The Old Testament contains not only typical orders of men, but typical transactions also; that is, transactions which, while they had their own proper significance as a part of the history of God's church, were yet so ordered by God as to shadow forth with remarkable clearness and force the higher truths of Christ's kingdom. Such are the transactions between Melchizedek and Abraham recorded in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. Considered simply in itself, Melchizedek's priesthood belongs to the class of ritual types. But in the record of his intercourse with Abraham there is an accumulation of historic circumstances arranged by God's providence to shadow forth the higher priesthood of Christ. (1.) He united in his person the kingly and priestly offices, as does the Messiah. In the hundred and tenth Psalm it is, in like manner, a king invested by God with universal sovereignty, to whom the declaration is made: "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek." (2.) In official dignity he was higher than Abraham, and thus higher than any of Abraham's descendants by natural generation; for Abraham paid tithes to him, and received from him the priestly blessing (Gen. 14:19, 20); "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better." Heb. 7:7. (3.) His priesthood was without limitation, and had thus the attribute of universality. It was not restricted in its exercise by nationality, for Abraham was not one of his people. (4.) He did not belong to a line of priests, who transmitted their office from father to son. He was, so far as we know from the record, without predecessors, and had no successor in his priesthood. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews describes him as one who is "without father, without mother, without pedigree" (marginal rendering), "having neither beginning of days nor end of life: but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Heb. 7:3. In the interpretation of this difficult passage, we must begin with the axiomatic principle that Melchizedek was a human being. He could not have been, as some have thought, the Son of God himself; for how could the Son of God be "made like unto the Son of God?" Nor could he have been an angel; for angels are not partakers of human nature, and cannot therefore typify him who came in human nature to deliver those who are "partakers of flesh and blood." Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15; 5:1, 2. And if he was a proper man, then he was "without father, without mother, without pedigree," not in an absolute sense, but with reference to his priesthood. He was a priest whose genealogy is not mentioned, because his priesthood was not restricted, like that of the Levitical priests, to any particular line of descent. He held his priesthood from God, without predecessors or successors. The words that follow—"having neither beginning of days nor end of life: but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually"—are more difficult. It is certain, however, that they cannot be understood absolutely. They are commonly interpreted upon the same principle as the preceding words; namely, that in omitting from the inspired record every limitation of Melchizedek's life as well as descent, it was God's purpose to shadow forth the unlimited nature of Christ's priesthood; that, in truth, the apostle describes Melchizedek, the type, in terms which hold good in their full meaning only of Christ the great Antitype. They who, admitting that Melchizedek was a human being, find the interpretation unsatisfactory, must leave the apostle's words shrouded in mystery.
But whatever obscurity there is in the scriptural notices of Melchizedek, they abundantly affirm the typical nature of his priesthood as distinguished from that of the Levitical priests. He was a type of Christ not simply as a priest, but also in the peculiar character of his priesthood. He united with his priesthood the kingly office; was superior in dignity to Abraham himself, and thus to the Levitical priests; and his priesthood had the attribute of universality. Here, then, we have an undoubted example of a historic type.
It is not without reason that the deliverance of the covenant people from Egypt, their journey through the wilderness of Arabia under God's guidance, and their final settlement in the land of promise, have been regarded as typical of the higher redemption, guidance, and salvation received through Christ. From the earliest ages of the Christian church this wonderful history has been an inexhaustible storehouse of analogies for the illustration of Christian experience. In his pilgrimage through this vale of tears, the believer instinctively turns to it for instruction and encouragement. The mighty interposition of God when the Israelites were "yet without strength" in their bondage; their protection through the blood of the paschal lamb sprinkled on the doors of their houses when the destroyer passed through Egypt; the opening of a way through the Red sea when all human means of escape failed them; the journey through the wilderness; the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night to guide, the water from the rock to refresh, the manna from heaven morning by morning to feed them; God's faithful discipline in contrast with human unbelief, waywardness, and folly; the final preparation for the conquest of Canaan and its successful accomplishment—this whole series of events is wonderfully adapted to illustrate the course of Christian experience, and who shall say that God did not order it with a view to this end? We do not resolve it into mere type. We acknowledge it to be true history, valid to the men of that age—a true earthly deliverance, guidance, and sustenance in the wilderness, conducting to the possession of a true earthly inheritance. But we say that it is a history so ordered by God as to typify the higher pilgrimage of the believer to the heavenly Canaan. It is undeniable that the writer to the Hebrews regards the rest of the covenant people in the land of promise as a type of the rest of heaven. Heb. 3:7-4:11. And if that part of the history was typical, it is reasonable to infer that the whole was typical. It belongs to the nature of a type that it should, on the one hand, come short of the fulness of meaning that belongs to the antitype, and, on the other, should contain some things which find no correspondence in that which it adumbrates. The priesthood of the sons of Aaron, as we shall see, typified Christ's priesthood, but only inadequately, as a shadow represents the substance; while sinfulness, which belonged to all the priests of Aaron's line, not only did not correspond to the character of the Antitype, but was in contradiction with it. So is it also with the historical types that have been under consideration. They represent the antitype inadequately, and only in certain respects.
