the skin, which would go to the priest. It was made of four-legged beasts, either large (such as the ox and calf ) or small (such as the ram, goat, and kid); or it was made from birds (such as the turtledove and doves). It was a type of the true and only propitiatory sacrifice when Christ, lifted upon the altar of the cross and enflamed by the fire of love, “offered Himself up to His heavenly Father as an aroma of sweetness” (Eph. 5:2). Species of this sacrifice were: the perpetual sacrifice ( , ὁλoκαύτωσις ἐνδελεχῶς, ὁλoκαύτωμα ἐνδελεχισμoῦ), which had to be offered daily, morning and evening, the materials for which were unspotted yearling lambs, fine wheat flour, and oil. There was also the whole burnt offering of the Sabbath, which offered twice as much as the perpetual sacrifice. There was the whole burnt offering of the new moon in which they would offer two bullocks, one ram, seven spotless yearling lambs, three tenths of an ephah of fine wheat flour mixed with oil, etc. Now, the perpetual sacrifice signified that the fruit of the sacrifice offered by Christ, the Lamb of God, would endure forever. Heb. 13:8: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.” Rev. 13:8: “The Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world.”

Second, the sin offering.

(2) The sacrifice for sin ( , θυσία περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Sündopfer)—that is, a sin committed by ignorance—was offered for the sin of a priest, a ruler, all the people, or a private individual. For the sin of the priest or the people, a calf was offered; for the sin of a ruler, a goat; for the sin of a private individual, if he were very important, a she-goat or ewe; if of middling fortune, two turtledoves or two dove chicks; and if he were poor, a tenth of an ephah of fine wheat flour. (See Leviticus 4–5.)

Third, the sacrifice for transgression.

(3) The sacrifice for transgression (, θυσία περὶ τῆς πλημμελείας, Schuldopfer) was for what was committed out of evil and malicious intent. It consisted of a whole ram. (See Lev. 6:6; 7:1[–7].)

Fourth, the sacrifice of consecration.

(4) The sacrifice of consecration was the one by which priests were inaugurated and consecrated. In this sacrifice a bullock was offered for sin; a ram, as a whole burnt offering; and the ram of fulfillments. (See Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8.) This is called , ὁλoκαύτωμα τελειώσεως [“whole burnt offering of fulfillment”] (Lev. 8:[28]).

Fifth, the sacrifice of purification.

(5) The sacrifice of purification () concerned the uncleanness of childbirth. For this, after the specified days of purification, a yearling lamb was offered as a whole burnt offering and a young dove or turtledove as a sin offering. However, if she were too poor and unable to offer a lamb, she would take two turtledoves or two young doves (Lev. 12:6, 8). [The sacrifice of purification also concerned] the uncleanness of leprosy. For this, after the rituals of cleansing were finished, two spotless lambs were offered as well as one spotless yearling ewe lamb, three tenths of an ephah of fine wheat flour mixed with oil for a minchah, and a log of oil. However, if the person were too poor, it would be one male lamb for a [sacrifice of ] transgression, a tenth of an ephah of fine wheat flour, two turtledoves or two young doves. (See Lev. 14:10, 21–22.) [The sacrifice of purification also concerned] the uncleanness of a man with a seminal discharge. For this, after the requisite seven days and the washing of his clothing, two turtledoves or two young doves were offered (Lev. 15:14). [The sacrifice of purification also concerned] the uncleanness of a woman stained naturally with menstrual blood or sickly with a discharge. For this, two turtledoves or two young doves would also be offered (Lev. 15:29).

Sixth, the sacrifice of atonement.

(6) There was the sacrifice of atonement in which the chief priest (“expiated”): (a) Himself along with his entire household through the offering of a bullock and ram before entering the sanctuary. (b) The tabernacle of testimony through the sprinkling of the blood of a goat. (c) The altar of incense through the blood of a goat and the blood of a bull. (d) The entire Israelite church through the goat sent out into the wilderness, upon which were laid the iniquities of the children of Israel. (See Leviticus 16.)

Seventh, minchah sacrifice.

(7) The [minchah, “(grain) offering”] sacrifice in general signifies any gift or donation offered in honor to someone, which is carried slowly and in a sort of parade. Specifically, they used a sacrifice of coarse meal, of emmer. The Septuagint calls it θυσίανδῶρoν [“sacrifice, gift”], a Speisopfer [“food offering”]. It was offered in thanksgiving for nourishment and for the sustenance of life, and therefore its material was taken only from the fruits of the earth. Its five kinds are listed in Leviticus 2. The first was a material of fine wheat flour with oil poured in and incense placed on top. The second kind was either unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil or unleavened wafers from fine flour spread with oil. Both were baked in an oven. The third kind was unleavened fine flour mixed with oil and baked on a griddle; later it was broken into pieces and had oil poured on it. The fourth kind was unleavened fine flour baked in a pan with oil. The fifth kind was ears of the firstfruits of grain roasted on the fire, crushed, with oil and frankincense poured over them.

Eighth, the sacrifice of peace offerings.

(8) The sacrifice of peace offering (, θυσία σωτηρίoυ) was twofold, as is clear from Lev. 7[:11–18]. The first was of gratitude for a benefit given by God; the latter, of a spontaneous vow for the gaining of peace and safety. The rituals for this sacrifice are described in Lev. 7[:11–18]; 10[:12–15]. Namely, a clean animal had to be offered, and only its fat was burned. Its breast and thigh were given to the priest, and the rest of the flesh was eaten by the people unstained by Levitical uncleanness. Whatever was left on the third day would be burned in the fire.

Ninth, the offering of the firstfruits.

