17. § 5. The Covenant on Sinai

§ 5. The Covenant on Sinai

If we follow v. Hofmann, we relinquish all idea of a covenant of God with Israel. In his opinion (Prophecy and Fulfilment, p. 138) ברית does not mean covenant, but determination, establishment. On closer examination, however, we shall readily convince ourselves that this meaning is not at all applicable in by far the greater number of passages; while, on the other hand, those few passages which v. Hofmann cites in favour of his theory may easily be reduced to mean covenant. The term covenant is applied to circumcision as a covenant-sacrament, to the law as representative of the covenant condition, to the Messiah as the mediator of the covenant, and to the divine promise because it always implies an obligation, even when this is not actually expressed. The covenant now in question must not be regarded as something altogether new. God had already concluded a covenant with Abraham, and that this had reference to all his descendants appears from the circumstance that by divine command all bore the sign and seal of the covenant. The blessing of the covenant already encircled the Israelites during their whole residence in the wilderness, and promoted their great increase; and under the cross they still maintained the covenant blessing. In every threat to Pharaoh God calls Israel His people. The covenant on Sinai was therefore a solemn renewal of that which already existed. It is related “to the earlier, as confirmation is related to baptism. The nation which had been born into the covenant now with free consciousness makes a vow to observe it, and receives a renewal of the divine promise.

What is a covenant of God with man? At the first glance it seems as if such a thing were impossible, and the idea appears to have its basis in a rude conception of the relation of God to man. We belong to God from the beginning, body and soul. We are created by Him, and therefore to Him. How, then, can it be necessary that He should first purchase us to be His property, that He should make good His claims to our obedience by special benefits? From this it follows that God could conclude a covenant with Israel only by the deepest condescension; and hence we are led to infer the depth of that human corruption which made such condescension necessary. God, in whom we live, move, and are, ought to be near to us; but He is by nature as far from us as if He did not exist at all. His revelation in nature is to us a sealed book. We have lost the key to its hieroglyphics. We forget that we stand in a natural covenant-relation towards Him, that we receive rich gifts from Him, and that He has high claims to make on us. But in His mercy He does not let us go. He gives up the claims which He has as a Creator; He becomes our Father for the second time, and brings back His alienated property by redemption. The less we are divine the more He becomes human. Because the time has not yet come to reveal Himself thus to the whole human race. He does it first to a single nation, but to it on behalf of the whole human race. By free choice He becomes their God. Among this nation He founds the theocracy,—a name which was first employed by Josephus, while Scripture designates the same thing by the word covenant, a word which is highly characteristic of the thing, since it embraces the two elements which here come into consideration: that of the gift and the promise, and that of the obligation, indicating the special gifts by which God distinguished Israel from the other nations, and the particular obligations which grew out of this relation to God. As the thing here comes into full effect, this is the place to treat of it. When we hear of the covenant of God with Israel, or of theocracy, it generally suggests to us a relation of God to Israel which had no natural basis, and which at the beginning of the New Testament entirely ceased at one blow (a mode of consideration which has been only too much encouraged by most of those who have written on this subject). Consistently carried out, it results in theocracy being transferred from the region of reality into that of imagination. For if it were really a divine institution, it must also, in accordance with its essence, be eternal, in which case the form can belong only to this single nation, to whose wants it is adapted. The sacred writers are far removed from this mode of consideration. It is true, they recognise with deep gratitude that God stands in a relation to their nation such as He bears to no other; but this relation is to them only a potentialization of the universal—the idea of Jehovah rests upon that of Elohim: God could not be King of Israel in a special sense unless he were King of the whole world. His special providence in rewarding and punishing had universal providence for its substratum. They are also far from regarding that which was given to Israel before other nations as withdrawn from these for ever. The extension of theocracy over the whole earth, while it had formerly existed only among Israel, the universal change of the general into the particular, is to them the most characteristic mark of the Messianic time. In the similarity of essence they take no heed of the difference of form. We shall now show in detail how, in all the properties of the theocracy, the particular rests upon the basis of the universal, the temporal on the basis of the eternal, and how the word of the Lord is here verified, that of the law of God not a jot or a tittle can perish.

1. In the theocracy God was the lawgiver. It is generally asserted that among the heathen, and also among Christian nations, the laws were given, not by God, but by distinguished men who stood at the head of the nation. But whence, then, did these get their laws? Were they mere arbitrary whims? By no means. God is everywhere the source of all right. He implanted in man the idea of right and wrong. Even the worst legislation contains a divine element; and those who know nothing of God speak in God’s name. The peculiarity of the theocracy was only this, that in it the law of God was exempt from the many disfigurements which are inevitable so long as it is written only on the uniform tablets of the human heart; and a correction for all times is thus given to the natural law. Again, the application of the idea of right to special relations was not left, as among the heathen, to unenlightened reason, or, as among Christian nations, to enlightened reason, but was given by God Himself in its minutest details. Thus the holiness of that law which in all its determinations rested upon the immediate authority of the highest Lawgiver, was increased, while legislation was raised far above the age. How far it reached beyond that age, and how little it can be regarded as a product of the time, appears most clearly from the lively conflict which it had to maintain with the spirit of the nation during the march through the wilderness, and from the long series of revolts to which it gave rise, and which at last resulted in the rejection of the whole race. By this means a pattern and a test were given to that more advanced time, which was so far matured as to be able to make its own application of the idea of right to special relations. But we must not, therefore, overlook the circumstance that even under the Old Testament wide scope was given to the legislative activity of man, and the right which was customary was reformed only in so far as it required reformation, while in whole departments free play was given to its successive natural development. It is very incorrect to imagine that the Pentateuch was the exclusive source of right to Israel. With regard to the right of inheritance, for example, we find only three solitary injunctions, and with respect to buying and selling there is not a word. In all cases provision is made only for that which could not be left to natural development,—that which had special reference to the minority of the nation, and its immaturity in a religious and moral aspect. This observation also serves to lessen the chasm between theocracy and all other forms of government.