II. RITUAL TYPES.
5. The sacrifices were the central part of the Jewish ritual. But sacrifices imply offerers, a personal God to whom the offering is made, and a priesthood through which it is presented. In the primitive ages of the world, men offered sacrifices in their own behalf and that of their household in whatever place it was their chance to sojourn. Gen. 4:4; 8:20; 12:7, 8; 31:54; 33:20; 35:1, 7; 46:1; Job 1:5; 42:8. But upon the establishment of the Mosaic economy, the priestly office was restricted to the family of Aaron. Thenceforward all who wished to offer sacrifices must bring them through the mediation of the priests of Aaron's line. It belonged to the nature of the Mosaic economy, that God should have a visible dwelling-place among the Israelites. The directions for the construction of the tabernacle with its furniture are introduced by the words: "Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them." Exod. 25:8. The material sanctuary, then, was God's visible dwelling-place, where he manifested himself to his people, and received their worship according to the rites of his own appointment; the whole being, as we shall see, typical of higher realities pertaining to our redemption through Christ. And as this earthly sanctuary was God's chosen dwelling-place, it followed, as a necessary consequence, that after its erection all the sacrifices must be brought to its altar, and presented there to God through the priesthood of his appointment.
6. The Mosaic tabernacle was a movable structure very simple in its plan. Its frame-work on three sides consisted of upright boards, or rather timbers (for, according to the unanimous representation of the Jewish rabbins, they were a cubit in thickness), standing side by side, and kept in position by transverse bars passing through golden rings. Thus was formed an enclosure ten cubits in height, thirty cubits in length from east to west, and ten cubits in width; the eastern end, which constituted the front, having only a vail suspended from five pillars of shittim-wood. Over this enclosure, and hanging down on either side, was spread a rich covering formed by coupling together ten curtains of "fine-twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with cherubim of cunning work." Over this was another covering, formed from the union of eleven curtains of goats' hair; and above two other coverings, the one of rams' skins dyed red, and the other, or outermost, of badgers' skins. Surrounding the tabernacle was a court one hundred cubits long and fifty wide, enclosed by curtains of fine-twined linen supported on pillars five cubits high. The tabernacle itself was divided by a vail supported on four pillars into two parts; the inner sanctuary, or "holy of holies," ten cubits every way, and the outer, or "holy place," twenty cubits long by ten in breadth and height.
In a wider sense the whole movable structure within the court is called the tabernacle. But in a stricter sense the rich inner curtain is distinguished in the Mosaic description as the tabernacle, while the curtain of goats' hair is called the tent. Exod. 26:1, 7; 36:8, 14, 19. The true meaning of the word rendered in our version badgers is uncertain. Some think that the seal is referred to.
7. We have seen that the tabernacle was God's visible dwelling-place. But the palace of a king has its audience-rooms, where he receives his subjects and attends to their petitions. In like manner the Mosaic tabernacle, and afterwards the temple, had its "holy of holies" and its "holy place," the former being in a special sense the abode of Israel's God. The tabernacle, with its furniture, priesthood, and services, is declared in the New Testament to have been "a shadow of good things to come." Heb. 10:1, and elsewhere. Unless we understand this its typical character, we fail to gain any true apprehension of its meaning.
8. In contemplating the truths which the Mosaic tabernacle shadowed forth, we begin with the materials used in its construction. Here we notice two things; their preciousness, and the gradation observed in this respect.