(9) The offering of the firstfruits came from those things which were produced first, whether from man, beast, or seeds of the earth. Furthermore, there were two firstfruit offerings. Some were offered according to the prescription of the law in Exodus 22 and Numbers [3]. Others, however, were a result of a voluntary vow (Numbers 18). In fact, specific kinds of firstfruits had been defined by God’s command, which we shall list under these main headings. The word “firstfruits” includes: (a) The firstborn of men, who had to be ransomed at a certain price, namely, five shekels. Also the Lord says carefully that He chose the tribe of Levi for the ministry instead of the firstborn of the people. This fittingly applies as a type to Christ, the one high priest of the New Testament, who “consecrated Himself for us” (John 17:19), because otherwise we would have to fear the angel of death no less than did the firstborn of the Egyptians. In remembrance of this freeing, the firstborn of people were sacred to God. The firstborn of unclean animals were redeemed with money. The firstborn of a donkey had to be ransomed with a sheep or be killed. The firstborn of clean animals, however, were offered as a sacrifice (Num. 18:15[–18]). They were offered on the eighth day. Exod. 22:30: “Seven days the animal will be with its mother, but on the eighth day you will give it to Me.” (This statute foreshadowed the festival of the eternal Sabbath; before arriving at it, we must be fed in this life at the breasts of mother church.) (b) The novalia¹² or the firstfruits of the new fruits growing from the earth (Deut. 26:2[–11]). (c) A sheaf of ears of grain which had to be offered on the second day of Passover (Lev. 23:10[–11]). (d) Grain crushed from fresh ears that had not yet been put to the millstone (Lev. 2:14[–16]). (e) Two loaves of leavened bread made from two tenths of leavened fine flour for the Feast of Pentecost (Lev. 23:16[–17]). (f) Cakes or foods (Num. 15:19[–21]).

Tenth, the tithe offering.

(10) The tithe offering was a tenth part of all the fruits gathered both from the earth and from the animals. That tithe was offered partly to God as a sacrifice and partly was given over for the use of the priests (Lev. 27[:30–33; Deut. 14:22–29]).

Eleventh, the Passover lamb.

(11) Some include the Passover lamb [agnum paschalem], arguing that it was simultaneously sacrifice and sacrament. We shall look more closely at this subject in its own place [On the Sacraments (Commonplace XXI), §§ 60–77].

Twelfth, the red heifer.

(12) Some also include the ritual of the red heifer killed and burned outside the camp, the ashes of which were kept to be used with the water of purification (Num. 19[:1–10]). However, it is doubtful whether this rite was a sacrifice, properly speaking, since it was really more a preparatory and ministerial act attendant to the ceremonies of Levitical purification.

The five requirements for any sacrifice.

§ 14. Moreover, if we examine the Levitical cult of sacrifices established through Moses in more detail, five essential features of any true sacrifice will stand out: (1) a specific thing to be offered in it, (2) a specific ritual for offering, (3) a specific person to administer the rituals, (4) a specific place designated for this action, (5) a specific end purpose for which the offering was to be undertaken. Each and every one of these was not up to the private judgment of people but was established and determined by God.

Whether Abel, Noah, and the other patriarchs had a divine mandate regarding sacrifice.

Now, when it comes to the Levitical ceremonies, it is abundantly clear that each and every one of their essential features was listed and commanded by God, but when it comes to the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, and the rest of the patriarchs before Moses, some people doubt whether there was any divine command given to them regarding what they were to offer. No such thing seems to have been expressed word for word in the Book of Genesis.

** Therefore Bellarmine writes (De sacrament. in gen., bk. 2, ch. 31): “The worship of Abel, who offered from the fat of his herd, and the worship of Jacob, who put up a stone as a sign, pleased God even though He had not commanded those acts of worship.” Salmeron says the same thing (on 1 Timothy 2, disput. 8, toward the end). **

You see, even though Moses, who recorded the historical accounts of so many centuries with remarkable brevity, does not explicitly mention the revelation and divinely published command regarding offering sacrifices, far be it from us to claim that the most holy patriarchs thought up the rite of sacrificing purely by their own choice and private intent.

After all, in the first place, the history of the church of all times shows that selfchosen acts of worship [ἐθελoθρησκείας] have always been odious and opposed to God. Who, then, would believe that they were pleasing to Him as the primitive church first began to bud? Deut. 4:2; 12:32: “Only do that which I command you, and do not add anything nor take anything away.” Deut. 12:8: “You will not each do whatever seems right to you.” Num. 15:39[–40]: “Do not follow after your own thoughts and eyes, which you tend to whore after, but rather remember the commandments of God and do them.” Isa. 1:12: “Who has required this from your hands?” Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:9: “In vain do they worship Me, teaching the precepts of men,” etc. The examples of Aaron’s calf-worship, the household gods of Micah [Judg. 17:5], and the bullocks of Jeroboam [cf. 1 Kings 12:28–29] prove this same point.

Second, all of sacred history testifies that God, being merciful and of His superabundant grace, has always established some external and visible sign of His grace through His Word so that people may be reminded by an external work and sign the more surely to know that God is favorably disposed and propitious toward them. Therefore the patriarchs also had such a divinely instituted sign, which is blessed Luther’s argument (on Genesis 4).¹³