2. For the covenant-people God was not only the source of right, but also its basis. Every transgression was regarded as an offence against Him, and so punished. He who did not honour his father and mother was punishable, because in dishonouring them he violated that image of God which they bore in a definite sense. Whoever injured his neighbour incurred guilt, partly because in him he despised that divine image which is implanted in all, and is worthy of honour even in its remnant; and partly from his disregard to that which is peculiar to the members of the covenant, whom God esteemed worthy of such high honour, and to whom He imparted the seal of His covenant. This is clearly shown in the Decalogue, the fundamental law. Fear of God and love towards Him are there made the foundation of the whole fulfilling of the law, and in the very introduction the obligation to keep all the commandments is based upon the relation to the Lord. Exodus 20:6 expressly terms love to God the fulfilling of the law. That the commandments of the second table do not lie loosely beside those of the first already appears from the ratio legi adjecta, the רֵעֲךּ. The children of Israel are friends only through their common relation to the Lord. Only by accepting this principle can we clearly understand the position of the command to honour our parents. Easy and appropriate arrangement: Thou shalt honour and love God in Himself, Exodus 20:3-11; in those who represent His rule upon earth, Exodus 20:12; in all who bear His image, Exodus 20:13-17. The peculiarity here is only the establishment of the commandments upon that which God has done for Israel, on the common relation to Him as the God of Israel. While, among the heathen, laws are founded upon that which is common to all men, among Christians, especially upon that which God has done for us in Christ, the laesis proximi here appears in its most glaring light, because it affects a brother redeemed by Christ. Here also the theocratic is only a particular modification of the universal. Without God there is no sin, no duty, no right. Hence we can no longer speak of punishment in the proper sense, but only of means to render harmless those who are injurious to the interests of society. Where God disappears revolution infallibly sets in, all rights are trodden under foot, and there arises a belium omnium contra omnes.

3. All power among the covenant-people was regarded as an efflux of the divine supremacy. Judges administered justice in the name of God. Hence, “to stand before the Lord,” instead of “to appear before the tribunal of judgment,” Deuteronomy 1:17, Deuteronomy 19:17. In His name executive power acted, and thus it became of no consequence by whom it was administered. The law which has reference to the demand made by the people for a king, Deuteronomy 17, sufficiently shows that even the monarchical form of government was not inconsistent with the covenant. And the essential element was only this, that the government should not make itself independent of God. It is a monstrous error when Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Israel, ii. S. 207 f., makes the theocracy an absolute antithesis to all human government; the antithesis is only that of dependent and independent human government. If this be misunderstood in the face of the plainest and most numerous facts, we attribute to Moses a groundless fanaticism. This, therefore, is the peculiarity, that the power conferred by God manifests itself as such more clearly and sharply than elsewhere, that the law of God comes more visibly into play, that He interferes more promptly and palpably when the rulers depart from Him, or when the nation rejects Him by disobedience to authority. Moreover, all supremacy is of God, Romans 13:1. Every king bears His image, and this alone gives him the right to rule and makes it the duty of subjects to obey. To give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s, to fear God and honour the king, appear inseparably connected under the New Testament. According to Ephesians 3:15, every fatherhood, every relation of ruler and ruled upon the earth, is a reflection of the fatherhood of God. Only by confounding hierarchy with theocracy would it be possible to place a far higher value on that which was specifically Israelitish in the theocracy than it really had. It is perfectly clear that among Israel God ruled without a priesthood. According to law the priests have no political, but only a religious position. Everywhere their office is made to consist in the conduct of divine worship and the instruction of the people. After the appearance of Moses the political and judicial power still remained in the hands of the rulers of the people, but in difficult cases judges were at liberty to seek counsel from the priests as teachers of the law. The covenant allowed free scope to the development of the state. It recognised the existing government as ordained by God, while, at the same time, the lawgiver declared that a future alteration was in itself perfectly consistent with it. This is now so plainly manifest that even rationalism can no longer refuse to recognise it. Bertheau, in his History of the Israelites, p. 252, says, “The state power is not in the hands of the priests; they are only called upon to represent the collective body of the Israelites before God, and to watch over the purity and holiness of the community; but as priests they can neither give laws nor guide the state.”

God makes known, through Moses, that as King of His people He will strictly punish all disobedience against His laws and will richly reward the faithful observance of them. The Magna Charta of the theocracy in this respect is Deuteronomy 28. The truth of these threats and promises is shown by the history, which is really entirely contained in them, and by the fate of the earlier covenant-people, even to the present day. Here also the particular rests only on the universal. Even the heathen have much to say of Nemesis. Schiller says, “The history of the world is the judgment of the world.” And our Saviour says, “Where the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” The peculiarity of the theocracy was only this, that in it the judgments of God were sharper than those inflicted on the heathen, because the offence, which is always proportioned to the gift of God, was greater, comp. Leviticus 10:3; Amos 3:1-2; 1 Peter 4:17 Pet. 4:17; that they appeared more promptly and regularly, while God frequently suffered the heathen nations to remain in their sins, outwardly happy; that they were more palpable, because the history of Israel was designed to manifest to all nations and all times the divine retribution, that in this rude writing they might learn to read the finer also; finally, that by the divine ordinance punishment and blessing were always made known to the nation as such, comp. Amos 3:7, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.”

