‘In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink.’- Joh_7:37
The Feast of Tabernacles
The most joyous of all festive seasons in Israel was that of the ‘Feast of Tabernacles.’ It fell on a time of year when the hearts of the people would naturally be full of thankfulness, gladness, and expectancy. All the crops had been long stored; and now all fruits were also gathered, the vintage past, and the land only awaited the softening and refreshment of the ‘latter rain,’ to prepare it for a new crop. It was appropriate that, when the commencement of the harvest had been consecrated by offering the first ripe sheaf of barley, and the full ingathering of the corn by the two wave-loaves, there should now be a harvest feast of thankfulness and of gladness unto the Lord. But that was not all. As they looked around on the goodly land, the fruits of which had just enriched them, they must have remembered that by miraculous interposition the Lord their God had brought them to this land and given it them, and that He ever claimed it as peculiarly His own. For the land was strictly connected with the history of the people; and both the land and the history were linked with the mission of Israel. If the beginning of the harvest had pointed back to the birth of Israel in their Exodus from Egypt, and forward to the true Passover-sacrifice in the future; if the corn-harvest was connected with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai in the past, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost; the harvest-thanksgiving of the Feast of Tabernacles reminded Israel, on the one hand, of their dwelling in booths in the wilderness, while, on the other hand, it pointed to the final harvest when Israel’s mission should be completed, and all nations gathered unto the Lord. Thus the first of the three great annual feasts spoke, in the presentation of the first sheaf, of the founding of the Church; the second of its harvesting, when the Church in its present state should be presented as two leavened wave-loaves; while the third pointed forward to the full harvest in the end, when ‘in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things…And He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of His people (Israel) shall He take away from all the earth’ (Isa_25:6-8; comp.. Rev_21:4, etc.)
The Names of the Feast
That these are not ideal comparisons, but the very design of the Feast of Tabernacles, appears not only from the language of the prophets and the peculiar services of the feast, but also from its position in the Calendar, and even from the names by which it is designated in Scripture. Thus in its reference to the harvest it is called ‘the feast of ingathering’ (Exo_23:16; Exo_34:22); in that to the history of Israel in the past, ‘the Feast of Tabernacles’ (Lev_23:34; and specially Lev_23:43; Deu_16:13, Deu_16:16; Deu_31:10; 2Ch_8:13; Ezr_3:4); while its symbolical bearing on the future is brought out in its designation as emphatically ‘the feast’ (1Ki_8:2; 2Ch_5:3; 2Ch_7:8-9); and ‘the Feast of Jehovah’ (Lev_23:39). In this sense also Josephus, Philo, and the Rabbis (in many passages of the Mishnah) single it out from all the other feasts. And quite decisive on the point is the description of the ‘latter-day’ glory at the close of the prophecies of Zechariah, where the conversion of all nations is distinctly connected with the ‘Feast of Tabernacles’ (Zec_14:16-21). That this reference is by no means isolated will appear in the sequel.
The Time of the Feast
The Feast of Tabernacles was the third of the great annual festivals, at which every male in Israel was to appear before the Lord in the place which He should choose. It fell on the 15th of the seventh month, or Tishri (corresponding to September or the beginning of October), as the Passover had fallen on the 15th of the first month. The significance of these numbers in themselves and relatively will not escape attention, the more so that this feast closed the original festive calendar; for Purim and ‘the feast of the dedication of the Temple,’ which both occurred later in the season, were of post-Mosaic origin. The Feast of Tabernacles, or, rather (as it should be called), of ‘booths,’ lasted for seven days- the 15th to the 21st Tishri- was followed by an Octave on the 22nd Tishri. But this eighth day, though closely connected with the Feast of Tabernacles, formed no part of that feast, as clearly shown by the difference in the sacrifices and the ritual, and by the circumstance that the people no longer lived in ‘booths.’ The first day of the feast, and also its Octave, or Azereth (clausura, conclusio), were to be days of ‘holy convocation’ (Lev_23:35-36), and each ‘a Sabbath’ (Lev_23:39), not in the sense of the weekly Sabbath, but of festive rest in the Lord (Lev_23:25, Lev_23:32), when no servile work of any kind might be done.
It Followed Close Upon the Day of Atonement
There is yet another important point to be noticed. The ‘Feast of Tabernacles’ followed closely on the Day of Atonement. Both took place in the seventh month; the one on the 10th, the other on the 15th of Tishri. What the seventh day, or Sabbath, was in reference to the week, the seventh month seems to have been in reference to the year. It closed not only the sacred cycle, but also the agricultural or working year. It also marked the change of seasons, the approach of rain and of the winter equinox, and determined alike the commencement and the close of a sabbatical year (Deu_31:10). Coming on the 15th of this seventh month- is, at full moon, when the ‘sacred’ month had, so to speak, attained its full strength- Feast of Tabernacles appropriately followed five days after the Day of Atonement, in which the sin of Israel had been removed, and its covenant relation to God restored. Thus a sanctified nation could keep a holy feast of harvest joy unto the Lord, just as in the truest sense it will be ‘in that day’ (Zec_14:20) when the meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles shall be really fulfilled. *
* Quite another picture is drawn in Hosea 9, which seems also to refer to the Feast of Tabernacles (see specially verse 5). Indeed, it is remarkable how many allusions to this feast occur in the writings of the prophets, as if its types were the goal of all their desires.

The Three Chief Features of the Feast
Three things specially marked the Feast of Tabernacles: its joyous festivities, the dwelling in ‘booths,’ and the peculiar sacrifices and rites of the week. The first of these was simply characteristic of a ‘feast of ingathering’: ‘Because the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice-, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates.’ Nor were any in Israel to ‘appear before the Lord empty: every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which He hath given thee’ (Deu_16:13-17). Votive, freewill, and peace-offerings would mark their gratitude to God, and at the meal which ensued the poor, the stranger, the Levite, and the homeless would be welcome guests, for the Lord’s sake. Moreover, when the people saw the treasury chests opened and emptied at this feast for the last time in the year, they would remember their brethren at a distance, in whose name, as well as their own, the daily and festive sacrifices were offered. Thus their liberality would not only be stimulated, but all Israel, however widely dispersed, would feel itself anew one before the Lord their God and in the courts of His House. There was, besides, something about this feast which would peculiarly remind them, if not of their dispersion, yet of their being ‘strangers and pilgrims in the earth.’ For its second characteristic was, that during the seven days of its continuance ‘all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths; that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt’ (Lev_23:42-43).
The Booths
As usual, we are met at the outset by a controversy between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The law had it (Lev_23:40): ‘Ye shall take you on the first day the fruit (so correctly in the margin) of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook,’ which the Sadducees understood (as do the modern Karaite Jews) to refer to the materials whence the booths were to be constructed, while the Pharisees applied it to what the worshippers were to carry in their hands. The latter interpretation is, in all likelihood, the correct one; it seems borne out by the account of the festival at the time of Nehemiah (Neh_8:15, Neh_8:18), when the booths were constructed of branches of other trees than those mentioned in Leviticus 23; and it was universally adopted in practice at the time of Christ. The Mishnah gives most minute details as to the height and construction of these ‘booths,’ the main object being to prevent any invasion of the law. Thus it must be a real booth, and constructed of boughs of living trees, and solely for the purposes of this festival. Hence it must be high enough, yet not too high- least ten handbreadths, but not more than thirty feet; three of its walls must be of boughs; it must be fairly covered with boughs, yet not so shaded as not to admit sunshine, nor yet so open as to have not sufficient shade, the object in each case being neither sunshine nor shade, but that it should be a real booth of boughs of trees. It is needless to enter into further details, except to say that these booths, and not their houses, were to be the regular dwelling of all in Israel during the week, and that, except in very heavy rain, they were to eat, sleep, pray, study- short, entirely to live in them. The only exceptions were in favour of those absent on some pious duty, the sick, and their attendants, women, slaves, and infants who were still depending on their mothers. Finally, the rule was that, ‘whatever might contract Levitical defilement (such as boards, cloth, etc.), or whatever did not grow out of the earth, might not be used’ in constructing the ‘booths.’
The Fruit and Palm Branches
It has already been noticed that, according to the view universally prevalent at the time of Christ, the direction on the first day of the feast to ‘take the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook,’ was applied to what the worshippers were to carry in their hands. The Rabbis ruled, that ‘the fruit of the goodly trees’ meant the aethrog, or citron, and ‘the boughs of thick trees’ the myrtle, provided it had ‘not more berries than leaves.’ The aethrogs must be without blemish or deficiency of any kind; the palm branches at least three handbreadths high, and fit to be shaken; and each branch fresh, entire, unpolluted, and not taken from any idolatrous grove. Every worshipper carried the aethrog in his left hand, and in his right the lulav, or palm, with myrtle and willow branch on either side of it, tied together on the outside with its own kind, though in the inside it might be fastened even with gold thread. There can be no doubt that the lulav was intended to remind Israel of the different stages of their wilderness journey, as represented by the different vegetation- palm branches recalling the valleys and plains, the ‘boughs of thick trees,’ the bushes on the mountain heights, and the willows those brooks from which God had given His people drink; while the aethrog was to remind them of the fruits of the good land which the Lord had given them. The lulav was used in the Temple on each of the seven festive days, even children, if they were able to shake it, being bound to carry one. If the first day of the feast fell on a Sabbath, the people brought their lulavs on the previous day into the synagogue on the Temple Mount, and fetched them in the morning, so as not needlessly to break the Sabbath rest.
The Offerings
The third characteristic of the Feast of Tabernacles was its offerings. These were altogether peculiar. The sin-offering for each of the seven days was ‘one kid of the goats.’ The burnt-offerings consisted of bullocks, rams, and lambs, with their appropriate meat- and drink-offerings. But, whereas the number of the rams and lambs remained the same on each day of the festival, that of the bullocks decreased every day by one- thirteen on the first to seven bullocks on the last day, ‘that great day of the feast.’ As no special injunctions are given about the drink-offering, we infer that it was, as usually (Num_15:1-10), 1/4 of a hin of wine for each lamb, 1/3 for each ram, and 1/2 for each bullock (the hin = 1 gallon 2 pints). The ‘meat-offering’ is expressly fixed (Num_19:12, etc.) at 1/10 of an ephah of flour, mixed with 1/4 of a hin of oil, for each lamb; 2/10 of an ephah with 1/3 hin of oil, for each ram; and 3/10 of an ephah, with 1/2 hin of oil, for each bullock. Three things are remarkable about these burnt-offerings. First, they are evidently the characteristic sacrifice of the Feast of Tabernacles. As compared with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the number of the rams and lambs is double, while that of the bullocks is fivefold (14 during the Passover week, 5 x 14 during that of Tabernacles). Secondly, the number of the burnt-sacrifices, whether taking each kind by itself or all of them together, is always divisible by the sacred number seven. We have for the week 70 bullocks, 14 rams, and 98 lambs, or altogether 182 sacrifices (26 x 7), to which must be added 336 (48 x 7) tenths of ephahs of flour for the meat-offering. We will not pursue the tempting subject of this symbolism of numbers further than to point out that, whereas the sacred number 7 appeared at the Feast of Unleavened Bread only in the number of its days, and at Pentecost in the period of its observance (7 x 7 days after Passover), the Feast of Tabernacles lasted seven days, took place when the seventh month was at its full height, and had the number 7 impressed on its characteristic sacrifices. It is not so easy to account for the third peculiarity of these sacrifices- of the daily diminution in the number of bullocks offered. The common explanation, that it was intended to indicate the decreasing sanctity of each successive day of the feast, while the sacred number 7 was still to be reserved for the last day, is not more satisfactory than the view propounded in the Talmud, that these sacrifices were offered, not for Israel, but for the nations of the world: ‘There were seventy bullocks, to correspond to the number of the seventy nations in the world.’ But did the Rabbis understand the prophetic character of this feast? An attentive consideration of its peculiar ceremonial will convince that it must have been exceedingly difficult to ignore it entirely.
On the day before the Feast of Tabernacles- 14th Tishri- festive pilgrims had all arrived in Jerusalem. The ‘booths’ on the roofs, in the courtyards, in streets and squares, as well as roads and gardens, within a Sabbath day’s journey, must have given the city and neighbourhood an unusually picturesque appearance. The preparation of all that was needed for the festival-, the care of the offerings that each would bring, and friendly communications between those who were to be invited to the sacrificial meal- doubt sufficiently occupied their time. When the early autumn evening set in, the blasts of the priests’ trumpets on the Temple Mount announced to Israel the advent of the feast.
Special Service at the Temple
As at the Passover and at Pentecost, the altar of burnt-offering was cleansed during the first night-watch, and the gates of the Temple were thrown open immediately after midnight. The time till the beginning of the ordinary morning sacrifice was occupied in examining the various sacrifices and offerings that were to be brought during the day. While the morning sacrifice was being prepared, a priest, accompanied by a joyous procession with music, went down to the Pool of Siloam, whence he drew water into a golden pitcher, capable of holding three log (rather more than two pints). But on the Sabbaths they fetched the water from a golden vessel in the Temple itself, into which it had been carried from Siloam on the preceding day. At the same time that the procession started for Siloam, another went to a place in the Kedron valley, close by, called Motza, whence they brought willow branches, which, amidst the blasts of the priests’ trumpets, they stuck on either side of the altar of burnt-offering, bending them over towards it, so as to form a kind of leafy canopy. Then the ordinary sacrifice proceeded, the priest who had gone to Siloam so timing it, that he returned just as his brethren carried up the pieces of the sacrifice to lay them on the altar. As he entered by the ‘Water-gate,’ which obtained its name from this ceremony, he was received by a threefold blast from the priests’ trumpets. The priest then went up the rise of the altar and turned to the left, where there were two silver basins with narrow holes- eastern a little wider for the wine, and the western somewhat narrower for the water. Into these the wine of the drink-offering was poured, and at the same time the water from Siloam, the people shouting to the priest, ‘Raise thy hand,’ to show that he really poured the water into the basin which led to the base of the altar. For, sharing the objections of the Sadducees, Alexander Jannaeus, the Maccabean king-priest (about 95 BC), had shown his contempt for the Pharisees by pouring the water at this feast upon the ground, on which the people pelted him with their aethrogs, and would have murdered him, if his foreign body-guard had not interfered, on which occasion no less than six thousand Jews were killed in the Temple.