Third, whatever worship God approves and regards must necessarily have God as its author. God approved and regarded the sacrifices of the patriarchs. Therefore the sacrifices of the patriarchs were authorized and instituted by God. The major premise is proved from the apostolic aphorisms: Rom. 14:23: “Whatever is not from faith is sin”; and Heb. 11:6: “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” But now, faith and the Word, both of command and promise, are correlates according as whatever happens without the Word cannot be done from faith and, consequently, cannot please God. The truth of the minor premise is undoubted. Gen. 4:4: “God had regard for Abel and his sacrifice.” The Chaldaic paraphrase has that God received Abel’s gift with His good-pleasure. Augustine rightly concludes that there was an external and visible sign of God’s good-pleasure (De civ. Dei, bk. 15, ch. 7). The nature of this [sign] is clear from the sacrifices of the other patriarchs which were consumed by fire sent down from heaven (e.g., Abraham’s [sacrifice] in Gen. 15:17; Aaron’s in Lev. 9:24; Elijah’s in 1 Kings 18:38; Solomon’s in 2 Chron. 7:1). Hence, according to Jerome, Theodotion translated the words of Moses in the Hebrew [textual] traditions thus: “The Lord set fire upon (ἐνεπύρησεν) Abel and upon his sacrifice.” In Gen. 8:21 we are told about the sacrifice of Noah that “the Lord smelled the pleasing odor” or, as the Chaldaic paraphrase has it, that “the Lord received his offering with His good-pleasure.” The same judgment should stand for the sacrifices of the rest of the patriarchs.

Fourth, from the fact that in Gen. 7:2 Noah is ordered to take seven clean animals but only a pair of unclean into the ark, Ambrose (De Noah et arca, ch. 22), Chrysostom (on Genesis, homily 24), and Theodoret¹⁴ quite rightly conclude that he noted the will of God about the ritual of sacrificing from this commandment: “He prescribed that three pairs be kept for the increase of its kind and the one extra one for an offering.”

Fifth, whatever sacrifices are offered from faith must necessarily have a divine institution. Yet the sacrifices of the patriarchs were offered from faith. Therefore they had a divine institution. The truth of the major premise is clear because “faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17). True faith can arise only from the Word wherein God has revealed His will. Self-chosen kinds of worship cannot leave consciences sure and at peace that God approves of them, for the mind of man always wonders: “Who knows whether this pleases God?” Consequently, for something to be done from faith, the Word of God must be present and illumine us. It is further required that one believe in Christ, that he is pleasing to God through and because of Him. The truth of the minor premise is written in Heb. 11:4: “By faith Abel offered to God a more worthy sacrifice than Cain, through which [faith] he received proof that he was righteous, for God bore witness about his gifts.”

** Adam would not have dared with great trepidation to sacrifice even a paltry sparrow, if he had not received the explicit office of sacrificing as he had the office of teaching. In Gen. 7:2 clean and unclean animals are mentioned. In Gen. 14:20 tithes are mentioned which would be given to the priests from war. Gen. 27:15 speaks about the very special and elegant vestments which the priests alone were to wear. According to Gen. 49:3 the patriarchs conferred priestly dignity on the firstborn. Because of his eating the forbidden fruit, Adam had experienced tremendous disaster; who, then, would believe that on his private choice he dared to offer sacrifices in such consternation? Just as Jacob received an express command about building an altar and then about sacrificing—in Gen. 35:1 God speaks to Jacob: “Arise, go up to Bethel and stay there. Build an altar to God who appeared to you.”—so also the other patriarchs before Jacob did not build altars and offer sacrifices without a command. When God prepared clothes of skins for our first parents, He taught them to sacrifice, for one must not think that He was only concerned about covering their bodies but neglected to remedy sin. **

This is also clear from the fact that God regarded and accepted the sacrifices of the patriarchs. The reason for this was, as Chrysostom (on Genesis 8) correctly says, faith in the promised Messiah, whose propitiatory sacrifice offered on the altar of the cross was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament.

Finally, human reason could not have discovered or invented any relation between God, who is spirit, and the external rite of sacrifices. As the poet says: “The gods of heaven delight not in the slaying of an ox but in faith, which must be shown even without proof.”¹⁵

As far as the sacrifices of the Gentiles are concerned, they did not so much invent these to placate an incorporeal God as to borrow them from the Israelites out of corrupt rivalry, so to speak. Therefore, because human reason sees no relation between a spiritual God and carnal sacrifices, between an all-merciful God and the bloody slaying of sacrificial victims, it follows that the ritual for the sacrifices was revealed and commanded by God so that in these there would be a type of the only propitiatory sacrifice that was going to be offered on the altar of the cross, which itself also proves clearly that the ritual of sacrificing was commanded by God. For the patriarchs could not have discovered that type in the sacrifices any more than they could have thought up the very promise of the Messiah by their own choice. I would have this noted carefully.

The place of sacrifices.

§ 15. Therefore it is certain that all the sacrifices of the Old Testament faithful were divinely instituted and established by a sure word of command. It is God who not only prescribed through Moses particular rituals and circumstances for sacrifices but also revealed the same to the patriarchs before Moses. He also assigned a certain place for sacrifices, namely, the tabernacle and, later, the temple in Jerusalem. Deut. 12:5–6: “You will seek the place where Jehovah your God will select out of all your tribes to put His name and make His habitation there. You shall go there and bring your whole burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and the offerings of your hand, your votive offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and of your flocks.” Lev. 17:9: “Whoever does not bring his sacrifice to Jehovah at the door of the tabernacle of the meeting, that man shall be cut off from his people.” In this case, God not only intended that the obedience of the Israelites should be exercised and proved, but He also prefigured how Christ would offer His propitiatory sacrifice in Jerusalem. In fact, the tabernacle and the temple at Jerusalem were types of the church, in which alone flourishes the fruit of Christ’s Passion and in which alone people can offer sacrifices of thanksgiving [eucharistica sacrificia] acceptable to God.

** (From 1 Sam. 9:12; 16:5; and even 7:17 we gather that some prophets had sacrifices offered even in places other than the tabernacle and at the altar of Moses by special inspiration from God. Still, these were only sacrifices of thanksgiving.) **

Therefore to keep offering those figurative sacrifices after the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed is sin no less than and, in fact, more grave than how the Israelites offered their own sacrifices on the high places, under the trees, and in groves, who so often were accused of idolatry on account of this.