5. God as the King of Israel took care that His people should never want means of recognising His will, and for this He gave ordinary means. Upon the priesthood which He had established He enjoined the study of the law, of the authentic revelation of the will of God, comp. Leviticus 10:10-11; Deuteronomy 31:9 ff., Deuteronomy 33:10; and facility was given to them for this purpose. The tribe of Levi was called to the priesthood because the new principle had taken deeper root in it than in any of the rest, comp. Exodus 32:26-35; Numbers 25:6-9; Deuteronomy 33:9; but the complicated character of the Mosaic-religious legislation demanded a hereditary priesthood,—it required a priesthood formed by hereditary tradition and early education. But the book of the law was not designed merely for the priesthood. It was given by Moses to the elders of the people no less than to the priests, Deuteronomy 31:9. Every seven years it was to be read to the whole assembled nation, Deuteronomy 5:12; the king was to make a copy of it for himself, and to read in this every day of his life, Deuteronomy 17:19. When ordinary means did not suffice, God vouchsafed extraordinary. The high priest, clothed with the holy insignia of office, the Urim and Thummim, asked it in the name of the nation, in living faith, certain that God would give him the right answer in his heart. In times of apostasy, when the ordinary ministers did not adequately fulfil their calling, when the knowledge of divine truth had become obscured, and the fear of God seemed to be quite dead, God raised up prophets, instruments of His Spirit, who, endowed with infallible knowledge of His will, again gave prominence to it, and quickened the decaying piety; and this is the main thing. Nor was it a later addition; but the original founding of the theocracy was associated with a belief that it would be maintained by extraordinary powers and gifts, just as it had been established by them: comp. Deuteronomy 18:15, “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet, like unto me;” and the prophetic law, Deuteronomy 13:2-6, and Deuteronomy 18:15-22. This law formed the foundation for the activity of the prophets, which is only intelligible on the assumption of its existence. Without possessing such a right, how could they have acted in conformity with the mode and manner of their appearance? By this law no prophet could be called to account so long as he prophesied in the name of the true God, and so long as he predicted nothing that did not pass into fulfilment. Here, also, it must not be overlooked that even in the heathen world there was a faint analogy to this prerogative of the covenant-people, in the feeble rays of light which God permitted to shine through their darkness, comp. Romans 1:18 ff.; and by virtue of its essence the same thing still continues among the nation of the new covenant. The church of the New Testament has a pure source of knowledge of the divine will in the Holy Scriptures. It has a ministry appointed by God to spread the knowledge of the truth. In it also every obscuring of divine truth is a prophecy of the approaching illumination, every degeneracy of ordinary means for the apprehension of the divine will is a prophecy of the preparation of extraordinary messengers. The appearance of an Athanasius, of a Luther, a Spener, and a Francke, rests upon the same divine necessity as the appearance of an Isaiah and a Jeremiah. The difference lies only in the form. The Old Testament messengers had a stronger external authority in the gift of prophecy, and, when the danger of complete apostasy was especially great, in the power to perform miracles. Under the New Testament, when the Spirit worked more powerfully in the heart of the church, which had acquired a firm position, the ordinary operations of the Spirit sufficed. A similar relation exists between those who are called to watch over the external welfare of the kingdom of God. Thus the appearance of a Samson and a Gustavus Adolphus depends on the same divine causality. But how great is the difference in form!

6. Another essential characteristic of the theocracy was this, that God dwelt among His people, that the sanctuary erected to Him was not without praesens numen, but was rather a tabernacle of God among men. In this way, in the type and prefiguration of His incarnation, God came into close contact with the nation. The temple, the priesthood, and the yearly feasts depend on the presence of God in the nation. It was prescribed by law that each one should appear before God at the place of the sanctuary three times a year; in subsequent practice, however, only the annual appearance at the feast of the passover, as the principal festival, was regarded as an absolute religious duty. Israel had in reality what the heathen only imagined they had, and this is the only form suitable for the necessities of that time, as we see from the analogy of the heathen. The form has now changed, but the essence, far from having ceased, is present among us in still stronger manifestations; and this advance forms one of the main distinctions between the Old and New Testaments. Apart from it, the change of form would not have been possible. Since Christ appeared in the flesh, since He made His dwelling in the heart, and abides constantly with us; where only two or three are gathered together, there He is in the midst of them; these πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα (Galatians 4:9) have ceased. The chasm between heaven and earth is completely filled up; there is no longer any need of the lower representation of God, because God is there in most real presence.