The Music of the Feast
As soon as the wine and the water were being poured out, the Temple music began, and the ‘Hallel’ (Psa 113-118) was sung in the manner previously prescribed, and to the accompaniment of flutes, except on the Sabbath and on the first day of the feast, when flute-playing was not allowed, on account of the sanctity of the days. When the choir came to these words (Psa_118:1), ‘O give thanks to the Lord,’ and again when they sang (Psa_118:25), ‘O work then now salvation, Jehovah’; and once more at the close (Psa_118:29), ‘O give thanks unto the Lord,’ all the worshippers shook their lulavs towards the altar. When, therefore, the multitudes from Jerusalem, on meeting Jesus, ‘cut down branches from the trees, and strewed them in the way, and…cried, saying, O then, work now salvation to the Son of David’! (Mat_21:8-9; Joh_12:12-13) they applied, in reference to Christ, what was regarded as one of the chief ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles, praying that God would now from ‘the highest’ heavens manifest and send that salvation in connection with the Son of David, which was symbolised by the pouring out of water. For though that ceremony was considered by the Rabbis as bearing a subordinate reference to the dispensation of the rain, the annual fall of which they imagined was determined by God at that feast, its main and real application was to the future outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as predicted- in allusion to this very rite- Isaiah the prophet (Isa_12:3). *
* Of course, one or other of these two views is open, either, that the words of Isaiah were based on the ceremony of water-pouring, or that this ceremony was derived from the words of Isaiah. In either case, however, our inference from it holds good. It is only fair to add, that by some the expression ‘water’ in Isa_12:3 is applied to the ‘law.’ But this in no way vitiates our conclusion, as the Jews expected the general conversion of the Gentiles to be a conversion to Judaism.
Thus the Talmud says distinctly: ‘Why is the name of it called, The drawing out of water? Because of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, according to what is said: “With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.”‘ Hence, also, the feast and the peculiar joyousness of it are alike designated as those of ‘the drawing out of water’; for, according to the same Rabbinical authorities, the Holy Spirit dwells in many only through joy.
The Daily Circuit of the Altar
A similar symbolism was expressed by another ceremony which took place at the close, not of the daily, but of the festive sacrifices. On every one of the seven days the priests formed in procession, and made the circuit of the altar, singing: ‘O then, now work salvation, Jehovah! O Jehovah, give prosperity’! (Psa_118:25). But on the seventh, ‘that great day of the feast,’ they made the circuit of the altar seven times, remembering how the walls of Jericho had fallen in similar circumstances, and anticipating how, by the direct interposition of God, the walls of heathenism would fall before Jehovah, and the land lie open for His people to go in and possess it.
The References in John 7:37
We can now in some measure realise the event recorded in Joh_7:37. The festivities of the Week of Tabernacles were drawing to a close. ‘It was the last day, that great day of the feast.’ It obtained this name, although it was not one of ‘holy convocation,’ partly because it closed the feast, and partly from the circumstances which procured it in Rabbinical writings the designations of ‘Day of the Great Hosannah,’ on account of the sevenfold circuit of the altar with ‘Hosannah’; and ‘Day of Willows,’ and ‘Day of Beating the Branches,’ because all the leaves were shaken off the willow boughs, and the palm branches beaten in pieces by the side of the altar. It was on that day, after the priest had returned from Siloam with his golden pitcher, and for the last time poured its contents to the base of the altar; after the ‘Hallel’ had been sung to the sound of the flute, the people responding and worshipping as the priests three times drew the threefold blasts from their silver trumpets- when the interest of the people had been raised to its highest pitch, that, from amidst the mass of worshippers, who were waving towards the altar quite a forest of leafy branches as the last words of Psalm 118 were chanted- voice was raised which resounded through the temple, startled the multitude, and carried fear and hatred to the hearts of their leaders. It was Jesus, who ‘stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink.’ Then by faith in Him should each one truly become like the Pool of Siloam, and from his inmost being ‘rivers of living waters flow’ (Joh_7:38). ‘This spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive.’ Thus the significance of the rite, in which they had just taken part, was not only fully explained, but the mode of its fulfilment pointed out. The effect was instantaneous. It could not but be, that in that vast assembly, so suddenly roused by being brought face to face with Him in whom every type and prophecy is fulfilled, there would be many who, ‘when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ.’ Even the Temple-guard, whose duty it would have been in such circumstances to arrest one who had so interrupted the services of the day, and presented himself to the people in such a light, owned the spell of His words, and dared not to lay hands on Him. ‘Never man spake like this man,’ was the only account they could give of their unusual weakness, in answer to the reproaches of the chief priests and Pharisees. The rebuke of the Jewish authorities, which followed, is too characteristic to require comment. One only of their number had been deeply moved by the scene just witnessed in the Temple. Yet, timid as usually, Nicodemus only laid hold of this one point, that the Pharisees had traced the popular confession of Jesus to their ignorance of the law, to which he replied, in the genuine Rabbinical manner of arguing, without meeting one’s opponent face to face: ‘Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth?’
The Man Born Blind
But matters were not to end with the wrangling of priests and Pharisees. The proof which Nicodemus had invited them to seek from the teaching and the miracles of Christ was about to be displayed both before the people and their rulers in the healing of the blind man. Here also it was in allusion to the ceremonial of the Feast of Tabernacles that Jesus, when He saw the ‘man blind from his birth,’ said (Joh_9:5): ‘As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world’; having ‘anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,’ just as He told him, ‘Go, wash in the Pool of Siloam (which is, by interpretation, Sent).’ For the words, ‘I am the light of the world,’ are the same which He had just spoken in the Temple (Joh_8:12), and they had in all probability been intended to point to another very peculiar ceremony which took place at the Feast of Tabernacles. In the words of the Mishnah (Succah v. 2, 3, 4), the order of the services for the feast was as follows: ‘They went first to offer the daily sacrifice in the morning, then the additional sacrifices; after that the votive and freewill-offerings; from thence to the festive meal; from thence to the study of the law; and after that to offer the evening sacrifice; and from thence they went to the joy of the pouring out of the water.’ It is this ‘joy of the pouring out of the water’ which we are about to describe.
The Ceremonies in the Court of the Women
At the close of the first day of the feast the worshippers descended to the Court of the Women, where great preparations had been made. Four golden candelabras were there, each with four golden bowls, and against them rested four ladders; and four youths of priestly descent held, each a pitcher of oil, capable of holding one hundred and twenty log, from which they filled each bowl. The old, worn breeches and girdles of the priests served for wicks to these lamps. There was not a court in Jerusalem that was not lit up by the light of ‘the house of water-pouring.’ The ‘Chassidim’ and ‘the men of Deed’ danced before the people with flaming torches in their hands, and sang before them hymns and songs of praise; and the Levites, with harps, and lutes, and cymbals, and trumpets, and instruments of music without number, stood upon the fifteen steps which led down from the Court of Israel to that of the Women, according to the number of the fifteen Songs of Degrees in the Book of Psalms. They stood with their instruments of music, and sang hymns. Two priests, with trumpets in their hands, were at the upper gate (that of Nicanor), which led from the Court of Israel to that of the Women. At cock-crowing they drew a threefold blast. As they reached the tenth step, they drew another threefold blast; as they entered the court itself, they drew yet another threefold blast; and so they blew as they advanced, till they reached the gate which opens upon the east (the Beautiful Gate). As they came to the eastern gate, they turned round towards the west (to face the Holy Place), and said: ‘Our fathers who were in this place, they turned their back upon the Sanctuary of Jehovah, and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped towards the rising sun; but as for us, our eyes are towards the Lord.’
A fragment of one of the hymns sung that night has been preserved. It was sung by the ‘Chassidim’ and ‘men of Deed,’ and by those who did penance in their old age for the sins of their youth:
The Chassidim and Men of Deed.
‘Oh joy, that our youth, devoted, sage,
Doth bring no shame upon our old age!’
The Penitents.
‘Oh joy, we can in our old age
Repair the sins of youth not sage!’
Both in unison.
‘Yes, happy he on whom no early guilt doth rest,
And he who, having sinned, is now with pardon blest.
Significance of the Illumination
It seems clear that this illumination of the Temple was regarded as forming part of, and having the same symbolical meaning as, ‘the pouring out of water.’ The light shining out of the Temple into the darkness around, and lighting up every court in Jerusalem, must have been intended as a symbol not only of the Shechinah which once filled the Temple, but of that ‘great light’ which ‘the people that walked in darkness’ were to see, and which was to shine ‘upon them that dwell in the land of the shadow of death’ (Isa_9:2). May it not be, that such prophecies as Isaiah 9 and 60 were connected with this symbolism? At any rate, it seems most probable that Jesus had referred to this ceremony in the words spoken by Him in the Temple at that very Feast of Tabernacles: ‘I am the light of the world; he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life’ (Joh_8:12).
The Six Minor Days
Only the first of the seven days of this feast was ‘a holy convocation’; the other six were ‘minor festivals.’ On each day, besides the ordinary morning and evening sacrifices, the festive offerings prescribed in Numbers 29:12-38 were brought. The Psalms sung at the drink-offering after the festive sacrifices (or Musaph, as they are called), were, for the first day of the feast, Psalm 105; for the second, Psalm 29; for the third, Psalm 50, from verse 16; for the fourth, Psalm 94, from verse 16; for the fifth, Psalm 94, from verse 8; for the sixth, Psalm 81, from verse 6; for the last day of the feast, Psalm 82, from verse 5. As the people retired from the altar at the close of each day’s service, they exclaimed, ‘How beautiful art thou, O altar!’-, according to a later version, ‘We give thanks to Jehovah and to thee, O altar!’ All the four-and-twenty orders of the priesthood were engaged in the festive offerings, which were apportioned among them according to definite rules, which also fixed how the priestly dues were to be divided among them. Lastly, in every sabbatical year the Law was to be publicly read on the first day of the feast (Deu_31:10-13). *
* In later times only certain portions were read, the law as a whole being sufficiently known from the weekly prelections in the synagogues.
On the afternoon of the seventh day of the feast the people began to remove from the ‘booths.’ For at the Octave, on the 22nd of Tishri, they lived no longer in booths, nor did they use the lulav. But it was observed as ‘a holy convocation’; and the festive sacrifices prescribed in Num_29:36-38 were offered, although no more by all the twenty-four courses of priests, and finally the ‘Hallel’ sung at the drink-offering.
The Pouring and Lighting Post-Mosaic
It will have been observed that the two most important ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles- pouring out of water and the illumination of the Temple- of post-Mosaic origin. According to Jewish tradition, the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night had first appeared to Israel on the 15th of Tishri, the first day of the feast. On that day also Moses was said to have come down from the Mount, and accounted to the people that the Tabernacle of God was to be reared among them. We know that the dedication of Solomon’s Temple and the descent of the Shechinah took place at this feast (1 Kings 8; 2 Chron 7). Nor can we greatly err in finding an allusion to it in this description of heavenly things: ‘After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb’ (Rev_7:9-10).
Whether or not our suggestions be adopted as to the typical meaning of the two great ceremonies of the ‘pouring out of the water’ and the Temple illumination, the fact remains, that the Feast of Tabernacles is the one only type in the Old Testament which has not yet been fulfilled.

‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.’- Col_2:16-17
The New Moons
Scarcely any other festive season could have left so continuous an impress on the religious life of Israel as the ‘New Moons.’ Recurring at the beginning of every month, and marking it, the solemn proclamation of the day, by-‘It is sanctified,’ was intended to give a hallowed character to each month, while the blowing of the priests’ trumpets and the special sacrifices brought, would summon, as it were, the Lord’s host to offer their tribute unto their exalted King, and thus bring themselves into ‘remembrance’ before Him. Besides, it was also a popular feast, when families, like that of David, might celebrate their special annual sacrifice (1Sa_20:6, 1Sa_20:29); when the king gave a state-banquet (1Sa_20:5, 1Sa_20:24); and those who sought for instruction and edification resorted to religious meetings, such as Elisha seems to have held (2Ki_4:23). And so we trace its observance onwards through the history of Israel; marking in Scripture a special Psalm for the New Moon (in Tishri) (Psa_81:3); noting how from month to month the day was kept as an outward ordinance, even in the decay of religious life (Isa_1:13; Hos_2:11), apparently all the more rigidly, with abstinence from work, not enjoined in the law, that its spirit was no longer understood (Amo_8:5); and finally learning from the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel that it also had a higher meaning, and was destined to find a better fulfilment in another dispensation, when the New Moon trumpet should summon ‘all flesh to worship before Jehovah’ (Isa_66:23), and the closed eastern gate to the inner court of the new Temple be opened once more to believing Israel (Eze_46:1). And in New Testament times we still find the ‘New Moon’ kept as an outward observance by Jews and Judaising Christians, yet expressly characterised as ‘a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ’ (Col_2:16-17).