** Here the question arises: (1) What should be said about the sacrifices offered after the Babylonian captivity? God forbids sacrificing using “strange fire” (Lev. 9:24–10:1; Num. 3:4; 26:61; etc.). Adrichomius (Descript. Hierosol., ch. 88) reports that “according to 2 Maccabees 1:19[–20], the fire sent down upon the altar of the burnt offering at the time of Aaron was sustained (this can also be deduced from Lev. 6:9) up until the time of the Babylonian captivity, but then it was hidden at the bottom of a well; in the end nothing was found there but water.” However, from the following verses [2 Maccabees 1:]21–22, one may quite well conclude that even after the Babylonian captivity ended, God gave the Jews a new fire from heaven when they had returned from slavery, undoubtedly because of the very ardent prayers raised by Nehemiah. Adrichomius (Theatr.) surmises that the water was turned into fire by God. (2) The question arises: Would there have been sacrifices in the state of innocence? No, because they are types of the sacrifice the Messiah was going to offer on the altar of the cross. If man had not fallen, then Christ would not have come. The same is concluded from the points of doctrine Adam had to teach his descendants. Gregorius de Valentia (De sacrif. missae, bk. 1, ch. 4): “If it is not the permanent counsel of God that every law which He Himself has sanctioned for men has a priesthood connected to it and thus also a sacrifice, then the apostle would not have been correct in concluding that the Levitical law was removed since its priesthood was removed, and with the removal of the priesthood of any law the removal of the law must follow.” Now, one could respond that the law could have continued without the priesthood. Thus when, to draw his conclusion, he takes up his general proposition that “the removal of the priesthood necessarily means the removal of the law,” he silently posits a second proposition, namely, that it is a decree of God that no law of His exists without a priesthood and therefore without a sacrifice, etc. Bellarmine (De missa, ch. 20): “Sacrifice arose along with religion itself.” However, this cannot be proved by any passage of Scripture. **

The main purpose of the sacrifices.

§ 16. The main purpose [finis principalis] of the sacrifices was to recall to mind the coming sacrifice of the Messiah who was going to be offered on the altar of the cross. This is what blessed John the Baptist has in mind when he calls Christ “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29, [36]). He is pointing out that all the other lambs offered according to the ceremonial law were not actually the kind which could remove sins but were only types or figures, but that this Jesus is the true sacrificial victim; His offering is the true expiation for sins before God; all the other sacrifices related to this sacrificial Victim are like shadows to a body.

** Hesychius (on Lev. 4:14): “God commanded sacrifice to be made from both kinds, a lamb and a little lamb, to show that Christ, who was slain for us, would save men and women at once.” **

Although not only lambs but also other animals were offered in the sacrifices, the name “Lamb” is especially given to Christ because the slaying of the Passover lamb was an especially clear figure of the Son of God as a sacrificial victim, and because the continual sacrifice, offered morning and evening, was a spotless lamb. In addition, a lamb’s characteristics very aptly sketched the innocence, gentleness, and voluntary obedience of Christ. For this reason Isaiah also uses this kind of comparison (Isa. 53:[7]): “He is silent like a lamb that is led to the slaughter.” It was because of this main purpose for the sacrifices that Abel “offered a greater, or more precious, sacrifice by faith” (Heb. 11:4), that is, because in the type of the sacrifice he was looking to the coming sacrifice of Christ from which alone he hoped for and received the forgiveness of sins. It is for this reason that the Lamb is said to have been “slain from the beginning of the world” (Rev. 13:8), not only with respect to the decree and foreknowledge of God but also with respect to the promise, with respect to the type in the sacrifices, and with respect to its efficacy, for He is “the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world” [John 1:29]; which is to say, the benefits of this Lamb apply to the whole world, to all people who ever lived in the world at any time.

The nonprincipal purposes.

§ 17. There are several nonprincipal [minus principales] purposes for the sacrifices. First, they were the sinews and bonds of the public assemblies. 1 Cor. 10:18: “Consider Israel according to the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers of the altar?”

Second, they served to preserve the Levitical ministry, seeing as the priests supported themselves and their families from the sacrifices, firstfruits, and tithes. Deut. 18:1, 3–5: “The priests, the Levites, and the entire tribe of Levi shall have no portion or inheritance with the rest of Israel. They shall eat the offerings burned to Jehovah as his inheritance. This shall be the priests’ right from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep: he shall give the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach to the priest. The firstfruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil and the first of the fleece of your sheep you shall give him. For Jehovah your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand to minister in the name of Jehovah,” etc.

Third, they were an object and material, so to speak, around which the Israelites were to prove their obedience and gratitude to God. This is why this grave entreaty is repeated so often: “Keep My Law, and My statutes and judgments.”

Fourth, they served as a “dividing wall,” as the apostle says (Eph. 2:14), by which the Israelites were separated from the nations. Deut. 12:30–32: “You shall not inquire about the gods of the heathen, saying, ’How did these nations serve their gods?—that I may also do likewise.’ You shall not do so to Jehovah your God. Everything that I command you, you shall do.” Justin (Dial. cum Tryph., p. 183): “God devoted Himself to that people” (the Israelites) “and commanded them to offer sacrifices as to His name so that you would not worship idols.” Justin again (Resp. ad. p. 99, p. 352): “God so received the blood of irrational animals as if he who made the sacrifice had offered his own life.” He proves this later from Leviticus 17.

Finally, [the sacrifices] provided many useful admonitions. Thus the breast and the right shoulder were given to the priest to signify that wisdom of the heart is necessary for a minister of the church to teach the people, along with fortitude to endure unjust treatment.

** Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 20, ch. 26): “The sacrificial victims of the old Law, which had to be offered from spotless animals without any blemish, symbolized holy men, of which kind Christ alone was found to be without any sin at all. Consequently, after the judgment, when those who are worthy of such cleansing have been purified by fire, no sin whatsoever will be found in all the saints, and, in this way, they will offer themselves up in righteousness to be completely spotless sacrifices without a single fault.” **

The various sacrifices prefigured the many different benefits of Christ, though in particular the great variety and frequent repetition of the sacrifices signified that the blood of animals did not atone for sins but that a more perfect sacrifice was required (Heb. 10:4).

In Exod. 23:18 they were forbidden to use leaven in the sacrifices. This was a symbol of purity and served to admonish them to “clean out the leaven of wickedness” (1 Cor. 5:7).

No sacrifice could be offered without salt (Lev. 2:13) so that we may learn to exercise wisdom in our works.¹⁶ Hugh (on Leviticus): “As salt makes food pleasing and acceptable, so does discernment, symbolized by the word ’salt,’ make our sacrifice pleasing and acceptable.” In fact, one can say salt symbolizes Christ, for He makes us pleasing and acceptable before God, preserves our souls from spoiling spiritually, etc. In Mark 9:50, Christ explains it as a symbol of peace, just as the ancients celebrated “fellowship in salt and table.”¹⁷

They were commanded to burn the kidneys along with the long lobe of the liver [Lev. 3:4], signifying that the desires of the flesh must be put to death by the fire of the Holy Spirit [Col. 3:5].

Regarding the command not to eat the blood, it is noteworthy that very grave sins are called “bloods” (Ps. 51:14; Isa. 1:15). Therefore the ban on blood was symbolic of fleeing sins. Thomas ([ST,] part 1, bk. 2, q. 102, art. 3):

The fat and the blood were not used by the priests and those who made the offering because that was characteristic of idolatry. The eating of blood was forbidden so that they would abhor the shedding of human blood. The eating of fat was forbidden so that they might avoid wantonness. Furthermore, because blood is most necessary for life and fat demonstrates an abundance of nourishment, this symbolizes that we receive our life and sufficiency of all good from God. In fact, they prefigure the shedding of Christ’s blood and the fatness of His love through which He offered Himself to God on our behalf.

Glossa (on Leviticus 1): “We offer a calf to God when we overcome the pride of the flesh; a lamb, when we correct our irrational impulses; a kid, when we overcome wantonness; a turtledove, when we preserve our chastity; unleavened bread, when we feast on the unleavened bread of sincerity.” Many more such meanings can be thought up if, with pious dexterity, we compare the rituals of the Levitical sacrifices with the one and only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ and His various benefits, or the thankofferings and spiritual sacrifices of Christians, which include the ministry of the Gospel (Rom. 15:16), the conversion of the heathen (Phil. 2:17), prayers (Rev. 5:8; Ps. 51:19), thanksgiving (Heb. 13:15), doing good (Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:6), mortification of the old man (Rom. 12:1), martyrdom (Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6), and, in general, the entire spiritual worship of Christians (1 Pet. 2:5).

The sacred utensils.

§ 18. The sacred furnishings of the tabernacle and temple should also be categorized with the holy things. We can designate these under the general expression (“sacred vessels and utensils”). With respect to subject, they can be divided into those which once were placed in the tabernacle and were later transferred to the temple of Solomon, and those which Solomon added to the original ones and placed into the temple. The tabernacle and the temple were divided into three parts. The first part was called the Holy of Holies, which only the high priest entered once a year; the second part was the Holy Place, which the priests entered daily; the third part was the courtyard, the place for the people. The Epistle to the Hebrews 9:4–5 lists the contents of the Holy of Holies in the following order.

The golden altar of incense.

(1) The golden altar of incense was used for offering incense when the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies once a year at the Feast of the Atonement (Lev. 16:12). This type was fulfilled by Christ, who offered Himself to the heavenly Father on the altar of the cross with a loud cry and with tears and prayers, and “once for all entered the Holy of Holies through His own blood” (Heb. 9:12). For it is clear from Ps. 51:19 [cf. Ps. 141:2] and Rev. 8:3 that the fragrance of the incense denotes prayers. Here we should mention that, before Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice on the altar of the cross, He first commended His disciples and all believers to His heavenly Father with very ardent prayers (John 17:2).

The ark of the covenant.

(2) The ark of the covenant was made of shittim wood, covered entirely with gold sheets inside and out, decorated above with a molding of gold around it and four rings on its sides. Its structure is described in greater detail in Exod. 25:10[–22]. This ark of the covenant denotes Christ, the Mediator of the New Testament. As the ark consisted of gold and wood, so Christ consists of the divine and human natures personally united. Shittim wood, by the interpretation of Rabbi D. Kimchi, was the best kind of cedar, hardly susceptible to rotting. So Christ’s human nature did not see corruption (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:31). On its four corners the ark had rings or loops into which carrying poles had been placed with which the ark would be carried. In the same way, through the ministry and preaching of the apostles, Christ was carried into all parts of the world, to all nations (Ps. 19:4; Rom. 10:18). The golden molding denotes the heavenly glory and beauty with which Christ was crowned according to His human nature (Ps. 8:5).