We have still a few words to say respecting the duration of the theocracy. This is differently estimated by different writers. Some, such as Spencer, make it end with the establishment of royalty; others, such as Hess, regard it as having extended to the Babylonian exile; while others again, such as Warburton, asserted that it lasted until Christ. We must, first of all, premise that the theocracy can only be said to have ceased in a certain sense. This is sufficiently shown by what has already been said. By virtue of its essence the theocracy must be eternal. Otherwise it could never have existed. Ewald excellently remarks, “Here, for the first time, is a kingdom which recognises an end and aim external to itself, which neither had a human origin, nor can advance by human means, and by virtue of its rejection of all that is not divine, bears in itself the germ of infinite duration.” Such a kingdom can only pass away as the grain of corn passes into the blade. Its destruction cannot belong to the future, but only its fulfilment. Already the prophets regard the matter in this light. They proclaim the extension of the kingdom of God, which had hitherto been limited to a single nation, over the whole earth, and its complete subjugation of the kingdom of the world, comp. Isaiah 2; Daniel 2:7. The Saviour does not distinctly assert that the theocracy, the βασιλείατοῦΘεοῦ, will cease, but He says. The kingdom of God shall be taken from yon, and given to another people bearing its fruits. Nor is it taken from all Israel, but the unbelieving portion of the nation is thrust out from it, while the heathen unite themselves with the believing portion. The twelve tribes of Israel, to whom the heathen merely attached themselves, still form the church of God in παλιγγενεσία: comp. Matthew 19:28; Revelation 7:4. Only with reference to its form can the theocracy be said to have ceased. Unquestionably, therefore, this cessation took place at Christ’s death. How it can be regarded as having ceased on the establishment of royalty, we can scarcely conceive. No essential change in the form of the theocracy occurred at that time. We learn how little the kingly dignity was in itself opposed to the divine supremacy, not only from Deuteronomy 17, but also from the announcements in Genesis, in which reference is made to royalty among Israel, as to one of the greatest blessings of the future. Moreover, David found his highest honour in being the servant of God, and under his rule the theocracy attained its deepest reality. In Judges 17:6 royalty is represented as progress towards something better: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Many later kings, indeed, abused their power, and sought to make themselves independent of God. But this only gave rise to the stronger assertion of the theocracy, partly through the prophets and partly by divine judgments. The theory which makes the cessation of the theocracy coincident with the return from captivity, is equally untenable. The prophethood certainly became extinct. This is the only apparent argument which can be adduced. But it did not cease for ever—it revived again in John, as in Samuel; after having exercised but little influence during the whole time from Moses to him, though in a certain sense it continued even in the interval; the longing after new communications from God became the more intense by the fact of their absence. But the earlier prophets, especially Daniel and Zechariah, had provided even for this period; the prophethood did not cease until it had given counsel, comfort, and exhortation for every need. Virtually, therefore, it still continued; but the commands of God, specially destined for this time, were drawn from the Holy Scriptures, instead of the mouth of the prophets. At the death of Christ, on the other hand, there ensued a great change, not only in the fact that the greater part of Israel had completely broken the covenant—though this alone is generally brought forward; but there ensued a change, which could only result in the passing away of the earlier form, though not otherwise than as a seed of corn passes into the blade. It may be said, that with the death of Christ the temple at Jerusalem, as such, was destroyed. For now the relation of God to the -world was altered; now arose the possibility of an inner union, of a richer participation in the Spirit, so that from this time forth God could be worshipped in spirit; faith raised itself powerfully to Him without any further need of such a prop. It would have been a gross anachronism to wish still to adhere to the temple at Jerusalem, after Christ had been exalted to the right hand of the Father, and the realization of His promise to be with His own to the end of the world had begun. When the sun rises, other lights are put out. With the death of Christ the whole theocratic institution of sacrifices was done away, for in His death the idea of sacrifice was realized. With Him the whole letter of the ceremonial law was abrogated. This section is twofold: it contains the conclusion of the covenant and the giving of the law. Both are closely connected. The covenant presupposes reciprocity, as we have already said. Therefore, before it could be solemnly concluded, the covenant-nation must be told what they have to do. This explains the order of events; first, the question to the people whether, in grateful recognition of all the favours which the Lord had vouchsafed to them, they would obey Him in all things, and the subsequent promise that He would henceforward manifest Himself as Jehovah. Then, after the affirmation of the people, the sketch of the divine commandments, to which obedience was required, so that all which followed was only amplification in idea. The whole law is already fully given here. That the Decalogue is the quintessence of the whole legislation is indicated by the number ten, and by the circumstance that “the words of the covenant,” Exodus 34:28, is applied only to the Decalogue in the ark of the covenant, while the book of the law is treated as mere supplement. It is shown also in the solemn ratification and reception of the law by the nation, and in the solemn conclusion of the covenant. And this is the place to make a few remarks relative to the nature and design of the revelation of the law to Israel. The relation of the law to the economy of the Old Testament has very frequently been quite misapprehended by a misconception of the Pauline representation. It has been forgotten that Paul had not to do with the meaning of law generally, but only with the special relation of the law to the carnal-minded, those who were sold under sin. The law has been completely severed from the grace which accompanies it, so that the favour becomes a mockery. The living God commanded nothing without at the same time giving that which was commanded. Each of His commands is a simultaneous promise. And that this promise was fulfilled in many under the Old Testament is shown by the numerous examples of piety which it contains. They prized the law as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb, Psalms 19:11; they were grateful to the Lord for leading them in His ways; they prayed that He would not take His Holy Spirit from them, Psalms 51:11; that He would create in them a clean heart, in conformity with the actual promise which He had given them in circumcision. The prerogative of Israel over the heathen did not consist merely in the fact that the law was given to them on stone tables; in this they had a pledge that God would write it on the table of their heart, as we read in Proverbs 7:3, “Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thy heart.” The difference between the Old and New Testament in this respect is only relative. The latter possesses, on the one hand, more powerful means to break the heart of the natural man, to remove his hardness and at the same time his despair; and, on the other hand, it imparts to those who are thus prepared a more effectual assistance of the Holy Spirit for the subjective realization of the law, which could only be given after the atoning death of Christ. From this standpoint we can more accurately define the relation of the Old to the New Testament pentecost than is generally done, when they are apprehended as in pure antithesis, and the law is represented as the letter of the first Old Testament pentecost and the spirit of the second New Testament pentecost. By this view the Old Testament pentecost is changed into a mere outward memorial feast. But if it be apprehended that in the first passover the law was written immediately upon the heart, as David says in Psalms 40:8, “I delight to do Thy will, O my God, yea Thy law is within my heart,” then every subsequent Old Testament feast of pentecost, solemnized at God’s command, is a pledge of the continuous realization of the promise given in and with the law. The first Old Testament pentecost is at the same time the last of the Old Testament, the end only in so far as it is the fulfilment. God would not have kept His covenant if He had not brought about the fulfilment. The essence of the Christian and the Old Testament pentecost is the same; the former is only an advance on the latter. They are related to one another, as circumcision to baptism, as the Old to the New Testament passover. The Old Testament passover is the pledge of the continuing forgiveness of sin; pentecost, of continuing sanctification. The feast of pentecost had moreover a natural side, besides that which has already been mentioned. As in the feast of the passover the first-fruits were presented, so pentecost was the feast of the end of the corn-harvest. In this way Israel was made conscious of the ethical condition of the benefits of nature, and was reminded of the saying, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” The harvest blessing has its root in reconciliation and sanctification. The one main object of the communication of the law is thus already indicated. In Exodus 19:6 God declares that Israel shall be a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. The peculiarity of the priesthood consisted in the closeness of their relation to God. A holy nation must represent God’s holiness on earth. And that the nation might fulfil this its high destiny, God gave a copy of His own holiness in the law. By this means He showed them the aim which is partially or entirely concealed from the eyes of the natural man, gave them a safe rule for their actions, which even the well-disposed have need of; and to those who were filled with gratitude and love by His manifestations of mercy. He imparted inner power to reach the goal. In His mercy He pardoned their sins of weakness, in accordance with the promise which He gave on the founding of the passover feast and the institution of sin-offerings. Thus there sprang up among the covenant-people a germ of those in whom His idea was realized, without whom a covenant-people cannot have any existence, and who cannot be wanting at any period. If their existence cannot be proved, the βασιλείατοῦΘεοῦ becomes a mere fable. They are the צדיקים; who meet us in almost every psalm, and so often in the prophets, especially in the second part of Isaiah, in strong contrast to the dead members of the community of God; who meet us again on the threshold of the New Testament in Zacharias, Elisabeth, John the Baptist, and Hanna. But this activity of the law must be preceded by another; before sanctification can come into operation, there must be recognition of sin, the fundamental condition of reconciliation, which forms the only possible basis of sanctification. We are led to this definition of the law by its name עֵדווּת, testimony, in so far as it bears testimony against sin and the sinner: comp. Beitr. vol. 3, p. 640 ff. The law first accuses and compels to the reception of the offered reconciliation. Afterwards, by the forgiveness of sin, the accusation and condemnation of the law are silenced so far as the penitent is concerned. Not until man finds himself in a state of grace, and the innermost disposition of his heart is in unison with the law—for sin is loved until it is forgiven—can the law begin its work of sanctification. But even for the mass of the people, in whom the destination of the law was not perfectly realized, it was not given in vain. It created discipline, morality, and the fear of God. The fearful manifestations which accompanied the giving of the law were well adapted to give birth to the latter, even in coarse minds; and when it disappeared, God knew how to reawaken it by the ever-continuing realization of these actual threats, as we see from the example of the time of the Judges, especially of the Babylonian exile, which was followed, if not by universal love towards God, yet by universal fear, so that the worship of idols was abolished at one stroke. But what the law accomplished in this respect formed a basis for the realization of its main object. Discipline, morals, and the fear of God in the multitude are the foundation for the erection of the structure of the living faith of the elect. And this faith of the elect was the necessary condition of the coming of Christ. The ἀπολύτρωσις cannot be conceived of apart from the προσδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν. How could the Saviour have appeared among Israel if the Israel which Josephus puts before us in horrible manifestation had been the whole of Israel? But at the same time care was taken that the faithful should be satisfied only in so far as to awaken a longing after the highest satisfaction; to them the law always remained relatively external, so that it became for them the παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν. The highest step under the Old Testament only stood on a level with the lowest under the New Testament; comp. Luke 17:28, where it would not do to substitute the superlative for the comparative, so that no one was too rich and too contented to be willing to receive from Christ. The object of the giving of the law will have been made plain from these remarks. It was intended to effect: 1. discipline; 2. conviction of sin; 3. sanctification. A time was chosen for the giving of the law in which the nation was raised above itself by the great deeds of the Lord, and was willing to submit to the discipline and the constraint of a new position to which its inner temperament did not yet correspond. The inspiration soon cooled again; but however much the nation struggled against the law which had once been accepted, yet this proved itself to be leaven which by degrees leavened the whole mass.