The Determination of the New Moon
We have already shown of what importance the right determination of the new moon was in fixing the various festivals of the year, and with what care and anxiety its appearance was ascertained from witnesses who had actually seen it; also how the tidings were afterwards communicated to those at a distance. For the new moon was reckoned by actual personal observation, not by astronomical calculation, with which, however, as we know, many of the Rabbis must have been familiar, since we read of astronomical pictures, by which they were wont to test the veracity of witnesses. So important was it deemed to have faithful witnesses, that they were even allowed, in order to reach Jerusalem in time, to travel on the Sabbath, and, if necessary, to make use of horse or mule (Mish. Rosh ha Sh. i. 9; iii. 2). While strict rules determined who were not to be admitted as witnesses, every encouragement was given to trustworthy persons, and the Sanhedrim provided for them a banquet in a large building specially destined for that purpose, and known as the Beth Yaazek.
The Blowing of Trumpets
In the law of God only these two things are enjoined in the observance of the ‘New Moon’- ‘blowing of trumpets’ (Num_10:10) and special festive sacrifices (Num_28:11-15). Of old the ‘blowing of trumpets’ had been the signal for Israel’s host on their march through the wilderness, as it afterwards summoned them to warfare, and proclaimed or marked days of public rejoicing, and feasts, as well as the ‘beginning of their months’ (Num_10:1-10). The object of it is expressly stated to have been ‘for a memorial,’ that they might ‘be remembered before Jehovah,’ it being specially added: ‘I am Jehovah your God.’ It was, so to speak, the host of God assembled, waiting for their Leader; the people of God united to proclaim their King. At the blast of the priests’ trumpets they ranged themselves, as it were, under His banner and before His throne, and this symbolical confession and proclamation of Him as ‘Jehovah their God,’ brought them before Him to be ‘remembered’ and ‘saved.’ And so every season of ‘blowing the trumpets,’ whether at New Moons, at the Feast of Trumpets or New Year’s Day, at other festivals, in the Sabbatical and Year of Jubilee, or in the time of war, was a public acknowledgment of Jehovah as King. Accordingly we find the same symbols adopted in the figurative language of the New Testament. As of old the sound of the trumpet summoned the congregation before the Lord at the door of the Tabernacle, so ‘His elect’ shall be summoned by the sound of the trumpet in the day of Christ’s coming (Mat_24:31), and not only the living, but those also who had ‘slept’ (1Co_15:52)-‘the dead in Christ’ (1Th_4:16). Similarly, the heavenly hosts are marshalled to the war of successive judgments (Rev_8:2; Rev_10:7), till, as ‘the seventh angel sounded,’ Christ is proclaimed King Universal: ‘The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever’ (Rev_11:15).
The Sacrifices of the New Moon
Besides the ‘blowing of trumpets,’ certain festive sacrifices were ordered to be offered on the New Moon (Num_28:11-15). These most appropriately mark ‘the beginnings of months’ (Num_28:11). For it is a universal principle in the Old Testament, that ‘the first’ always stands for the whole- firstfruits for the whole harvest, the firstborn and the firstlings for all the rest; and that ‘if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy.’ And so the burnt-offerings and the sin-offerings at ‘the beginning’ of each month consecrated the whole. These festive sacrifices consisted of two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year for a burnt-offering, with their appropriate meat- and drink-offerings, and also of ‘one kid of the goats for a sin-offering unto Jehovah.’ *
* There is a curious and somewhat blasphemous Haggadah, or story, in the Talmud on this subject. It appears that at first the sun and moon had been created of equal size, but that when the moon wished to be sole ‘ruler’ to the exclusion of the sun, her jealousy was punished by diminution. In reply to her arguments and importunity, God had then tried to comfort the moon, that the three righteous men, Jacob, Samuel, and David, were likewise to be small- when even thus the moon had the better of the reasoning, God had directed that a ‘sin-offering’ should be brought on the new moon, because He had made the moon smaller and less important than the sun!
When we pass from these simple Scriptural directions to what tradition records of the actual observance of ‘New Moons’ in the Temple, our difficulties increase. For this and New Year’s Day are just such feasts, in connection with which superstition would most readily grow up, from the notions which the Rabbis had, that at changes of seasons Divine judgments were initiated, modified, or finally fixed.
Necessity for Distinguishing the Temple and Synagogue Use
Modern critics have not been sufficiently careful in distinguishing what had been done in the Temple from what was introduced into the synagogue, gradually and at much later periods. Thus, prayers which date long after the destruction of Jerusalem have been represented as offered in the Temple, and the custom of chanting the ‘Hallel’ (Psa 113-118) on New Moons in the synagogue has been erroneously traced to Biblical times. So far as we can gather, the following was the order of service on New Moon’s Day. The Council sat from early morning to just before the evening sacrifice, to determine the appearance of the new moon. The proclamation of the Council-‘It is sanctified!’- not the actual appearance of the new moon, determined the commencement of the feast. Immediately afterwards, the priests blew the trumpets which marked the feast. After the ordinary morning sacrifice, the prescribed festive offerings were brought, the blood of the burnt-offerings being thrown round the base of the altar below the red line, and the rest poured out into the channel at the south side of the altar; while the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled or dropped from the finger on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, beginning from the east, the rest being poured out, as that of the burnt-offerings. The two bullocks of the burnt-offerings were hung up and flayed on the uppermost of the three rows of hooks in the court, the rams on the middle, and the lambs on the lowest hooks. In all no less than 107 priests officiated at this burnt-offering? with every bullock, 11 with every ram, and 8 with every lamb, including, of course, those who carried the appropriate meat- and drink-offerings. At the offering of these sacrifices the trumpets were again blown. All of them were slain at the north side of the altar, while the peace- and freewill-offerings, which private Israelites were wont at such seasons to bring, were sacrificed at the south side. The flesh of the sin-offering and what of the meat-offering came to them, was eaten by the priests in the Temple itself; their portion of the private thank-offerings might be taken by them to their homes in Jerusalem, and there eaten with their households.
A Prayer of the Third Century, AD
If any special prayers were said in the Temple on New Moons’ Days, tradition has not preserved them, the only formula dating from that period being that used on first seeing the moon-‘Blessed be He who reneweth the months.’ To this the synagogue, towards the close of the third century, added the following: ‘Blessed be He by whose word the heavens were created, and by the breath of whose mouth all the hosts thereof were formed! He appointed them a law and time, that they should not overstep their course. They rejoice and are glad to perform the will of their Creator, Author of truth; their operations are truth! He spoke to the moon, Be thou renewed, and be the beautiful diadem (i.e. the hope) of man (i.e. Israel), who shall one day be quickened again like the moon (i.e. at the coming of Messiah), and praise their Creator for His glorious kingdom. Blessed be He who reneweth the moons.’ At a yet much later period, a very superstitious prayer was next inserted, its repetition being accompanied by leaping towards the moon! New Moon’s Day, though apparently observed in the time of Amos as a day of rest (Amo_8:5), is not so kept by the Jews in our days, nor, indeed, was abstinence from work enjoined in the Divine Law. *
* The Talmud has this curious story in explanation of the custom that women abstain from work on New Moons- the women had refused to give their earrings for the golden calf, while the men gave theirs, whereas, on the other hand, the Jewish females contributed their ornaments for the Tabernacle.

The Moon of the Seventh Month
Quite distinct from the other new moons, and more sacred than they, was that of the seventh month, or Tishri, partly on account of the symbolical meaning of the seventh or sabbatical month, in which the great feasts of the Day of Atonement and of Tabernacles occurred, and partly, perhaps, because it also marked the commencement of the civil year, always supposing that, as Josephus and most Jewish writers maintain, the distinction between the sacred and civil year dates from the time of Moses. *
* In another place we have adopted the common, modern view, that this distinction only dates from the return from Babylon. But it must be admitted that the weight of authority is all on the other side. The Jews hold that the world was created in the month Tishri.
In Scripture this feast is designated as the ‘memorial blowing’ (Lev_23:24), or ‘the day of blowing’ (Num_29:1), because on that day the trumpets, or rather, as we shall see, the horns were blown all day long in Jerusalem. It was to be observed as ‘a Sabbath,’ and ‘a holy convocation,’ in which ‘no servile work’ might be done. The prescribed offerings for the day consisted, besides the ordinary morning and evening sacrifices, first, of the burnt-offerings, but not the sin-offering, of ordinary new moons, with their meat- and drink-offerings, and after that, of another festive burnt-offering of one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs, with their appropriate meat- and drink-offerings, together with ‘one kid of the goats for a sin-offering, to make an atonement for you.’ While the drink-offering of the festive sacrifice was poured out, the priests and Levites chanted Psalm 81, and if the feast fell on a Thursday, for which that Psalm was, at any rate, prescribed, it was sung twice, beginning the second time at verse 7 in the Hebrew text, or verse 6 of our Authorised Version. At the evening sacrifice Psalm 29 was sung. For reasons previously explained (chiefly to prevent possible mistakes), it became early common to observe the New Year’s Feast on two successive days, and the practice may have been introduced in Temple times.
The Mishnah on New Year’s Day
The Mishnah, which devotes a special tractate to this feast, remarks that a year may be arranged according to four different periods; the first, beginning with the 1st of Nisan, being for ‘kings’ (to compute taxation) and for computing the feasts; the second, on the 1st of Elul (the sixth month), for tithing flocks and herds, any animal born after that not being reckoned within the previous year; the third, on the 1st of Tishri (the seventh month), for the Civil, the Sabbatical, and the Jubilee year, also for trees and herbs; and lastly, that on the 1st of Shebat (the eleventh month), for all fruits of trees. Similarly, continues the Mishnah, there are four seasons when judgment is pronounced upon the world: at the Passover, in regard to the harvest; at Pentecost, in regard to the fruits of trees; on the Feast of Tabernacles, in regard to the dispensation of rain; while on ‘New Year’s Day all the children of men pass before Him like lambs (when they are counted for the tithing), as it is written (Psa_33:15), “He fashioneth their hearts alike; He considereth all their works.”‘
The Talmud on the New Year
To this we may add, as a comment of the Talmud, that on New Year’s Day three books were opened- of life, for those whose works had been good; another of death, for those who had been thoroughly evil; and a third, intermediate, for those whose case was to be decided on the Day of Atonement (ten days after New Year), the delay being granted for repentance, or otherwise, after which their names would be finally entered, either in the book of life, or in that of death. By these terms, however, eternal life or death are not necessarily meant; rather earthly well-being, and, perhaps, temporal life, or the opposite. It is not necessary to explain at length on what Scriptural passages this curious view about the three books is supposed to rest. *
* The two principal passages are Psa_69:28, and Exo_32:32; the former is thus explained: ‘Let them be blotted out of the book,’ which means the book of the wicked, while the expression ‘of the living’ refers to that of the righteous, so that the next clause, ‘and not be written with the righteous,’ is supposed to indicate the existence of a third or intermediate book!
But so deep and earnest are the feelings of the Rabbis on this matter, that by universal consent the ten days intervening between New Year and the Day of Atonement are regarded as ‘days of repentance.’ Indeed, from a misunderstanding of a passage in the Mishnah (Sheb. i. 4, 5), a similar superstition attaches to every new moon, the day preceding it being kept by rigid Jews as one of fasting and repentance, and called the ‘Lesser Day of Atonement.’ In accordance with this, the Rabbis hold that the blowing of the trumpets is intended, first, to bring Israel, or rather the merits of the patriarchs and God’s covenant with them, in remembrance before the Lord; secondly, to be a means of confounding Satan, who appears on that day specially to accuse Israel; and, lastly, as a call to repentance- it were, a blast to wake men from their sleep of sin (Maimonides, Moreh Nev. iii. 43). *
* In opposition to this, Luther annotates as follows: ‘They were to blow with the horn in order to call God and His wondrous works to remembrance; how He had redeemed them- it were to preach about it, and to thank Him for it, just as among us Christ and His redemption is remembered and preached by the Gospel’; to which the Weimar Glossary adds: ‘Instead of the horn and trumpets we have bells.’ See Lundius, Jud. Heiligth. p. 1024, col. ii. Buxtorf applies Amo_3:6 to the blowing of the horn.

New Year’s Day in Jerusalem
During the whole of New Year’s Day, trumpets and horns were blown in Jerusalem from morning to evening. In the Temple it was done, even on a Sabbath, but not outside its walls. Since the destruction of Jerusalem this restriction has been removed, and the horn is blown in every synagogue, even though the feast fall upon a Sabbath. It has already been hinted that the instruments used were not the ordinary priests’ trumpets, but horns. The Mishnah holds that any kind of horns may be blown except those of oxen or calves, in order not to remind God of the sin of the golden calf! The Mishnah, however, specially mentions the straight horn of the antelope and the bent horn of the ram; the latter with special allusion to the sacrifice in substitution of Isaac, it being a tradition that New Year’s Day was that in which Abraham, despite Satan’s wiles to prevent or retard him, had offered up his son Isaac on Mount Moriah. The mouthpiece of the horns for New Year’s Day were fitted with gold- used on fast days with silver. Another distinction was this- New Year’s Day those who blew the horn were placed between others who blew the trumpets, and the sound of the horn was prolonged beyond that of the trumpets; but on fast days those who sounded the trumpets stood in the middle, and their blast was prolonged beyond that of the horn. For the proper observance of these solemn seasons, it was deemed necessary not only to hear but to listen to the sound of the horns, since, as the Mishnah adds, everything depends on the intent of the heart, not on the mere outward deed, just as it was not Moses lifting up his hands that gave Israel the victory, nor yet the lifting up of the brazen serpent which healed, but the upturning of the heart of Israel to ‘their Father who is in heaven’- faith (Rosh ha Sh. iii. 8). We quote the remark, not only as one of the comparatively few passages in the Mishnah which turn on the essence of religion, but as giving an insight into the most ancient views of the Rabbis on these types, and as reminding us of the memorable teaching of our Lord to one of those very Rabbis (Joh_3:14-15).