** Cyril of Alexandria (on John, bk. 4, ch. 28) and Hilary (on Psalm 131) teach that the humanity of Christ was foreshadowed in the ark of the covenant:

First, the ark of the covenant was of shittim wood, that is, of cedar. Since it is rotresistant, they say it declares the very great sanctity of Christ, for His humanity was not subject to any corruption of sin at all. Second, the ark of the covenant within and without was gilded or covered with gold sheets. In this way Christ is all golden, of the greatest worth and price, both according as He is God and according as He is man. Furthermore, His divinity as well as His humanity gleamed with the gold of the most ardent love. Third, on the ark was the mercy seat [propitiatorium], which was a golden cover for the ark itself; in this Christ is also depicted (Rom. 3:25), because through Him God becomes favorable [propitius] to us. Fourth, upon the mercy seat were two cherubim facing each other, looking at the mercy seat; these are the two Testaments which fit together when they look at Christ. Fifth, within the ark was Aaron’s staff, which symbolized both the royal and priestly authority of Christ. Along with the rod there was also manna, because the sweetness of manna tempers the severity of the rod. In the ark were also the tablets of the Law, which signify the wisdom of Christ (Col. 2:3) and that Christ has fulfilled the Law perfectly.

Blasius de Viegas (commentary on Revelation 11, p. 467) [says that] the golden ark is a type of Christ. “First, with respect to its container or surroundings. The gold and the shittim wood are the divine and the human natures; the four rings are the ministry of the Word; the molding is the glory of Christ. Second, with respect to its contents; third, with respect to its coverings. The cherubim are the two Testaments; the mercy seat is the merit of Christ. Fourth, with respect to its effects. In 1 Sam. 4[:5] the Israelites rejoiced when the ark was brought back to them; in the same way there is joy at the incarnation of Christ.” **

There are some who interpret the ark of the covenant as a reference to the church, which cannot be destroyed. The type of this is placed in the shittim wood. She is clothed in the righteousness of Christ like the purest gold, adorned with the various gifts of the Holy Spirit. She is not attached to a specific place but can indeed move about in this world, even as the ark was portable. Finally, she is the guardian of the prophetic and apostolic writings just as the ark was the guardian of the tablets of the Law. (Pelargus, on Exodus 2 based on Gregory’s Pastorale.)

** Naturally, all the sacred furnishings in the tabernacle can be considered as types of eternal life. First, the ark of the covenant is the Holy Trinity. Within the ark were the tablets of the Law, manna, and the rod of Aaron. God is in heaven and rules us with His most holy laws. The Son is the true manna from heaven. The Holy Spirit leads us by the staff of the ministry. Second, the mercy seat is the goodness of our Savior, who earned the grace of God by His death (Romans 3). Third, the cherubim are the society of the angels. We shall be “like the angels” (Matt. 22[:30]). Fourth, the altar is the holiness of devotion. We shall be priests of God (Rev. 1[:6]), offering the calves of our lips. Fifth, the candelabrum is the brightness of the blessed vision [beatae visionis] (1 Cor. 13[:12]). A threefold sight will delight us: bodily sight, by which we shall see the humanity of Christ; spiritual, by which we shall see the rarefied quality [subtilitas] of the angels; and intellectual, by which we shall see the Holy Trinity. Sixth, the table is the fullness of blessed fruition; the fruit of the tree of life will be served. Seventh, the rot-resistant shittim wood is eternity, unfailing in every detail. That seventh day will have no evening (Rev. 22[:5]). **

The golden urn.

(3) The golden urn contained the piece of manna, and Moses put it in the tabernacle by order of God. Some claim that it was stored in the ark of the covenant itself along with the tablets of Moses. They are influenced by the words of the apostle, who says “in which” [ἐν ᾗ, Heb. 9:4]. They understand the referent to be the immediately preceding phrase, the ark of the covenant. However, 1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chron. 5:10 say that “nothing was in the ark of the covenant besides the two stone tablets.” Clearly this exclusive particle should not be passed over lightly. Also, Moses only had the command to store the tablets of the Decalogue in the ark (Deut. 10:5), and this he did faithfully (Exod. 40:20). Finally, no other mandate exists about the golden urn containing the manna except that it should be kept “before the Lord” (Exod. 16:33). Therefore, as it says in v. 34, it was not placed in the ark of the covenant itself but in the presence of the testimony, that is, before the ark of the covenant. For this reason others claim that there was nothing else in the ark of the covenant but the tablets of the Decalogue, while the rod of Aaron and the urn with the manna were put in the tabernacle near the ark. Consequently, the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews must be taken synecdochically, or the relative pronoun “which” must refer to the farther word, “tent,” and not to the nearer word, “ark.”

The manna.

Next, the manna in the urn was a type of Christ, as is clear from John 6:49. The manna had been given from heaven. The divine generation of Christ is ineffable, and even His temporal birth took place outside the normal series of events. He is “the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47). “Manna” signifies “a gift prepared”; so Christ was predestined from eternity to be our Mediator. The manna was proof of God’s grace; so also Christ was given to us of God’s boundless love. The manna was a very small thing; so Christ was humble and lowly in the days of His flesh. The manna was white in color; so Christ is white and spotless, and “no deceit was found on His lips” [Mal. 2:6]. The manna tasted like honey; so, for the devout, Christ is honey in the heart, melody on their lips, and rejoicing in their heart. The manna was given as food in famine; so Christ is the spiritual food of our soul. All the Israelites ate the same food; so Christ is given equally to all believers.

Some people compare manna with the Gospel, which is the heavenly mystery divinely revealed; the remarkable gift of God, small in the eyes of carnal, works-righteous man; the very sweetest food of the soul which offers the grace of God to all equally; etc. In this sense the golden urn, since it preserved the manna, can denote Christ, “in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden” (Col. 2:3) and from whom the manna of the doctrine of the Gospel comes down to us.

The rod of Aaron.

(4) The rod of Aaron—which had sprouted, that is, miraculously produced buds, blossoms, and ripe almonds overnight to show that the high priesthood was owed to [Aaron] and to his descendants—was, for this purpose, also placed before the ark of the covenant by God’s command (Num. 17:10). It is clear from the Epistle to the Hebrews that Aaron was a type of Christ. Accordingly, the dry rod of Aaron miraculously sprouting and producing fruit depicts Christ, who sprouted from the dry root of the line of Jesse (Isa. 11:1), who “dried up like a potsherd” on the cross (Ps. 22:15), but who at His resurrection again sprouted and brought forth the sweetest fruits for our use.