We have still to define the mutual relation of the ceremonial law and the moral law, in opposition to very wide-spread error. The former, it is generally assumed, was completely abolished by Christ, while the latter remains binding for all time. But this view is totally incorrect. The Mosaic law forms one inseparable whole; in a certain sense it was quite abrogated by Christ, and no longer concerns the church of the New Testament, but in a certain sense it was fully ratified by Christ, the ceremonial, no less than the moral law. The continuance of the whole law becomes clear simply on the ground that it was given entirely by God. If this be established, it cannot consist altogether of arbitrary enactments, but must contain a kernel of eternal truth. And so it appears on closer consideration. Every ceremonial law, even that which is apparently most external, is only an embodied moral law, an incorporated idea which can be divested of that body which it only assumed with reference to the stage of development of a certain nation, but has never surrendered anything of its peculiar essence. Look for instance at circumcision, the idea of which still remains in force, although in baptism it has assumed a new form. The duration of the whole law also appears from the definite statements of the Holy Scriptures. Instar omnium applies here, Matthew 5:17-19. There the Lord asserts, in the strongest expressions, the eternal duration of the whole law, to its very smallest detail, and its binding power for the members of the new covenant. But in another aspect the whole law is to be considered as abrogated. Pure moral law, such as had no special reference to Israel, and may be transferred to the Christian church without that modification to which the ceremonial law must be subjected, is not to be found in the Old Testament. We shall illustrate this by the example of the Decalogue, which is generally considered as the most free from all national reference. At all events, this is not its prominent characteristic. It is designed to be the quintessence of the whole legislation, which is related to it only as further extension and amplification. We see that the Decalogue points to later supplements by the fact that it contains no punitive enactments. From this it necessarily follows that the kernel is of more value than the shell, the eternal element of more value than the temporal. It gives only that which is most simple and most original. In the first table there are five commands respecting the relation to the ὑπερέχοντες, the authorities, to God and those who represent His dominion upon earth (for the command to honour parents belongs to the first table). The second table also contains five commandments, relative to neighbours, equals. But even here the temporal element is not entirely wanting. The reason of the obligation, contained in the introduction, concerns Israel alone. For the Christian church, the redemption from Egypt is superseded by redemption through Christ. The Old Testament itself declares that at a future time the former will give place absolutely to the later (Jeremiah 23:7). The command respecting the Sabbath also bears a specifically Old Testament character, in so far as it strictly enjoins the celebration of the seventh day, and partially insists upon rest, taking the creation of the world for its principal basis. By neighbours we must first of all understand only the members of the covenant-nation, the co-Israelites, etc.