The New Year’s Blessings
The Mishnah (Rosh ha Sh. iv. 5, etc.) mentions various ‘Berachoth’ or ‘benedictions’ as having been repeated on New Year’s Day. These, with many others of later date, still form part of the liturgy in the synagogue for that day. But there is internal evidence that the prayers, at any rate in their present form, could not have been used, at least, in the Temple. *
* From the text of Rosh ha Sh. iv. 7, it distinctly appears that they were intended to be used in the synagogues. Of course, this leaves the question open, whether or not something like them was also said in the Temple. The Mishnah mentions altogether nine of these ‘benedictions.’
Besides, the Rabbis themselves differ as to their exact amount and contents, and finally satisfy themselves by indicating that the titles of these benedictions are rather intended as headings, to show their contents, and what special direction their prayers had taken. One set of them bore on ‘the kingdom’ of God, and is accordingly called Malchiyoth; another, the Sichronoth, referred to the various kinds of ‘remembrance’ on the part of God; while a third, called Shopharoth, consisted of benedictions, connected with the ‘blowing of the horn.’ It is said that any one who simply repeated ten passages from Scripture- to another authority, three- on ‘the kingdom of God,’ ‘the remembrance of God,’ and ‘the blowing of horns,’ had fulfilled his duty in regard to these ‘benedictions.’
The First Day of the Seventh Month
From Scripture we know with what solemnity the first day of the seventh month as observed at the time of Ezra, and how deeply moved the people were by the public reading and explanation of the law, which to so many of them came like a strange sound, all the more solemn, that after so long a period they heard it again on that soil which, as it were, bore witness to its truth (Neh_8:1-12). In the New Testament there is no reference to our Lord having ever attended this feast in Jerusalem. Nor was this necessary, as it was equally celebrated in all the synagogues of Israel. *
* But in the synagogues out of Jerusalem, the horn, not trumpets, was blown on New Year’s Day.
Yet there seems some allusion to the blowing of the horn in the writings of St. Paul. We have already stated that, according to Maimonides (Moreh Nev. iii. c. 43), one of its main purposes was to rouse men to repentance. In fact, the commentator of Maimonides makes use of the following words to denote the meaning of the blowing of trumpets: ‘Rouse ye, rouse ye from your slumber; awake, awake from your sleep, you who mind vanity, for slumber most heavy has fallen upon you. Take it to heart, before Whom you are to give an account in the judgment.’ May not some such formula also have been anciently used in the synagogue; and may not the remembrance of it have been present to the mind of the apostle, when he wrote (Eph_5:14): ‘Wherefore it is said, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light’! If so, we may possibly find an allusion to the appearance of the new moon, specially to that of the seventh month, in these words of one of the preceding verses (Eph_5:8): ‘For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light’!

‘But into the second (tabernacle) went the high-priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people…But Christ being come an high-priest of good things to come…by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.’- Heb_9:7, Heb_9:11-12
Weakness of the Law
It may sound strange, and yet it is true, that the clearest testimony to ‘the weakness and unprofitableness’ ‘of the commandment’ is that given by ‘the commandment’ itself. The Levitical arrangements for the removal of sin bear on their forefront, as it were, this inscription: ‘The law made nothing perfect’- neither a perfect mediatorship in the priesthood, nor a perfect ‘atonement’ in the sacrifices, nor yet a perfect forgiveness as the result of both. ‘For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect’ (Heb_10:1). And this appears, first, from the continual recurrence and the multiplicity of these sacrifices, which are intended the one to supplement the other, and yet always leave something to be still supplemented; and, secondly, from the broad fact that, in general, ‘it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins’ (Heb_10:4). It is therefore evident that the Levitical dispensation, being stamped with imperfectness alike in the means which it employed for the ‘taking away’ of sin, and in the results which it obtained by these means, declared itself, like John the Baptist, only a ‘forerunner,’ the breaker up and preparer of the way- the satisfying, but, on the contrary, the calling forth and ‘the bringing in of a better hope’ (Heb_7:19; see marginal rendering).
The Day of Atonement
As might have been expected, this ‘weakness and unprofitableness of the commandment’ became most apparent in the services of the day in which the Old Testament provision for pardon and acceptance attained, so to speak, its climax. On the Day of Atonement, not ordinary priests, but the high-priest alone officiated, and that not in his ordinary dress, nor yet in that of the ordinary priesthood, but in one peculiar to the day, and peculiarly expressive of purity. The worshippers also appeared in circumstances different from those on any other occasion, since they were to fast and to ‘afflict their souls’; the day itself was to be ‘a Sabbath of Sabbatism’ (rendered ‘Sabbath of rest’ in Authorised Version), while its central services consisted of a series of grand expiatory sacrifices, unique in their character, purpose, and results, as described in these words: ‘He shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation’ (Lev_16:33). But even the need of such a Day of Atonement, after the daily offerings, the various festive sacrifices, and the private and public sin-offerings all the year round, showed the insufficiency of all such sacrifices, while the very offerings of the Day of Atonement proclaimed themselves to be only temporary and provisional, ‘imposed until the time of reformation.’ We specially allude here to the mysterious appearance of the so-called ‘scape-goat,’ of which we shall, in the sequel, have to give an account differing from that of previous writers.
Its Names
The names ‘Day of Atonement,’ or in the Talmud, which devotes to it a special tractate, simply ‘the day’ (perhaps also in Heb_7:27 *), and in the Book of Acts ‘the fast’ (Act_27:9), sufficiently designate its general object.
* In that case we should translate Heb_7:27, ‘Who needeth not on each day (viz. of atonement), as those high-priests, to offer up his sacrifices,’ etc.
It took place on the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishri), that is, symbolically, when the sacred or Sabbath of months had just attained its completeness. Nor must we overlook the position of that day relatively to the other festivals. The seventh or sabbatical month closed the festive cycle, the Feast of Tabernacles on the 15th of that month being the last in the year. But, as already stated, before that grand festival of harvesting and thanksgiving Israel must, as a nation, be reconciled unto God, for only a people at peace with God might rejoice before Him in the blessing with which He had crowned the year. And the import of the Day of Atonement, as preceding the Feast of Tabernacles, becomes only more striking, when we remember how that feast of harvesting prefigured the final ingathering of all nations. In connection with this point it may also be well to remember that the Jubilee Year was always proclaimed on the Day of Atonement (Lev_25:9). *
* According to the Jewish view, it was also the day on which Adam had both sinned and repented; that on which Abraham was circumcised; and that on which Moses returned from the mount and made atonement for the sin of the golden calf.

The Teaching of Scripture about the Day
In briefly reviewing the Divine ordinances about this day (Lev 16; Lev_23:26-32; Num_29:11), we find that only on that one day in every year the high-priest was allowed to go into the Most Holy Place, and then arrayed in a peculiar white dress, which differed from that of the ordinary priests, in that its girdle also was white, and not of the Temple colours, while ‘the bonnet’ was of the same shape, though not the same material as ‘the mitre,’ which the high-priest ordinarily wore. The simple white of his array, in distinction to the ‘golden garments’ which he otherwise wore, pointed to the fact that on that day the high-priest appeared, not ‘as the bridegroom of Jehovah,’ but as bearing in his official capacity the emblem of that perfect purity which was sought by the expiations of that day. Thus in the prophecies of Zechariah the removal of Joshua’s ‘filthy garments’ and the clothing him with ‘change of raiment,’ symbolically denoted-‘I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee’ (Zec_3:3-4). Similarly those who stand nearest to God are always described as arrayed ‘in white’ (see Eze_9:2, etc.; Dan_10:5; Dan_12:6). And because these were emphatically ‘the holy garments,’ ‘therefore’ the high-priest had to ‘wash his flesh in water, and so put them on’ (Lev_16:4), that is, he was not merely to wash his hands and feet, as before ordinary ministrations, but to bathe his whole body.
Numbers 29:7-11
From Num_29:7-11 it appears that the offerings on the Day of Atonement were really of a threefold kind-‘the continual burnt-offering,’ that is, the daily morning and evening sacrifices, with their meat- and drink-offerings; the festive sacrifices of the day, consisting for the high-priest and the priesthood, of ‘a ram for a burnt-offering’ (Lev_16:3), and for the people of one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year (with their meat-offerings) for a burnt-sacrifice, and one kid of the goats for a sin-offering; and, thirdly, and chiefly, the peculiar expiatory sacrifices of the day, which were a young bullock as a sin-offering for the high-priest, his house, and the sons of Aaron, and another sin-offering for the people, consisting of two goats, one of which was to be killed and its blood sprinkled, as directed, while the other was to be sent away into the wilderness, bearing ‘all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins’ which had been confessed ‘over him,’ and laid upon him by the high-priest. Before proceeding further, we note the following as the order of these sacrifices-, the ordinary morning sacrifice; next the expiatory sacrifices for the high-priest, the priesthood, and the people (one bullock, and one of the two goats, the other being the so-called scape-goat); then the festive burnt-offerings of the priests and the people (Num_29:7-11), and with them another sin-offering; and, lastly, the ordinary evening sacrifice, being, as Maimonides observes, in all fifteen sacrificial animals. According to Jewish tradition, the whole of the services of that day were performed by the high-priest himself, of course with the assistance of others, for which purpose more than 500 priests were said to have been employed. Of course, if the Day of Atonement fell on a Sabbath, besides all these, the ordinary Sabbath sacrifices were also offered. On a principle previously explained, the high-priest purchased from his own funds the sacrifices brought for himself and his house, the priesthood, however, contributing, in order to make them sharers in the offering, while the public sacrifices for the whole people were paid for from the Temple treasury. Only while officiating in the distinctly expiatory services of the day did the high-priest wear his ‘linen garments’; in all the others he was arrayed in his ‘golden vestments.’ This necessitated a frequent change of dress, and before each he bathed his whole body. All this will be best understood by a more detailed account of the order of service, as given in the Scriptures and by tradition.
The Duties of the High-priest
Seven days before the Day of Atonement the high-priest left his own house in Jerusalem, and took up his abode in his chambers in the Temple. A substitute was appointed for him, in case he should die or become Levitically unfit for his duties. Rabbinical punctiliousness went so far as to have him twice sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer- the 3rd and the 7th day of his week of separation- case he had unwittingly to himself, been defiled by a dead body (Num_19:13). *
* May not the ‘sprinkling of the ashes of an heifer’ in Heb_9:13 refer to this? The whole section bears on the Day of Atonement.
During the whole of that week, also, he had to practise the various priestly rites, such as sprinkling the blood, burning the incense, lighting the lamp, offering the daily sacrifice, etc. For, as already stated, every part of that day’s services devolved on the high-priest, and he must not commit any mistake. Some of the elders of the Sanhedrim were appointed to see to it, that the high-priest fully understood, and knew the meaning of the service, otherwise they were to instruct him in it. On the eve of the Day of Atonement the various sacrifices were brought before him, that there might be nothing strange about the services of the morrow. Finally, they bound him by a solemn oath not to change anything in the rites of the day. This was chiefly for fear of the Sadducean notion, that the incense should be lighted before the high-priest actually entered into the Most Holy Place; while the Pharisees held that this was to be done only within the Most Holy Place itself. *
* The only interesting point here is the Scriptural argument on which the Sadducees based their view. They appealed to Lev_16:2, and explained the expression, ‘I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat,’ in a rationalistic sense as applying to the cloud of incense, not to that of the Divine Presence, while the Pharisees appealed to verse 13.
The evening meal of the high-priest before the great day was to be scanty. All night long he was to be hearing and expounding the Holy Scriptures, or otherwise kept employed, so that he might not fall asleep (for special Levitical reasons). At midnight the lot was cast for removing the ashes and preparing the altar; and to distinguish the Day of Atonement from all others, four, instead of the usual three, fires were arranged on the great altar of burnt-offering.
The Morning Service
The services of the day began with the first streak of morning light. Already the people had been admitted into the sanctuary. So jealous were they of any innovation or alteration, that only a linen cloth excluded the high-priest from public view, when, each time before changing his garments, he bathed- in the ordinary place of the priests, but in one specially set apart for his use. Altogether he changed his raiments and washed his whole body five times on that day, * and his hands and feet ten times. **
* In case of age or infirmity, the bath was allowed to be heated, either by adding warm water, or by putting hot irons into it.
** The high-priest did not on that day wash in the ordinary laver, but in a golden vessel specially provided for the purpose.
When the first dawn of morning was announced in the usual manner, the high-priest put off his ordinary (layman’s) dress, bathed, put on his golden vestments, washed his hands and feet, and proceeded to perform all the principal parts of the ordinary morning service. Tradition has it, that immediately after that, he offered certain parts of the burnt-sacrifices for the day, viz. the bullock and the seven lambs, reserving his own ram and that of the people, as well as the sin-offering of a kid of the goats (Num_29:8-11), till after the special expiatory sacrifices of the day had been brought. But the text of Lev_16:24 is entirely against this view, and shows that the whole of the burnt-offerings and the festive sin-offering were brought after the expiatory services. Considering the relation between these services and sacrifices, this might, at any rate, have been expected, since a burnt-offering could only be acceptable after, not before, expiation.