The tablets of the Law.

(5) The tablets of the testament—that is, the two stone tablets of Moses on which the Ten Commandments had been written—were placed in the ark itself. This denotes that all the treasures of divine wisdom have been hidden in Christ, for what else do the tablets of the Law contain except the wisdom of God as contained in the Ten Words? This also means that Christ is the completion of the Law (Rom. 10:4), who rendered absolute obedience to the Law in every detail. Just as the tablets of the Law were placed in the midst of the ark, so Christ testifies about Himself in Ps. 40:8: “Your Law is within My heart.” Moreover, He writes the Law in the hearts of believers by the Holy Spirit (Jer. 31:33).

The two cherubim.

(6) The two cherubim were made of olive wood in the form of two young boys. They were covered with sheets of gold and were put on each end of the ark with their wings stretched open above the mercy seat, looking at it while facing each other. These cherubim denote the Old and the New Testaments, which interpret each other and are about Christ, the one and only Mediator. The New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old becomes clear in the New. There is newness in the Old and oldness in the New.

If the ark of the covenant is understood as a type of the church, the wings of the cherubim stretching above the ark can denote the church being guarded by the angels and rejoicing in their protection.

The mercy seat.

(7) The mercy seat [propitiatorium],¹⁸ (“the covering lid”), was a slab of solid gold placed on top of the ark like a covering or lid. It was also like a floor or base upon which the cherubim stood fixed. From this the Lord spoke to the Israelites, from between the two cherubim. The Septuagint translators render it ἱλαστήριoν because God, who spoke there, was propitious toward His people. It is also called “the oracle” because the sacred responses would be given from that place, for “the ark of the covenant covered with the mercy seat was like a litter on which the Lord would sit and speak and rule His people with His Word, explaining His will to the inquirer through the oracles,” as Förster writes on the word . For this reason the Hebrews even now call the [divine] Majesty because it dwelt upon the ark, and there He listened to the people as they prayed. The apostle teaches explicitly that the mercy seat was a type of Christ (Rom. 3:25): “God put forth Christ as a ἱλαστήριoν an. New Yothrough faith in His blood.” Heb. 4:16: “Let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace.” Just as the mercy seat covered the ark in which the tablets of the Decalogue had been placed, so Christ with His merit covers our sins committed against the Law of God. Through Christ we are reconciled to God so that the Law no longer condemns us because of our sins. David has this in view in Ps. 32:1, where he pronounces him “blessed whose sin is covered”—whose sins Christ, the true mercy seat, covers. It is to this same thing that all the saints look whenever they ask God to be gracious to them. Just as God had promised to be present at the mercy seat, so God wants to be found, recognized, and invoked in Christ, in whom “all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). Just as God spoke to the Israelites from the mercy seat, so the Son of God “who is in the bosom of the Father” has revealed to us the will of God concerning our salvation (John 1:18). The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant; so Christ embraces the church “under the shadow of His wings” [Ps. 17:8], etc. (See Cyril, De incarnat. unigen., ch. 3; and Gregory, on Ezekiel, homily 6.)

The golden lampstand.

§ 19. Heb. 9:2 lists the contents in the second part of the tabernacle, called the Holy Place, in this order: (1) The golden lampstand, which was placed on the south side of the tabernacle. It had three rods or branches coming out from both sides, thus equipped with seven branches in all. (Irenaeus, bk. 2, ch. 41, calls them “little branches” [calamiscos].) It was adorned because at the extremity of the stem or main shaft was a branch or cup. To each of these seven branches little balls or flowers were added. Also placed on them were seven lamps, always shining night and day and giving light to the Holy of Holies. To the lampstand were added snuffers and the traps into which were put the lamps that had been snuffed. (See Exod. 25:31[–40].) The rabbinic scholars say that the seven lamps of this lampstand denoted the seven planets, but it is more correct to refer this figure to Christ, for He calls Himself “the light of the world” (John 8:12). He is the one who gives light to the church and is endowed with the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit (Isa. 11:2). It is He who is described in Rev. 1:13 as “walking in the midst of the seven gold lampstands,” that is, of the churches of Asia Minor; and “before [His] throne burn seven torches of fire which are the seven spirits of God” (Rev. 4:5).

It is not out of place to refer the branches coming out of the base of this lampstand to the apostles and to their faithful successors, whom Christ also calls “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14)—clearly with respect to their doctrine, which is the true light of souls. These branches coming out from the base—that is, the ministers of the church—should be mindful only of Christ, should shine in the church with the preaching of true heavenly doctrine and with the example of a holy life, and should be very careful that the light of the Word of God not be extinguished little by little, etc. (See Gregory, on Ezekiel, homily 6; Bernard, Sentent.; etc.)

The gold table.

(2) A table made of shittim wood and covered with gold sheets, decorated with a gold molding around it, and equipped with poles to carry it was placed on the north side of the tabernacle. Upon it were placed various types of vessels made of pure gold, namely, great and broad dishes, a concave bowl in the shape of a hand, and half-bowls and ladles. The rabbinic scholars say these were all used to carry the showbread. Moses says that they were used in libations and sacrifices. (See Exod. 25:23[–30].) This table denotes the ministry of the Gospel through which the church is ruled. In it are different vessels; that is, the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to believers in different ways, and the truly devout are very careful to be “gold vessels,” cleansed from all the stains of sins (2 Tim. 2:20) and shining in the house of God. Rupert (De Trin. et ejus operibus, bk. 4, ch. 6) explains it as a reference to the table of the Lord’s Supper.

The showbread.