We must, therefore, infer that the letter of the whole Mosaic law is done away, while its spirit remains eternal. Its authority rests not so much upon the circumstance that it is in unison with the law of our reason, but upon the fact that God gave this law through Moses. We do not become free from this authority until we are able to prove that a legal determination does not belong to the essence, but only to the special Old Testament form. We only remark further, that on this subject there is good material to be found in the work of Bialloblotzky, de legis Mosaicae abrogatione, Gott. 1824, although his conclusion is not quite correct. Adopting many of the one-sided incautious expressions of Luther, the author has too much overlooked the fact that the Old Testament law, as a copy of the divine holiness, is imperishable with regard to its essence, and must remain valid even for the church of the New Testament.

We have still a few remarks to make with special reference to the aim and signification of the ceremonial law. In accordance with what has been said, the principal value must be attached to its meaning. There is no ceremonial law which is not symbolical, and, as symbolical, typical. The older theologians have erred only in separating the typical from the symbolical, and instead of seeking it in the idea, have sought it in little externalities. To have understood and avoided this error is the great merit of Bähr’s Symbolism of the Mosaic Worship, 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1837-39, a book which has much that is valuable in other respects, but must be used with great caution on account of its many arbitrary assertions. We shall illustrate the symbolical and typical character of the law by a few examples. After the completion of the tabernacle of the covenant, all sacred things and persons were anointed. Oil is in Scripture the symbol of the Spirit of God; the anointing of the sanctuary, a graphic representation of the communication of this Spirit to the church of God, which is by this means consecrated and set apart from all others, lying without the department of the operations of divine grace, comp. Isaiah 63:11. So much for the symbol. The communication of the Spirit to the theocracy was still incomplete. Moses himself recognises this when he expresses the wish that all the people might prophesy, i.e. might enter into immediate spiritual union with God: Numbers 11:19. This wish, which contains a recognition of the spirit of godlessness which was still prevalent at that time, is based on the notion of a people of God, and is therefore also prophecy. Thus that which is an image of the already-existing is at the same time a type of the future. Because God has given the beginning. He must also bring about the end. The former is no chance act of caprice, but rests upon the relation of God to the theocracy; and this same relation demands also fulfilment. From Dan. 12:24 we learn that this typical meaning was already recognised under the Old Testament itself. Again, the third among the great annual feasts, the feast of tabernacles, was a symbolical representation of the gracious guidance of the Lord in the time of trial and temptation, and thus a necessary supplement to the feast of the passover, as the feast of the bestowment of forgiveness of sins, and to pentecost, as the feast of the internal and external giving of the law or the feast of consecration. The passover corresponds to sin-offering, pentecost to burnt-offering, the feast of tabernacles to peace-offering;. But the symbol was at the same time type, not only of God’s future similar dealings with this nation, but also of His treatment of those who were resolved to become His people. The feast of tabernacles points prophetically to that of the church militant of the New Testament, to the march throughout the wilderness of this earth, comp. Revelation 12:6-14, to salvation granted, and to the final happy issue of this march. Zechariah 14:16 expressly mentions the feast of tabernacles as a type. And again in the Revelation 7:9. Besides the historical side, according to which the feast of tabernacles was one of gratitude for the gracious preservation of the Lord during the pilgrimage of Israel through the wilderness, comp. Leviticus 23:43, and a pledge of the continuance of this preservation, this feast had also a natural side, like the passover and pentecost. It was the feast of the completed gathering in of all fruits. This natural side stood in close connection with the historical. Bähr says: “There was certainly no time better adapted than this to remind them of the hardships endured in their wanderings in the desert, of the time of the trial of their faith, of the great benefit conferred on them in the possession of the promised and wished-for land, and in the final entrance into rest after the struggle.” With respect to the natural side also the typical meaning of the feast of tabernacles is clearly apparent. It prefigured the heavenly harvest, the time when the elect, who kept the passover and pentecost in the spirit, rest from their work, and their works do follow them, since they have well invested what they here gained by the sweat of their brow, and what God’s blessing had bestowed on them. Again, the yearly great day of atonement was deeply significant for Israel, Leviticus 16. The ceremonial of this day was as follows: The high priest first presents a sin-offering as an atonement for himself and his house. Then he takes two goats as a sin-offering for the house of Israel. One of these is actually offered up, the other only in and with it. Aaron lays both his hands upon its head and confesses upon it the (forgiven and obliterated) trespasses of the children of Israel, lays them upon its head and sends it to Azazel—i.e. to Satan—in the wilderness. The meaning of this symbolical action is, that when God’s people have sought and obtained forgiveness of their sins, they need no longer have any fear of Satan, but may come boldly before him, triumph over him, and mock at him, in contrast with the delusion of the Egyptians, who thought that they had to do immediately with the evil principle, the Typhon. Here also the symbol is a type. By the symbol the triumph of the church of God over Satan is shown to be necessary in accordance with its essence; and since this triumph was but imperfect under the Old Testament, the yearly feast of atonement was at the same time a pledge of a more complete triumph to be granted in the future, having its foundation in atonement through the true High Priest; comp. Hebrews 7:26, Hebrews 9:7, and Zechariah 3:8—a passage which shows that the incompleteness of the Levitical atonement was already recognised under the Old Testament. And, apart from its ascetic meaning, the outward rest of the Sabbath formed a symbol of the inner, actual rest: Thou shalt cease from thy work, that God may have His work in thee, as Isaiah interprets the symbolical action. But every command is at the same time a promise. In the sphere of revelation there is no “Thou shalt” which is not followed by “Thou wilt.” The external rest of the Sabbath was therefore a type of that rest which God would at a future time grant to His people from all their own works, comp. Hebrews 4:9. Again, fasting was a symbolical representation of repentance. Man, in chastising his soul (this is the expression which the law applies to fasting), by this means made an actual confession that misery belonged to him. God, in commanding this symbolical expression of repentance, required repentance from the covenant-people, treated it as presupposed in the symbol, and in it gave an actual promise that, at a future time, He would pour out the spirit of repentance and of grace in rich abundance upon the nation, comp. Zechariah 12:10. Finally, the sin-offerings were symbolical. In them the offerer made a virtual confession that he recognised himself as a miserable and condemned sinner, deserving the fate of the sacrificed animal, and that he placed his trust only in the acceptance of substitution by the divine mercy. And because God instituted sin-offerings, they also were symbolical. They contained the virtual assurance that at a future time God would institute a more perfect redemption, a true substitution, which was only prefigured and typified in the offering of animals, but could not be fully bestowed. Isaiah, Isaiah 53, already regards sin-offering as such an actual assurance. And so throughout. But now the question arises, whether, in the ceremonial law, there is not at best useless circumlocution—the question why God chose this material representation of spiritual truths, why He did not represent them naked and bare, in mere words?