The Sin-offering
The morning service finished, the high-priest washed his hands and feet, put off his golden vestments, bathed, put on his ‘linen garments,’ again washed his hands and feet, and proceeded to the peculiar part of the day’s services. The bullock for his sin-offering stood between the Temple-porch and the altar. It was placed towards the south, but the high-priest, who stood facing the east (that is, the worshippers), turned the head of the sacrifice towards the west (that is, to face the sanctuary). He then laid both his hands upon the head of the bullock, and confessed as follows:-‘Ah, JEHOVAH! I have committed iniquity; I have transgressed; I have sinned- and my house. Oh, then, JEHOVAH, I entreat Thee, cover over (atone for, let there be atonement for) the iniquities, the transgressions, and the sins which I have committed, transgressed, and sinned before Thee, I and my house- as it is written in the law of Moses, Thy servant: “For, on that day will He cover over (atone) for you to make you clean; from all your transgressions before JEHOVAH ye shall be cleansed.”‘ It will be noticed that in this solemn confession the name JEHOVAH occurred three times. Other three times was it pronounced in the confession which the high-priest made over the same bullock for the priesthood; a seventh time was it uttered when he cast the lot as to which of the two goats was to be ‘for JEHOVAH’; and once again he spoke it three times in the confession over the so-called ‘scape-goat’ which bore the sins of the people. All these ten times the high-priest pronounced the very name of JEHOVAH, and, as he spoke it, those who stood near cast themselves with their faces on the ground, while the multitude responded: ‘Blessed be the Name; the glory of His kingdom is for ever and ever’ (in support of this benediction, reference is made to Deu_32:3). Formerly it had been the practice to pronounce the so-called ‘Ineffable Name’ distinctly, but afterwards, when some attempted to make use of it for magical purposes, it was spoken with bated breath, and, as one relates (Rabbi Tryphon in the Jerus. Talm.) * who had stood among the priests in the Temple and listened with rapt attention to catch the mysterious name, it was lost amidst the sound of the priests’ instruments, as they accompanied the benediction of the people.
* Possibly some readers may not know that the Jews never pronounce the word Jehovah, but always substitute for it ‘Lord’ (printed in capitals in the Authorised Version). Indeed, the right pronunciation of the word has been lost, and is matter of dispute, all that we have in the Hebrew being the letters I. H. V. H.- the so-called tetragrammaton, or ‘four-lettered word.’

Choosing the Scape-goat
The first part of the expiatory service- for the priesthood- taken place close to the Holy Place, between the porch and the altar. The next was performed close to the worshipping people. In the eastern part of the Court of Priests, that is, close to the worshippers, and on the north side of it, stood an urn, called Calpi, in which were two lots of the same shape, size, and material- the second Temple they were of gold; the one bearing the inscription ‘la-JEHOVAH,’ for Jehovah, the other ‘la-Azazel,’ for Azazel, leaving the expression (Lev_16:8, Lev_16:10, Lev_16:26) (rendered ‘scape-goat’ in the Authorised Version) for the present untranslated. These two goats had been placed with their backs to the people and their faces towards the sanctuary (westwards). The high-priest now faced the people, as, standing between his substitute (at his right hand) and the head of the course on ministry (on his left hand), he shook the urn, thrust his two hands into it, and at the same time drew the two lots, laying one on the head of each goat. Popularly it was deemed of good augury if the right-hand lot had fallen ‘for Jehovah.’ The two goats, however, must be altogether alike in look, size, and value; indeed, so earnestly was it sought to carry out the idea that these two formed parts of one and the same sacrifice, that it was arranged they should, if possible, even be purchased at the same time. The importance of this view will afterwards be explained.
The Goat Shown to the People
The lot having designated each of the two goats, the high-priest tied a tongue-shaped piece of scarlet cloth to the horn of the goat for Azazel- so-called ‘scape-goat’- another round the throat of the goat for Jehovah, which was to be slain. The goat that was to be sent forth was now turned round towards the people, and stood facing them, waiting, as it were, till their sins should be laid on him, and he would carry them forth into ‘a land not inhabited.’ Assuredly a more marked type of Christ could not be conceived, as He was brought forth by Pilate and stood before the people, just as He was about to be led forth, bearing the iniquity of the people. And, as if to add to the significance of the rite, tradition has it that when the sacrifice was fully accepted the scarlet mark which the scape-goat had borne became white, to symbolise the gracious promise in Isa_1:18; but it adds that this miracle did not take place for forty years before the destruction of the Temple!
The Confession of Sin and the Sacrifice
With this presentation of the scape-goat before the people commenced the third and most solemn part of the expiatory services of the day. The high-priest now once more returned towards the sanctuary, and a second time laid his two hands on the bullock, which still stood between the porch and the altar, to confess over him, not only as before, his own and his household’s sins, but also those of the priesthood. The formula used was precisely the same as before, with the addition of the words, ‘the seed of Aaron, Thy holy people,’ both in the confession and in the petition for atonement. Then the high-priest killed the bullock, caught up his blood in a vessel, and gave it to an attendant to keep it stirring, lest it should coagulate. Advancing to the altar of burnt-offering, he next filled the censer with burning coals, and then ranged a handful of frankincense in the dish destined to hold it. Ordinarily, everything brought in actual ministry unto God must be carried in the right hand- the incense in the right and the censer in the left. But on this occasion, as the censer for the Day of Atonement was larger and heavier than usual, the high-priest was allowed to reverse the common order. Every eye was strained towards the sanctuary as, slowly bearing the censer and the incense, the figure of the white-robed high-priest was seen to disappear within the Holy Place. After that nothing further could be seen of his movements.
The Mercy-seat
The curtain of the Most Holy Place was folded back, and the high-priest stood alone and separated from all the people in the awful gloom of the Holiest of All, only lit up by the red glow of the coals in the priest’s censer. In the first Temple the ark of God had stood there with the ‘mercy-seat’ over-shadowing it; above it, the visible presence of Jehovah in the cloud of the Shechinah, and on either side the outspread wings of the cherubim; and the high-priest had placed the censer between the staves of the ark. But in the Temple of Herod there was neither Shechinah nor ark- was empty; and the high-priest rested his censer on a large stone, called the ‘foundation-stone.’ He now most carefully emptied the incense into his hand, and threw it on the coals of the censer, as far from himself as possible, and so waited till the smoke had filled the Most Holy Place. Then, retreating backwards, he prayed outside the veil as follows: * ‘May it please Thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, that neither this day nor during this year any captivity come upon us. Yet, if captivity befall us this day or this year, let it be to a place where the law is cultivated. May it please Thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, that want come not upon us, either this day or this year. But if want visit us this day or this year, let it be due to the liberality of our charitable deeds. May it please Thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, that this year may be a year of cheapness, of fulness, of intercourse and trade; a year with abundance of rain, of sunshine, and of dew; one in which Thy people Israel shall not require assistance one from another. And listen not to the prayers of those who are about to set out on a journey. ** And as to Thy people Israel, may no enemy exalt himself against them. May it please Thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, that the houses of the men of Saron may not become their graves.’ *** The high-priest was not to prolong this prayer, lest his protracted absence might fill the people with fears for his safety.
* We give the prayer in its simplest form from the Talmud. But we cannot help feeling that its form savours of later than Temple-times. Probably only its substance dates from those days, and each high-priest may have been at liberty to formulate it according to his own views.
** Who might pray against the fall of rain. It must be remembered that the autumn rains, on which the fruitfulness of the land depended, were just due.
*** This on account of the situation of that valley, which was threatened either by sudden floods or by dangerous landslips.

The Sprinkling of the Blood
While the incense was offering in the Most Holy Place the people withdrew from proximity to it, and worshipped in silence. At last the people saw the high-priest emerging from the sanctuary, and they knew that the service had been accepted. Rapidly he took from the attendant, who had kept it stirring, the blood of the bullock. Once more he entered into the Most Holy Place, and sprinkled with his finger once upwards, towards where the mercy-seat had been, and seven times downwards, counting as he did so : ‘Once’ (upwards), ‘once and once’ (downwards), ‘once and twice’ and so on to ‘once and seven times,’ always repeating the word ‘once,’ which referred to the upwards sprinkling, so as to prevent any mistake. Coming out from the Most Holy Place, the high-priest now deposited the bowl with the blood before the veil. Then he killed the goat set apart for Jehovah, and, entering the Most Holy Place a third time, sprinkled as before, once upwards and seven times downwards, and again deposited the bowl with the blood of the goat on a second golden stand before the veil. Taking up the bowl with the bullock’s blood, he next sprinkled once upwards and seven times downwards towards the veil, outside the Most Holy Place, and then did the same with the blood of the goat. Finally, pouring the blood of the bullock into the bowl which contained that of the goat, and again the mixture of the two into that which had held the blood of the bullock, so as thoroughly to commingle the two, he sprinkled each of the horns of the altar of incense, and then, making a clear place on the altar, seven times the top of the altar of incense. Thus he had sprinkled forty-three times with the expiatory blood, taking care that his own dress should never be spotted with the sin-laden blood. What was left of the blood the high-priest poured out on the west side of the base of the altar of burnt-offering.
The Cleansing Completed
By these expiatory sprinklings the high-priest had cleansed the sanctuary in all its parts from the defilement of the priesthood and the worshippers. The Most Holy Place, the veil, the Holy Place, the altar of incense, and the altar of burnt-offering were now clean alike, so far as the priesthood and as the people were concerned; and in their relationship to the sanctuary both priests and worshippers were atoned for. So far as the law could give it, there was now again free access for all; or, to put it otherwise, the continuance of typical sacrificial communion with God was once more restored and secured. Had it not been for these services, it would have become impossible for priests and people to offer sacrifices, and so to obtain the forgiveness of sins, or to have fellowship with God. But the consciences were not yet free from a sense of personal guilt and sin. That remained to be done through the ‘scape-goat.’ All this seems clearly implied in the distinctions made in Lev_16:33 : ‘And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.’
The Scape-goat
Most solemn as the services had hitherto been, the worshippers would chiefly think with awe of the high-priest going into the immediate presence of God, coming out thence alive, and securing for them by the blood the continuance of the Old Testament privileges of sacrifices and of access unto God through them. What now took place concerned them, if possible, even more nearly. Their own personal guilt and sins were now to be removed from them, and that in a symbolical rite, at one and the same time the most mysterious and the most significant of all. All this while the ‘scape-goat,’ with the ‘scarlet-tongue,’ telling of the guilt it was to bear, had stood looking eastwards, confronting the people, and waiting for the terrible load which it was to carry away ‘unto a land not inhabited.’ Laying both his hands on the head of this goat, the high-priest now confessed and pleaded: ‘Ah, JEHOVAH! they have committed iniquity; they have transgressed; they have sinned- people, the house of Israel. Oh, then, JEHOVAH! cover over (atone for), I entreat Thee, upon their iniquities, their transgressions, and their sins, which they have wickedly committed, transgressed, and sinned before Thee- people, the house of Israel. As it is written in the law of Moses, Thy servant, saying: “For on that day shall it be covered over (atoned) for you, to make you clean from all your sins before JEHOVAH ye shall be cleansed.”‘ And while the prostrate multitude worshipped at the name of Jehovah, the high-priest turned his face towards them as he uttered the last words, ‘Ye shall be cleansed!’ as if to declare to them the absolution and remission of their sins.
The Goat Sent into the Wilderness
Then a strange scene would be witnessed. The priests led the sin-burdened goat out through ‘Solomon’s Porch,’ and, as tradition has it, through the eastern gate, which opened upon the Mount of Olives. *
* The Talmud has it, that the foreign Jews present used to burst into words and deeds of impatience, that the ‘sin-bearer’ might be gone.
Here an arched bridge spanned the intervening valley, and over it they brought the goat to the Mount of Olives, where one, specially appointed for the purpose, took him in charge. Tradition enjoins that he should be a stranger, a non-Israelite, as if to make still more striking the type of Him who was delivered over by Israel unto the Gentiles! Scripture tells us no more of the destiny of the goat that bore upon him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, than that they ‘shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness,’ and that ‘he shall let go the goat in the wilderness’ (Lev_16:22). But tradition supplements this information. The distance between Jerusalem and the beginning of ‘the wilderness’ is computed at ninety stadia, making precisely ten intervals, each half a Sabbath-day’s journey from the other. At the end of each of these intervals there was a station, occupied by one or more persons, detailed for the purpose, who offered refreshment to the man leading the goat, and then accompanied him to the next station. By this arrangement two results were secured: some trusted persons accompanied the goat all along his journey, and yet none of them walked more than a Sabbath-day’s journey- is, half a journey going and the other half returning. At last they reached the edge of the wilderness. Here they halted, viewing afar off, while the man led forward the goat, tore off half the ‘scarlet-tongue,’ and stuck it on a projecting cliff; then, leading the animal backwards, he pushed it over the projecting ledge of rock. There was a moment’s pause, and the man, now defiled by contact with the sin-bearer, retraced his steps to the last of the ten stations, where he spent the rest of the day and the night. But the arrival of the goat in the wilderness was immediately telegraphed, by the waving of flags, from station to station, till, a few minutes after its occurrence, it was known in the Temple, and whispered from ear to ear, that ‘the goat had borne upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.’