(3) The showbread or, in Hebrew, “bread of faces.” The Septuagint calls it ἀρτoὺς τoῦ πρoσώπoυ [“bread of the face”] or ἀρτoὺς τoῦ πρoθέσεως [“bread of setting forth,” “showbread”]. It was baked of the finest wheat flour and placed on the table before the face of the Lord, who dwelt above the ark of the covenant. It was changed every Sabbath, and the fresh loaves would be placed on the table in two rows of six. Incense was put on the bread, and no one except the priests could eat those loaves. (See Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5[–9]; Matt. 12:4.) Christ is “the bread of life” (John 6:49[–51]) and is offered to believers as food for the soul through the ministry of the twelve apostles. No one eats of Him except those who are spiritual priests, that is, all who are truly reborn, whom Christ made “kings and priests to the Father” (Rev. 1:6). The incense put on the bread denotes prayers, which should always be joined with true faith in Christ. On the Sabbath the showbread was changed; that is, in the course of this present life Christ shares Himself with us by the preaching of the Word and the use of the Sacraments. In eternal life, however, when there will be “Sabbath from Sabbath” (Isa. 66:23), then sight will replace faith, and no longer shall “we know in part, but we shall see Him face-to-face” (1 Cor. 13:12).

The altar of incense.

(4) The altar of incense was directly opposite the ark, built of shittim wood, covered with pure gold, and decorated with a gold molding around it, etc. On it burned the incense of spices every day, morning and evening. (See Exod. 30:1[–10].) This also denoted Christ, because no altar pleases God except Christ, His Son. Spiritual incense must be placed on Him; that is, our prayers must rely on the merit of Christ, for they please God only when they proceed from faith. Ps. 141:2: “Let my prayer come before You as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.”

In addition to this gold altar of incense, some count still three other things: (a) the altar of earth outside the tabernacle (Exod. 20:24); (b) the portable wooden altar in the open air (Exod. 27:1); (c) the bronze altar in the courtyard of the tabernacle (Exod. 40:6). However, it is more correct to say that, in addition to the gold altar of incense, there was only the one altar on which the burnt offerings and sacrifices were offered. Sometimes it is called of earth; sometimes, of wood; and sometimes, of bronze—because it was made of shittim wood, and was concave and covered on its sides with bronze sheets, and later was filled with dirt heaped upon it. The place for this altar was the courtyard of the tabernacle, and it was used for offering whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

The altar in the courtyard.

§ 20. So, then, in the courtyard, or the third part of the tabernacle, was placed: (1) The four-sided altar, the structure of which we just explained. It was portable through inserted carrying poles and equipped with the various bronze vessels and receptacles necessary for performing the sacrifices, arranging the wood, and removing the ashes. From its four corners rose up four horns or posts (πρoλαβαί) which were twisted into the shape of horns for decoration, and to these the sacrificial victims were bound (as is gathered from Ps. 118:27). Based on 1 Kings 1:50 and 2:28, they apparently provided sanctuary for offenders. An altar of such great size and weight could not have been moved from place to place without first emptying its hollow of the dirt that was piled into it. So every time the tabernacle was erected, [the altar] was refilled with dirt upon which the whole burnt offerings and the other sacrifices were burned. This altar denotes Christ, who “offered Himself up to God as a fragrant offering” (Eph. 5:2) and in whose name our prayers must be offered to God for them to become a pleasing and acceptable sacrifice to Him. It is because of [Christ] alone that our thankofferings and spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God. The dirt heaped on denotes the human nature of Christ, which He assumed to the end that, in and through it, He might offer the sacrifice of expiation to His heavenly Father.

** The earthen altar foreshadowed the humanity of Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. This altar was not made of polished stone but of unshaped dirt because “neither form nor comeliness was found in Christ” (Isa. 53:2), nor was it of cut stones because in Dan. 2:34 it is said of Christ that “He is a stone not cut by the hands of men.” Ambrose (De Spiritu s., bk. 1, ch. 9) interprets the altar of shittim wood as the cross of Christ on which “ ’He offered Himself to God the Father as a fragrant offering’ (Eph. 5[:2]).” **

The horns of the altar sticking up at the four corners denote the power of Christ’s sacrifice offered on the altar of the cross, which must be carried into the four corners of the world through the preaching of the Gospel (Gregory, on Ezekiel, homily 22).

The bronze basin.

(2) The bronze basin with its base. When it was filled with clean water, the priests would wash their hands and feet as they were about to enter the sanctuary of the tabernacle or as they were going to sacrifice in the courtyard (Exod. 38:8). Some translate it “shell.” In Hebrew it is , from the root , “he dug out.” The Greeks translate it λoυτῆρα (“wash basin”) because of its purpose or use, for in Hebrew the word is from the shape of a hollow or ditch. In the same place it is said to have been made , which translators have rendered in different ways. Onkelos translates it “from the mirrors of the women who came to pray at the entrance of the tabernacle.” Kimchi thinks almost the same. “Now, the mirrors from which the bronze basin was made are called ’the mirrors of women’ because they often used them for arranging their hair; but the women who had rejected worldly vanity and were eager to please God alone brought mirrors of this type and offered them for the Lord’s service. They came every day at a specific time to the tabernacle to worship the Lord.” (These are the words of Münster, from Rabbi Aben Ezra, whose opinion Schindlerus approves in his Lexicon, p. 1675). However, Förster translated it “in visions,” that is, in the sight of or from the area where the women were assembled. Luther’s translation approves this opinion.

It signified that the regenerate must be zealous for spiritual cleanness so that their spiritual sacrifices may be pleasing to God. John 13:10: “He who has bathed does not need to wash except his feet.” 2 Cor. 7:1: “Because we have these promises therefore, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing sanctification to completion in the fear of God.”

↑ Back to top