1. Here we must, first of all, apprehend the symbolical tendency of the East generally, and of antiquity in particular. The image and symbol were a means of bringing home to the people that truth which they were not yet able to comprehend without a veil. The language of symbol was at that time the natural language. And we find the same plan pursued in the New Testament. The design is not merely to fill the mind with true thoughts, but also to sanctify the phantasy, and to fill it with holy images. For this the profound allegory of the ceremonial law forms an excellent means. Whoever has penetrated into this cannot fail to regard the lower as a type of the higher. We are released from the external representation; it is too coarse, too material for the New Testament times. The symbolism may still, however, serve as an image for us.

2. The ceremonial law, in placing the least and the greatest in outward connection with God, in bringing God into everything, formed a life-long remembrance of the inner relation to Him. Take, for example, the laws respecting food, which cannot be regarded as arbitrary enactments, but rather rest upon the symbolical character of Nature, and are images of that which is morally clean and unclean. Every act of eating and drinking was calculated to recall God to the memory of those who were by nature so apt to forget Him. In this respect the ceremonial law had deep meaning, especially as an antidote to the Egyptian nature. False religion had taken possession of the Egyptian mind principally through the circumstance that it had penetrated by its ceremonies into every corner of the national life. Adherence to it could only be thoroughly removed by a homoeopathic mode of dealing. Otherwise the true religion would have remained hovering above the actual relations, instead of permeating them.

3. The ceremonial law was designed to effect the separation of Israel from other nations, comp. Ephesians 2:14. Idolatry was then the spirit of the age; nor was this spirit of the age something accidental, but in the state of things then existing was, even in its form, a necessary product of that same human nature which was possessed by Israel also. The sole means of inwardly resisting it, the Holy Spirit, was not present among Israel in the masses; and apart from the Holy Spirit no adequate effect could be anticipated. Thus the Israelites were kept outwardly under the law to Christ, until the time when, furnished with power from on high, they could begin the offensive warfare against heathendom.

4. The ceremonial law facilitated the recognition of sin, and thus called forth the necessity for redemption. The people must be weary and heavy laden, that at a future time the Lord might be able to say to them, “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The law was, and was intended to be, a hard yoke, Acts 15:10, Galatians 5:1, under which the nation should sigh, and thus be stirred up to long for the Redeemer.