The Meaning of the Rite
What then was the meaning of a rite on which such momentous issue depended? Everything about it seems strange and mysterious- lot that designated it, and that ‘to Azazel’; the fact, that though the highest of all sin-offerings, it was neither sacrificed nor its blood sprinkled in the Temple; and the circumstance that it really was only part of a sacrifice- two goats together forming one sacrifice, one of them being killed, and the other ‘let go,’ there being no other analogous case of the kind except at the purification of a leper, when one bird was killed and the other dipped in its blood, and let go free. Thus these two sacrifices- in the removal of what symbolically represented indwelling sin, the other contracted guilt- in requiring two animals, of whom one was killed, the other ‘let go.’ This is not the place to discuss the various views entertained of the import of the scape-goat. But it is destructive of one and all of the received interpretations, that the sins of the people were confessed not on the goat which was killed, but on that which was ‘let go in the wilderness,’ and that it was this goat- the other- ‘bore upon him all the iniquities’ of the people. So far as the conscience was concerned, this goat was the real and the only sin-offering ‘for all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,’ for upon it the high-priest laid the sins of the people, after he had by the blood of the bullock and of the other goat ‘made an end of reconciling the Holy Place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar’ (Lev_16:20). The blood sprinkled had effected this; but it had done no more, and it could do no more, for it ‘could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience’ (Heb_9:9). The symbolical representation of this perfecting was by the live goat, which, laden with the confessed sins of the people, carried them away into ‘the wilderness’ to ‘a land not inhabited.’ The only meaning of which this seems really capable, is that though confessed guilt was removed from the people to the head of the goat, as the symbolical substitute, yet as the goat was not killed, only sent far away, into ‘a land not inhabited,’ so, under the Old Covenant, sin was not really blotted out, only put away from the people, and put aside till Christ came, not only to take upon Himself the burden of transgression, but to blot it out and to purge it away. *
* May there be here also a reference to the doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hades?

The Teaching of Scripture
Thus viewed, not only the text of Leviticus 16, but the language of Hebrews 9 and 10, which chiefly refer to the Day of Atonement, becomes plain. The ‘blood,’ both of the bullock and of the goat which the high-priest carried ‘once a year’ within ‘the sacred veil,’ was ‘offered for himself (including the priesthood) and for the errors (or rather ignorances) of the people.’ In the language of Lev_16:20, it reconciled ‘the Holy Place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar,’ that is, as already explained, it rendered on the part of priests and people the continuance of sacrificial worship possible. But this live scape-goat ‘let go’ in the wilderness, over which, in the exhaustive language of Lev_16:21, the high-priest had confessed and on which he had laid ‘all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,’ meant something quite different. It meant the inherent ‘weakness and unprofitableness of the commandment’; it meant, that ‘the law made nothing perfect, but was the bringing in of a better hope’; that in the covenant mercy of God guilt and sin were indeed removed from the people, that they were ‘covered up,’ and in that sense atoned for, or rather that they were both ‘covered up’ and removed, but that they were not really taken away and destroyed till Christ came; that they were only taken into a land not inhabited, till He should blot it out by His own blood; that the provision which the Old Testament made was only preparatory and temporary, until the ‘time of the reformation’; and that hence real and true forgiveness of sins, and with it the spirit of adoption, could only be finally obtained after the death and resurrection of ‘the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.’ Thus in the fullest sense it was true of the ‘fathers,’ that ‘these all…received not the promise: God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.’ For ‘the law having a shadow of the good things to come,’ could not ‘make the comers thereunto perfect’; nor yet was it possible ‘that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.’ The live goat ‘let go’ was every year a remover of sins which yet were never really removed in the sense of being blotted out- deposited, as it were, and reserved till He came ‘whom God hath set forth as a propitiation…because of the passing over of the former sins, in the forbearance of God’ (Rom_3:25). *
* We have generally adopted the rendering of Dean Alford, where the reader will perceive any divergence from the Authorised Version.
‘And for this cause He is the mediatory of a new covenant, in order that, death having taken place for the propitiation of the transgressions under the first covenant, they which have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance’ (Heb_9:15).
This is not the place for following the argument further. Once understood, many passages will recur which manifest how the Old Testament removal of sin was shown in the law itself to have been complete indeed, so far as the individual was concerned, but not really and in reference to God, till He came to Whom as the reality these types pointed, and Who ‘now once at the end of the world hath been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself’ (Heb_9:26). And thus did the types themselves prove their own inadequacy and insufficiency, showing that they had only ‘a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things themselves’ (Heb_10:1). With this also agree the terms by which in the Old Testament atonement is designated as a ‘covering up’ by a substitute, and the mercy-seat as ‘the place of covering over.’
The Term ‘la-Azazel’
After this it is comparatively of secondary importance to discuss, so far as we can in these pages, the question of the meaning of the term ‘la-Azazel’ (Lev_16:8, Lev_16:10, Lev_16:26). Both the interpretation which makes it a designation of the goat itself (as ‘scape-goat’ in our Authorised Version), and that which would refer it to a certain locality in the wilderness, being, on many grounds, wholly untenable, two other views remain, one of which regards Azazel as a person, and denoting Satan; while the other would render the term by ‘complete removal.’ The insurmountable difficulties connected with the first of these notions lie on the surface. In reference to the second, it may be said that it not only does violence to Hebrew grammar, but implies that the goat which was to be for ‘complete removal’ was not even to be sacrificed, but actually ‘let go!’ Besides, what in that case could be the object of the first goat which was killed, and whose blood was sprinkled in the Most Holy Place? We may here at once state, that the later Jewish practice of pushing the goat over a rocky precipice was undoubtedly on innovation, in no wise sanctioned by the law of Moses, and not even introduced at the time the Septuagint translation was made, as its rendering of Lev_16:26 shows. The law simply ordained that the goat, once arrived in ‘the land not inhabited,’ was to be ‘let go’ free, and the Jewish ordinance of having it pushed over the rocks is signally characteristic of the Rabbinical perversion of its spiritual type. The word Azazel, which only occurs in Leviticus 16, is by universal consent derived from a root which means ‘wholly to put aside,’ or, ‘wholly to go away.’ Whether, therefore, we render ‘la-Azazel’ by ‘for him who is wholly put aside,’ that is, the sin-bearing Christ, or ‘for being wholly separated,’ or ‘put wholly aside or away,’ the truth is still the same, as pointing through the temporary and provisional removal of sin by the goat ‘let go’ in ‘the land not inhabited,’ to the final, real, and complete removal of sin by the Lord Jesus Christ, as we read it in Isa_53:6 : ‘Jehovah hath made the iniquities of us all to meet on Him.’
The Carcasses Burnt ‘Outside the City’
While the scape-goat was being led into the wilderness, the high-priest proceeded to cut up the bullock and the goat with whose blood he had previously ‘made atonement,’ put the ‘inwards’ in a vessel which he committed to an attendant, and sent the carcasses to be burnt ‘outside the city,’ in the place where the Temple ashes were usually deposited. Then, according to tradition, the high-priest, still wearing the linen garments, * went into the ‘Court of the Women,’ and read the passages of Scripture bearing on the Day of Atonement, viz. Leviticus 16; Lev_23:27-32; also repeating by heart Num_29:7-11.
* But this was not strictly necessary; he might in this part of the service have even officiated in his ordinary layman’s dress.
A series of prayers accompanied this reading of the Scriptures. The most interesting of these supplications may be thus summed up:- of sin with prayer for forgiveness, closing with the words, ‘Praise be to Thee, O Lord, Who in Thy mercy forgivest the sins of Thy people Israel’; prayer for the permanence of the Temple, and that the Divine Majesty might shine in it, closing with-‘Praise be to Thee, O Lord, Who inhabitest Zion’; prayer for the establishment and safety of Israel, and the continuance of a king among them, closing-‘Thanks be to Thee, O Lord, Who hast chosen Israel’; prayer for the priesthood, that all their doings, but especially their sacred services, might be acceptable unto God, and He be gracious unto them, closing with-‘Thanks be to Thee, O Lord, Who hast sanctified the priesthood’; and, finally (in the language of Maimonides), prayers, entreaties, hymns, and petitions of the high-priest’s own, closing with the words: ‘Give help, O Lord, to Thy people Israel, for Thy people needeth help; thanks be unto Thee, O Lord, Who hearest prayer.’
The High-priest in Golden Garments
These prayers ended, the high-priest washed his hands and feet, put off his ‘linen,’ and put on his ‘golden vestments,’ and once more washed hands and feet before proceeding to the next ministry. He now appeared again before the people as the Lord’s anointed in the golden garments of the bride-chamber. Before he offered the festive burnt-offerings of the day, he sacrificed ‘one kid of the goats for a sin-offering’ (Num_29:16), probably with special reference to these festive services, which, like everything else, required atoning blood for their acceptance. The flesh of this sin-offering was eaten at night by the priests within the sanctuary. Next, he sacrificed the burnt-offerings for the people and that for himself (one ram, Lev_16:3), and finally burned the ‘inwards’ of the expiatory offerings, whose blood had formerly been sprinkled in the Most Holy Place. This, properly speaking, finished the services of the day. But the high-priest had yet to offer the ordinary evening sacrifice, after which he washed his hands and his feet, once more put off his ‘golden’ and put on his ‘linen garments,’ and again washed his hands and feet. This before entering the Most Holy Place a fourth time on that day, * to fetch from it the censer and incense-dish which he had left there.
* Heb_9:7 states that the high-priest went ‘once in every year,’ that is, on one day in every year, not on one occasion during that day.
On his return he washed once more hands and feet, put off his linen garments, which were never to be used again, put on his golden vestments, washed hands and feet, burnt the evening incense on the golden altar, lit the lamps on the candlestick for the night, washed his hands and feet, put on his ordinary layman’s dress, and was escorted by the people in procession to his own house in Jerusalem. The evening closed with a feast.
The Mishnah
If this ending of the Day of Atonement seems incongruous, the Mishnah records (Taan. iv. 8) something yet more strange in connection with the day itself. It is said that on the afternoon of the 15th of Ab, when the collection of wood for the sanctuary was completed, and on that of the Day of Atonement, the maidens of Jerusalem went in white garments, specially lent them for the purpose, so that rich and poor might be on an equality, into the vineyards close to the city, where they danced and sung. The following fragment of one of their songs has been preserved: *
‘Around in circle gay, the Hebrew maidens see;
From them our happy youths their partners choose.
Remember! Beauty soon its charm must lose-
And seek to win a maid of fair degree.
When fading grace and beauty low are laid,
Then praise shall her who fears the Lord await;
God does bless her handiwork-, in the gate,
“Her works do follow her,” it shall be said.’
* The Talmud repeatedly states the fact and gives the song. Nevertheless we have some doubt on the subject, though the reporter in the Mishnah is said to be none other than Rabbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, Paul’s teacher.

The Day of Atonement in the Modern Synagogue
We will not here undertake the melancholy task of describing what the modern synagogue has made the Day of Atonement, nor how it observes the occasion- in view of their gloomy thoughts, that on that day man’s fate for the year, if not his life or death, is finally fixed. But even the Mishnah already contains similar perverted notions of how the day should be kept, and what may be expected from its right observance (Mish. Yoma, viii). Rigorous rest and rigorous fasting are enjoined from sundown of one day to the appearance of the first stars on the next. Neither food nor drink of any kind may be tasted; a man may not even wash, nor anoint himself, nor put on his sandals. *
* Only woollen socks are to be used- only exception is, where there is fear of serpents or scorpions.
The sole exception made is in favour of the sick and of children, who are only bound to the full fast- at the age of twelve years and one day, and boys at that of thirteen years and one day, though it is recommended to train them earlier to it. *
* Kings and brides within thirty days of their wedding are allowed to wash their faces; the use of a towel which has been dipped the previous day in water is also conceded.
In return for all this ‘affliction’ Israel may expect that death along with the Day of Atonement will finally blot out all sins! That is all- Day of Atonement and our own death! Such are Israel’s highest hopes of expiation! It is unspeakably saddening to follow this subject further through the minutiae of rabbinical ingenuity- much exactly the Day of Atonement will do for a man; what proportion of his sins it will remit, and what merely suspend; how much is left over for after-chastisements, and how much for final extinction at death. The law knows nothing of such miserable petty misrepresentations of the free pardon of God. In the expiatory sacrifices of the Day of Atonement every kind * of transgression, trespass, and sin is to be removed from the people of God.
* For high-handed, purposed sins, the law provided no sacrifice (Heb_10:26), and it is even doubtful whether they are included in the declaration Lev_16:21, wide as it is. Thank God, we know that ‘the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth from all sin,’ without exception.
Yet annually anew, and each time confessedly only provisionally, not really and finally, till the gracious promise (Jer_31:34) should be fulfilled: ‘I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.’ Accordingly it is very marked, how in the prophetic, or it may be symbolical, description of Ezekiel’s Temple (Eze 40-46) all mention of the Day of Atonement is omitted; for Christ has come ‘an high-priest of good things to come,’ and ‘entered in once into the Holy Place,’ ‘to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself’ (Heb_9:11-12, Heb_9:26).

‘And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the Temple in Solomon’s Porch.’- Joh_10:22-23
Post-Mosaic Festivals
Besides the festivals mentioned in the Law of Moses, other festive seasons were also observed at the time of our Lord, to perpetuate the memory either of great national deliverances or of great national calamities. The former were popular feasts, the latter public fasts. Though most, if not all of them, are alluded to in the Canonical Scriptures, it is extremely difficult to form a clear idea of how they were kept in the Temple. Many of the practices connected with them, as described in Jewish writings, or customary at present, are of much later date than Temple times, or else apply rather to the festive observances in the various synagogues of the land than to those in the central sanctuary. And the reason of this is evident. Though those who were at leisure might like to go to Jerusalem for every feast, yet the vast majority of the people would, except on the great festivals, naturally gather in the synagogues of their towns and villages. Moreover, these feasts and fasts were rather national than typical- commemorated a past event instead of pointing forward to a great and world-important fact yet to be realised. Lastly, being of later, and indeed, of human, not Divine institution, the authorities at Jerusalem did not venture to prescribe for them special rites and sacrifices, which, as we have seen, constituted the essence of Temple worship.