5. Much in the ceremonial law served, by carnal impress, to awaken in the carnal people reverence for that which was holy. This aim is definitely expressed in Exodus 28:2. The ceremonial law made it very difficult to have intercourse with the heathen. Some of the forbidden animals, for example, were those which other nations were commonly in the habit of eating; comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. Th. 4, § 203. Add to this that mockery of the heathen, which had its origin in the observance of the canonical law, and which we still find expressed in Greek and Roman authors. And here we must allude to the subject of a long and violent dispute among older theologians. English scholars—Marsham in the Canon chronicus aegypt., ebraic, graec.; Spencer, de leg. rit.; Warburton, in The Divine Legation of Moses, to whom Clericus, and, to some extent, J. D. Michaelis, attached themselves—sought to prove that among the oldest heathen nations, especially among the Egyptians, there were similar ceremonies, and on this hypothesis found the assumption that God had connected with the true religion customs which had been prevalent among idolatrous nations, in order, by this condescension, to help the weakness of the Israelites, who had become accustomed to these ceremonies while in Egypt. Their opponents, on the other hand, maintained, first, that it would be unworthy of God to pay any regard to those customs prevalent among idolatrous nations; or, in their language, for the devil to have supplied God the Lord with matter for the ceremonial law, since otherwise the devil would be simia Dei, but God not simia diaboli; second, that the similarity is by no means so great; and finally, that where such similarity can be proved, the Egyptians may readily have borrowed from the Israelites; for we have no account of their religious constitution, except in very late writings. The principal work on the subject is Witsius’ Aegyptiaca, Amstel. 1683; Lange, Mos. Licht und Recht; and Pfaff, in the preface to his edition of Spencer. It cannot be denied that these theologians were right in taking up the matter very seriously: for if the view of the English scholars were allowed, it would prove the rude transfer of a whole multitude of the elements of the heathen religion; and in this case would it not be much more natural to leave out God entirely, and to assume that the borrowing originated with the Israelites themselves? And the English critics were not able so completely to escape this conclusion, if they refrained from giving it outward expression. In Marsham, at least, we have many reasons for supposing that his view of the Old Testament was pretty much that of the rationalists, who afterwards understood well how to employ the results of the English theologians for their own purposes. In Spencer, also, the fundamental direction is plainly rationalistic. Yet we must not overlook the fact, that the opposition to this view, although in the main well-founded, was yet in one respect partial. The truth that lay at the basis of their assertions was overlooked, and by this very means many were led to adopt their errors. Although the English scholars dragged forward a multitude of similarities, although they showed no critical power in the use of sources, although they brought forward very much which, owing to its universal character, can prove nothing at all; yet notwithstanding the opposition against them, which has been recently revived by Bähr, there still remains something which must lead us to accept an inner link of connection between the heathen and the Israelitish religions,—for example, the Egyptian analogy of the Urim and Thummim, the cherubim, and the rite at the feast of atonement. This rite presupposes the Typhonia Sacra of the Egyptians, which cannot be doubted if we compare those passages of the ancients which have reference to it, collected by Schmidt, de Sacerd. et Sacrif. Aeg. S. 312 ff.; and the discussions in the work entitled The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 164 ff. But notwithstanding the similarity in form (the offering of the Typhon was also led into the wilderness), there is a most decided contrast as regards the meaning. Among the Egyptians Typhon is conciliated,—among the Israelites only God: the goat sent to Azazel in the wilderness is first consecrated to God as a sin-offering. The inability to rise to a perception of the internal differences between those things which are outwardly similar—theological impotence—is the great defect in these English scholars. But their opponents also participated in this defect to some extent. If they had vividly realized that the soul is more than the body, they would not have been so anxious to set aside all outward agreement. It must be said, however, that the most unprejudiced examination can find comparatively few points of contact with Egyptian worship. The three already mentioned are the most important. Besides these, we must refer to the institution of holy women, Exodus 38:8—women who renounced the world in order to consecrate themselves entirely to the service of God in prayer and fasting, in the tabernacle of the covenant; an institution à priori probably due to an Egyptian source, since it was not instituted by Moses, but arose of itself, and is placed beyond all doubt by the precise accounts concerning the holy women among the Egyptians. Women from the higher families, princesses, even queens, in Egypt consecrated themselves to some deity. The most important were the Pallades of Amon: comp. Bähr on Herod, ii. 54, pp. 557, 612; Wilkinson, i. p. 258 ff.; Rosell. i. 1, p. 216 ff. But we see at once how essentially different the outwardly similar institution was among the Israelites, if we only apprehend the difference between the God of Israel and the Egyptian deities. The form of the Nazirate seems also to have an Egyptian origin, as also the laws relative to the material and colour of the priests’ garments, and the legislation respecting clean and unclean animals, and a few other things. The result is the following: It is impossible without embarrassment to deny a close connection between the Egyptian and the Israelitish worship, since in many places we find an agreement which is too characteristic to pass for accidental. A borrowing on the side of the Egyptian can hardly be thought of. But just as little can we suppose that the Israelites properly borrowed from the Egyptians. The state of the matter is this. Every sensuous worship, every external religion, rests upon the distinction between holy and unholy. Now the holy is partly natural—resting upon an inner relation of the symbol to the thing symbolized; as, for example, anointing, common among nations the most diverse, and quite independent of each other, was a symbol of consecration, washing was a symbol of purification, the slaughter of sacrificial animals was a symbolical expression of the necessity for atonement. Again, the holy is factitious, either entirely or to some extent, so that the meaning, though attached to a natural symbol, goes beyond it. But the artificial symbol does not for the most part originate by some one stepping forward, and saying, “This thing which has hitherto always been regarded as common, shall from this time be holy, and shall mean this and that.” In a certain sense it is a natural product. It leaves the circle of common things gradually, by various circumstances, historical associations which attach themselves to it, etc. And when for a long time it has been the habit to regard such an artificial symbol as a representation of the super-sensuous, then the distinction between it and the natural disappears. It makes the same impression as the natural, and therefore presents a point of contact which the original, common thing did not possess. Hence, only the foundation of that which had already been consecrated in this way was transferred to the Israelitish religion as a symbol of the holy, but this transference, if we may call it so, has reference only to the form; with regard to the spirit, which is the main point, the contrast is most decided. At the conclusion of this section we only remark further, that the locality of the giving of the law has not received its true elucidation until our time. It has frequently been maintained (recently by Winer, in his article Sinai, in the first edition of the Real-Wörterbuch) that there was no open space between Mount Horeb and the plain where Israel assembled at the command of God for the giving of the law. The contrary is now firmly established.

Robinson tried to prove that the plain er-Rahah, lying north of Mount Sinai, was suitable as an encampment for the children of Israel. But the difficulty still remained, that from that point the summit of the present Sinai must have been completely concealed from the view of the people, contrary to the Mosaic narrative; a difficulty which Robinson seeks to obviate by the forced hypothesis that tradition is at fault in its determination of the position of Mount Sinai. But further examination has ascertained that the large plain lying north of Sinai was not the only one adapted to the encampment of a nation, but that there is one equally large on the south side of Sinai, and that from this great southern plain, called Sebaijah, the summit of the lofty Sinai of tradition, which rose like a pyramid immediately towards the north, was fully visible to the people. Compare the collection of researches by Laborde, Tischendorf, Strauss, and others, in Ritter. “This plain,” says Tischendorf, “is of great extent, and seems as if made to be the scene of such a solemn act.” It also forms an excellent commentary on the expression employed by Moses in Exodus 19:22 : “Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.” For in the plain of Sebaijah the mountain may be actually touched, since it rises up so precipitously that it can be seen in all its grandeur from the foot to the summit. It also agrees with the words, “And they stood at the nether part of the mount,” Exodus 19:17. Seldom is it possible to stand so immediately at the foot of a mountain with the glance fixed on the summit many thousand feet high, as in the plain of Sebaijah, at the foot of Sinai.