Arranging these various feasts and fasts in the order of their institution and importance, we have:-
The Feast of Purim
1. The Feast of Purim, that is ‘of lots,’ or the Feast of Esther, also called in 2 Maccabees xv. 36 ‘the day of Mordecai,’ which was observed in memory of the preservation of the Jewish nation at the time of Esther. The name ‘Purim’ is derived from ‘the lot’ which Haman cast in connection with his wicked desire (Est_3:7; Est_9:24). It was proposed by Mordecai to perpetuate the anniversary of this great deliverance on the 14th and the 15th of Adar (about the beginning of March), and universally agreed to by the Jews of his time (Est_9:17-24). Nevertheless, according to the Jerusalem Talmud, its general introduction after the return from Babylon formed a subject of grave doubt and deliberation among the ‘eighty-five elders’- number which, according to tradition, included upwards of thirty prophets (Jer. Megillah, 70 b). *
* The learned Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth., i. 42, note 1) suggests that these ’85 elders’ were really the commencement of ‘the great synagogue,’ to which so many of the Jewish ordinances were traced in later times. The number was afterwards, as Jost thinks, arbitrarily increased to 120, which is that assigned by tradition to ‘the great synagogue.’ ‘The great synagogue’ may be regarded as the ‘constituent’ Jewish authority on all questions of ritual after the return from Babylon. Lastly, Jost suggests that the original 85 were the signatories to ‘the covenant,’ named in Nehemiah 10:1-27.
Even this shows that Purim was never more than a popular festival. As such it was kept with great merriment and rejoicing, when friends and relations were wont to send presents to each other. There seems little doubt that this was the ‘feast of the Jews,’ to which the Saviour ‘went up to Jerusalem’ (Joh_5:1), when He healed the ‘impotent man’ at the Pool of Bethesda. For no other feast could have intervened between December (Joh_4:35) and the Passover (Joh_6:4), except that of the ‘Dedication of the Temple,’ and that is specially designated as such (Joh_10:22), and not simply as ‘a feast of the Jews.’
Ceremonies of the Feast
So far as we can gather, the religious observances of Purim commenced with a fast-‘the Fast of Esther’- the 13th of Adar. But if Purim fell on a Sabbath or a Friday, the fast was relegated to the previous Thursday, as it was not lawful to fast either on a Sabbath or the day preceding it. But even so, there were afterwards disputes between the Jews in Palestine and the much larger and more influential community that still resided in Babylon as to this fast, which seem to throw doubt on its very early observance. On the evening of the 13th of Adar, or rather on the beginning of the 14th, the Book of Esther, or the Megillah (‘the roll,’ as it is called par excellence), was publicly read, as also on the forenoon of the 14th day, except in ancient walled cities, where it was read on the 15th. In Jerusalem, therefore, it would be read on the evening of the 13th, and on the 15th- provided the day fell not on a Sabbath, on which the Megillah was not allowed to be read. In the later Jewish calendar arrangements care was taken that the first day of Purim should fall on the first, the third, the fifth, or the sixth day of the week. Country people, who went into their market towns every week on the Monday and Thursday, were not required to come up again specially for Purim, and in such synagogues the Megillah, or at least the principal portions of it, was read on the previous Thursday. It was also allowed to read the Book of Esther in any language other than the Hebrew, if spoken by the Jews resident in the district, and any person, except he were deaf, an idiot or a minor, might perform this service. The prayers for the occasion now used in the synagogue, as also the practice of springing rattles and other noisy demonstrations of anger, contempt, and scorn, with which the name of Haman, where it occurs in the Megillah, is always greeted by young and old, are, of course, of much later date. Indeed, so far from prescribing any fixed form of prayer, the Mishnah (Megill. iv. 1) expressly leaves it an open question, to be determined according to the usage of a place, whether or not to accompany the reading of the Megillah with prayer. According to the testimony of Josephus (Antiq. xi. 6, 13), in his time ‘all the Jews that are in the habitable earth’ kept ‘these days festivals,’ and sent ‘portions to one another.’ In our own days, though the synagogue has prescribed for them special prayers and portions of Scripture, they are chiefly marked by boisterous and uproarious merrymaking, even beyond the limits of propriety.
The Feast of the Dedication of the Temple
2. The Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, Chanuchah (‘the dedication’), called in 1 Maccabees iv. 52-59 ‘the dedication of the altar,’ and by Josephus (Antiq. xii. 7, 7) ‘the Feast of Lights,’ was another popular and joyous festival. It was instituted by Judas Maccabeus in 164 BC, when, after the recovery of Jewish independence from the Syro-Grecian domination, the Temple of Jerusalem was solemnly purified, the old polluted altar removed, its stones put in a separate place on the Temple-mount, and the worship of the Lord restored. The feast commenced on the 25th of Chislev (December), and lasted for eight days. On each of them the ‘Hallel’ was sung, the people appeared carrying palm and other branches, and there was a grand illumination of the Temple and of all private houses. These three observances bear so striking a resemblance to what we know about the Feast of Tabernacles, that it is difficult to resist the impression of some intended connection between the two, in consequence of which the daily singing of the ‘Hallel,’ and the carrying of palm branches was adopted during the Feast of the Dedication, while the practice of Temple-illumination was similarly introduced into the Feast of Tabernacles. *
* In point of fact, the three are so compared in 2 Maccabees x. 6, and even the same name applied to them, i. 9, 18.
All this becomes the more interesting, when we remember, on the one hand, the typical meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles, and on the other that the date of the Feast of the Dedication- 25th of Chislev- to have been adopted by the ancient Church as that of the birth of our blessed Lord– Dedication of the true Temple, which was the body of Jesus (Joh_2:19).
The Origin of this Festival
From the hesitating language of Josephus (Antiq. xii. 7, 7), we infer that even in his time the real origin of the practice of illuminating the Temple was unknown. Tradition, indeed, has it that when in the restored Temple the sacred candlestick * was to be lit, only one flagon of oil, sealed with the signet of the high-priest, was found to feed the lamps.
* According to tradition, the first candlestick in that Temple was of iron, tinned over; the second of silver, and then only a golden one was procured.
This, then, was pure oil, but the supply was barely sufficient for one day-, lo, by a miracle, the oil increased, and the flagon remained filled for eight days, in memory of which it was ordered to illuminate for the same space of time the Temple and private houses. A learned Jewish writer, Dr. Herzfeld, suggests, that to commemorate the descent of fire from heaven upon the altar in the Temple of Solomon (2Ch_7:1), ‘the feast of lights’ was instituted when the sacred fire was relit on the purified altar of the second Temple. But even so the practice varied in its details. Either the head of a house might light one candle for all the members of his family, or else a candle for each inmate, or if very religious he would increase the number of candles for each individual every evening, so that if a family of ten had begun the first evening with ten candles they would increase them the next evening to twenty, and so on, till on the eighth night eighty candles were lit. But here also there was a difference between the schools of Hillel and Shammai- former observing the practice as just described, the latter burning the largest number of candles the first evening, and so on decreasingly to the last day of the feast. On the Feast of the Dedication, as at Purim and New Moons, no public fast was to be kept, though private mourning was allowed.
The forms of prayer at present in use by the Jews are of comparatively late date, and indeed the Karaites, who in many respects represent the more ancient traditions of Israel, do not observe the festival at all. But there cannot be a doubt that our blessed Lord Himself attended this festival at Jerusalem (Joh_10:22), on which occasion He told them plainly: ‘I and My Father are one.’ This gives it a far deeper significance than the rekindling of the fire on the altar, or even the connection of this feast with that of Tabernacles.
The Feast of Wood-offering
3. The Feast of Wood-offering took place on the 15th Ab (August), being the last of the nine occasions on which offerings of wood were brought for the use of the Temple. For the other eight occasions the Talmud names certain families as specially possessing this privilege, which they had probably originally received ‘by lot’ at the time of Nehemiah (Neh_10:34; Neh_13:31). At any rate, the names mentioned in the Mishnah are exactly the same as those in the Book of Ezra (Ezra 2). But on the 15th of Ab, along with certain families, all the people- proselytes, slaves, Nethinim, and bastards, but notably the priests and Levites, were allowed to bring up wood, whence also the day is called ‘the time of wood for the priests.’ The other eight seasons were the 20th of Elul (September), the 1st of Tebeth (January), the 1st of Nisan (end of March or April), the 20th of Thammus (save, ‘for the family of David’), the 5th, the 7th, the 10th, and the 20th of Ab. It will be observed that five of these seasons fall in the month of Ab, probably because the wood was then thought to be in best condition. The Rabbinical explanations of this are confused and contradictory, and do not account for the 15th of Ab being called, as it was, ‘the day on which the axe is broken,’ unless it were that after that date till spring no wood might be felled for the altar, although what had been previously cut might be brought up. The 15th of the month was fixed for the feast, probably because at full moon the month was regarded as at its maturity. Tradition, of course, had its own story to account for it. According to one version it was Jeroboam, the wicked King of Israel, to whom so much evil is always traced; according to another, a Syro-Grecian monarch- Epiphanes; and according to yet a third, some unnamed monarch who had prohibited the carrying of wood and of the firstfruits to Jerusalem, when certain devoted families braved the danger, and on that day secretly introduced wood into the Temple, in acknowledgment whereof the privilege was for ever afterwards conceded to their descendants.
The Wood used in the Festivals
The wood was first deposited in an outer chamber, where that which was worm-eaten or otherwise unfit for the altar was picked out by priests who were disqualified from other ministry. The rest was handed over to the priests who were Levitically qualified for their service, and by them stored in ‘the wood chamber.’ The 15th of Ab was observed as a popular and joyous festival. On this occasion (as on the Day of Atonement) the maidens went dressed in white, to dance and sing in the vineyards around Jerusalem, when an opportunity was offered to young men to select their companions for life. We may venture on a suggestion to account for this curious practice. According to the Talmud, the 15th of Ab was the day on which the prohibition was removed which prevented heiresses from marrying out of their own tribes. If there is any historical foundation for this, it would be very significant, that when all Israel, without any distinction of tribes or families, appeared to make their offerings at Jerusalem, they should be at liberty similarly to select their partners in life without the usual restrictions.
Fasts/The Four Great Fasts
4. Fasts- may be arranged into public and private, the latter on occasions of personal calamity or felt need. The former alone can here claim our attention. Properly speaking, there was only one Divinely-ordained public fast, that of the Day of Atonement. But it was quite in accordance with the will of God, and the spirit of the Old Testament dispensation, that when great national calamities had overtaken Israel, or great national wants arose, or great national sins were to be confessed, a day of public fasting and humiliation should be proclaimed (see for example, Jdg_20:26; 1Sa_7:6; 1Ki_21:27; 2Ch_20:3). To these the Jews added, during the Babylonish captivity, what may be called memorial-fasts, on the anniversaries of great national calamities. Evidently this was an unhealthy religious movement. What were idly bewailed as national calamities were really Divine judgments, caused by national sins, and should have been acknowledged as righteous, the people turning from their sins in true repentance unto God. This, if we rightly understand it, was the meaning of Zechariah’s reply (Zech 7; 8) to those who inquired whether the fasts of the fourth, the fifth, the seventh, and the tenth months, were to be continued after the return of the exiles from Babylon. At the same time, the inquiry shows, that the four great Jewish fasts, which, besides the Day of Atonement and the Fast of Esther, are still kept, were observed so early as the Babylonish captivity (Zec_8:19). ‘The fast of the fourth month’ took place on the 17th Thammus (about June or July), in memory of the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the interruption of the daily sacrifice. To this tradition adds, that it was also the anniversary of making the golden calf, and of Moses breaking the Tables of the Law. ‘The fast of the fifth month,’ on the 9th of Ab, was kept on account of the destruction of the first (and afterwards of the second) Temple. It is significant that the second Temple (that of Herod) was destroyed on the first day of the week. Tradition has it, that on that day God had pronounced judgment that the carcasses of all who had come out of Egypt should fall in the wilderness, and also, that again it was fated much later to witness the fulfilment of Jer_26:18-23, when a Roman centurion had the ploughshare drawn over the site of Zion and of the Temple. ‘The fast of the seventh month,’ on the 2nd of Tishri, is said by tradition to be in memory of the slaughter of Gedaliah and his associates at Mizpah (Jer_41:1). ‘The fast of the tenth month’ was on the 10th of Tebeth, when the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar commenced.
Other Fasts
Besides these four, the Day of Atonement, and the Fast of Esther, the Jewish calendar at present contains other twenty-two fast-days. But that is not all. It was customary to fast twice a week (Luk_18:12), between the Paschal week and Pentecost, and between the Feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication of the Temple. The days appointed for this purpose were the Monday and Thursday of every week-, according to tradition, Moses went up Mount Sinai the second time to receive the Tables of the Law on a Thursday, and came down again on a Monday. On public fasts, the practice was to bring the ark which contained the rolls of the law from the synagogue into the streets, and to strew ashes upon it. The people all appeared covered with sackcloth and ashes. Ashes were publicly strewn on the heads of the elders and judges. Then one more venerable than the rest would address the people, his sermon being based on such admonition as this: ‘My brethren, it is not said of the men of Nineveh, that God had respect to their sackcloth or their fasting, but that “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way” (Jon_3:10). Similarly, it is written in the “traditions” (of the prophets): “rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto Jehovah your God”‘ (Joe_2:13). An aged man, whose heart and home ‘God had emptied,’ that he might give himself wholly to prayer, was chosen to lead the devotions. Confession of sin and prayer mingled with the penitential Psalms (Psa 102; 120; 121; 130). *
* Our account is based on the Mishnah (Taan. ii). But we have not given the Psalms in the order there mentioned, nor yet reproduced the prayers and ‘benedictions,’ because they seem mostly, if not entirely, to be of later date. In general, each of the latter bases the hope of being heard on some Scriptural example of deliverance in answer to prayer, such as that of Abraham on Mount Moriah, of Israel when passing through the Red Sea, of Joshua at Gilgal, of Samuel at Mizpah, of Elijah on Mount Carmel, of Jonah in the whale’s belly, and of David and Solomon in Jerusalem. Certain relaxations of the fast were allowed to the priests when actually on their ministry.
In Jerusalem they gathered at the eastern gate, and seven times * as the voice of prayer ceased, they bade the priests ‘blow!’ and they blew with horns and their priests’ trumpets.
* See the very interesting description of details in Taan. ii. 5.
In other towns, they only blew horns. After prayer, the people retired to the cemeteries to mourn and weep. In order to be a proper fast, it must be continued from one sundown till after the next, when the stars appeared, and for about twenty-six hours the most rigid abstinence from all food and drink was enjoined. Most solemn as some of these ordinances sound, the reader of the New Testament knows how sadly all degenerated into mere formalism (Mat_9:14; Mar_2:18; Luk_5:33); how frequent fasting became mere work- and self-righteousness, instead of being the expression of true humiliation (Luk_18:12); and how the very appearance of the penitent, unwashed and with ashes on his head, was even made matter of boasting and religious show (Mat_6:16). So true is it that all attempts at penitence, amendment, and religion, without the Holy Spirit of God and a change of heart, only tend to entangle man in the snare of self-deception, to fill him with spiritual pride, and still further to increase his real alienation from God. *
* Of the three sects or schools the Pharisees were here the strictest, being in this also at the opposite pole from the Sadducees. The fasts of the Essenes were indeed even more stringent, and almost constant, but they were intended not to procure merit, but to set the soul free from the bondage of the body, which was regarded as the seat of all sin. Besides the above-mentioned fast, and one of all the firstborn on the eve of every Passover, such of the ‘men of the station’ as went not up to Jerusalem with their company fasted on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, in their respective synagogues, and prayed for a blessing on their brethren and on the people. They connected their fasts and prayers with the section in Genesis 1, which they read on those days- on the Monday (Gen_1:9) for those at sea; on the Tuesday (Gen_1:11-12) for all on a journey; on the Wednesday (Gen_1:14) on account of the supposed dangerous influence of sun and moon, against diseases of children; and on the Thursday (Gen_1:20) for women labouring with child and for infants.
Further particulars would lead us from a description of the Temple-services to those of the synagogue. But it is interesting to note how closely the Roman Church has adopted the practices of the synagogue. In imitation of the four Jewish fasts mentioned in Zec_8:19, the year was divided into four seasons– marked by a fast- of these being traced by tradition to Bishop Callistus (223), and the fourth to Pope Leo I (44). In 1095, Urban II fixed these four fasts on the Wednesdays after Ash-Wednesday, Whit-Sunday, the Exaltation of the Cross, and the Feast of S. Lucia (13th December). The early Church substituted for the two weekly Jewish fast-days- and Thursday- so-called ‘dies stationum,’ ‘guard or watch-days’ of the Christian soldier, or Christian fast-days- and Friday, on which the Saviour had been respectively betrayed and crucified.

‘Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.’- Mat_8:4
Festive seasons were not the only occasions which brought worshippers to Jerusalem. Every trespass and sin, every special vow and offering, and every defilement called them to the Temple. All the rites then enjoined are full of deep meaning. Selecting from them those on which the practice of the Jews at the time of Christ casts a special light, our attention is first called to a service, distinguished from the rest by its unique character.
The Red Heifer
1. The purification from the defilement of death by the ashes of the red heifer (Num 19). In the worship of the Old Testament, where everything was symbolical, that is, where spiritual realities were conveyed through outwards signs, every physical defilement would point to, and carry with it, as it were, a spiritual counterpart. But especially was this the case with reference to birth and death, which were so closely connected with sin and the second death, with redemption and the second birth. Hence, all connected with the origin of life and with death, implied defilement, and required Levitical purification. But here there was considerable difference. Passing over the minor defilements attaching to what is connected with the origin of life, the woman who had given birth to a child was Levitically unclean for forty or for eighty days, according as she had become the mother of a son or a daughter (Lev 12). After that she was to offer for her purification a lamb for a burnt-, and a turtle-dove, or young pigeon, for a sin-offering; in case of poverty, altogether only two turtle-doves or two young pigeons. We remember that the mother of Jesus availed herself of that provision for the poor, when at the same time she presented in the Temple the Royal Babe, her firstborn son (Luk_2:22).
The Offering for the First-born
On bringing her offering, she would enter the Temple through ‘the gate of the first-born,’ and stand in waiting at the Gate of Nicanor, from the time that the incense was kindled on the golden altar. Behind her, in the Court of the Women, was the crowd of worshippers, while she herself, at the top of the Levites’ steps, which led up to the great court, would witness all that passed in the sanctuary. At last one of the officiating priests would come to her at the gate of Nicanor, and take from her hand the ‘poor’s offering’ (so it is literally called in the Talmud), which she had brought. The morning sacrifice was needed; and but few would linger behind while the offering for her purification was actually made. She who brought it mingled prayer and thanksgiving with the service. And now the priest once more approached her, and, sprinkling her with the sacrificial blood, declared her cleansed. Her ‘first-born’ was next redeemed at the hand of the priest, with five shekels of silver; * two benedictions being at the same time pronounced, one for the happy event which had enriched the family with a first-born, the other for the law of redemption.
* According to the Mishnah (Beehor. viii. 7) ‘of Tyrian weight’ = 10 to 12 shillings of our money. The Rabbis lay it down that redemption-money was only paid for a son who was the first-born of his mother, and who was ‘suitable for the priesthood,’ that is, had no disqualifying bodily blemishes.
And when, with grateful heart, and solemnised in spirit, she descended those fifteen steps where the Levites were wont to sing the ‘Hallel,’ a sudden light of heavenly joy filled the heart of one who had long been in waiting ‘for the consolation of Israel.’ If the Holy Spirit had revealed it to just and devout Simeon, that he ‘should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ,’ who should vanquish death, it was the same Spirit, who had led him up into the Temple ‘when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for Him after the custom of the law.’ Then the aged believer took the Divine Babe from His mother’s into his own arms. He felt that the faithful Lord had truly fulfilled His word. Content now to depart in peace, he blessed God from the fulness of a grateful heart, for his eyes had seen His salvation-‘a light to lighten the Gentiles,’ and the ‘glory of His people Israel.’ But Joseph and Mary listened, wondering, to the words which fell from Simeon’s lips.
Purification for the Dead
Such was the service of purification connected with the origin of life. Yet it was not nearly so solemn or important as that for the removal of defilement from contact with death. A stain attached indeed to the spring of life; but death, which cast its icy shadow from the gates of Paradise to those of Hades, pointed to the second death, under whose ban every one lay, and which, if unremoved, would exercise eternal sway. Hence defilement by the dead was symbolically treated as the greatest of all. It lasted seven days; it required a special kind of purification; and it extended not only to those who had touched the dead, but even to the house or tent where the body had lain, and all open vessels therein. More than that, to enter such a house; to come into contact with the smallest bone, or with a grave; * even to partake of a feast for the dead (Hos_9:4), rendered ceremonially unclean for seven days (Num_19:11-16, Num_19:18; Num_31:19).
* According to Jewish tradition, a dead body, however deeply buried, communicated defilement all the way up to the surface, unless indeed it were vaulted in, or vaulted over, to cut off contact with the earth above.
Nay, he who was thus defiled in turn rendered everything unclean which he touched (Num_19:22; comp. Hag_2:13). For priests and Nazarites the law was even more stringent (Lev 21, etc; comp. Eze_44:25, etc.; Num_6:7, etc.). The former were not to defile themselves by touching any dead body, except those of their nearest kin; the high-priest was not to approach even those of his own parents.
The Six Degrees of Defilement
In general, Jewish writers distinguish six degrees, which they respectively term, according to their intensity, the ‘fathers of fathers,’ the ‘fathers,’ and the ‘first,’ ‘second,’ ‘third,’ and ‘fourth children of defilement.’ They enumerate in all twenty-nine ‘fathers of defilement,’ arising from various causes, and of these no less than eleven arise from some contact with a dead body. Hence also the law made here exceptional provision for purification. ‘A red heifer without spot,’ that is, without any white or black hair on its hide, without ‘blemish, and on which never yoke came,’ was to be sacrificed as a sin-offering (Num_19:9, Num_19:17), and that outside the camp, not in the sanctuary, and by the son of, or by the presumptive successor to the high-priest. The blood of this sacrifice was to be sprinkled seven times with the finger, not on the altar, but towards the sanctuary; then the whole animal-, flesh, blood, and dung-, the priest casting into the midst of the burning ‘cedarwood, and hyssop, and scarlet.’ The ashes of this sacrifice were to be gathered by ‘a man that is clean,’ and laid up ‘without the camp in a clean place.’ But the priest, he that burned the red heifer, and who gathered her ashes, were to be ‘unclean until the even,’ to wash their clothes, and the two former also to ‘bathe,’ their ‘flesh in water’ (Num_19:7-8). When required for purification, a clean person was to take of those ashes, put them in a vessel, pour upon them ‘living water,’ then dip hyssop in it, and on the third and seventh days sprinkle him who was to be purified; after which he had to wash his clothes and bathe his flesh, when he became ‘clean’ on the evening of the seventh day. The tent or house, and all the vessels in it, were to be similarly purified. Lastly, he that touched ‘the water of separation,’ ‘of avoidance,’ or ‘of uncleanness,’ was to be unclean until even, and he that sprinkled it to wash his clothes (Num_19:21).
Death the Greatest Defilement
From all these provisions it is evident that as death carried with it the greatest defilement, so the sin-offering for its purification was in itself and in its consequences the most marked. And its application must have been so frequently necessary in every family and circle of acquaintances that the great truths connected with it were constantly kept in view of the people. In general, it may here be stated, that the laws in regard to defilement were primarily intended as symbols of spiritual truths, and not for social, nor yet sanitary purposes, though such results would also flow from them. Sin had rendered fellowship with God impossible; sin was death, and had wrought death, and the dead body as well as the spiritually dead soul were the evidence of its sway.
Levitical Defilement Traceable to Death
It has been well pointed out (by Sommers, in his Bibl. Abh. vol. i. p. 201, etc.), that all classes of Levitical defilement can ultimately be traced back to death, with its two great outward symptoms, the corruption which appears in the skin on the surface of the body, and to which leprosy may be regarded as akin, and the fluxes from the dead body, which have their counterpart in the morbid fluxes of the living body. As the direct manifestation of sin which separates man from God, defilement by the dead required a sin-offering, and the ashes of the red heifer are expressly so designated in the words: ‘It is a sin-offering’ (Num_9:17). *
* The Authorised Version translates, without any reason: ‘It is a purification for sin.’
But it differs from all other sin-offerings. The sacrifice was to be of pure red colour; one ‘upon which never came yoke’; * and a female, all other sin-offerings for the congregation being males (Lev_4:14).
* The only other instance in which this is enjoined is Deu_21:3, though we read of it again in 1Sa_6:7.
These particulars symbolically point to life in its freshness, fulness, and fruitfulness- is, the fullest life and the spring of life. But what distinguished it even more from all others was, that it was a sacrifice offered once for all (at least so long as its ashes lasted); that its blood was sprinkled, not on the altar, but outside the camp towards the sanctuary; and that it was wholly burnt, along with cedarwood, as the symbol of imperishable existence, hyssop, as that of purification from corruption, and ‘scarlet,’ which from its colour was the emblem of life. Thus the sacrifice of highest life, brought as a sin-offering, and, so far as possible, once for all, was in its turn accompanied by the symbols of imperishable existence, freedom from corruption, and fulness of life, so as yet more to intensify its significance. But even this is not all. The gathered ashes with running water were sprinkled on the third and seventh days on that which was to be purified. Assuredly, if death meant ‘the wages of sin,’ this purification pointed, in all its details, to ‘the gift of God,’ which is ‘eternal life,’ through the sacrifice of Him in whom is the fulness of life.
The Scape-goat, the Red Heifer, and the Living Bird Dipped in Blood
And here there is a remarkable analogy between three sacrifices, which, indeed, form a separate group. The scape-goat, which was to remove the personal guilt of the Israelites- their theocratic alienation from the sanctuary; the red heifer, which was to take away the defilement of death, as that which stood between God and man; and the ‘living bird,’ dipped in ‘the water and the blood,’ and then ‘let loose in the field’ at the purification from leprosy, which symbolised the living death of personal sinfulness, were all, either wholly offered, or in their essentials completed outside the sanctuary. In other words, the Old Testament dispensation had confessedly within its sanctuary no real provision for the spiritual wants to which they symbolically pointed; their removal lay outside its sanctuary and beyond its symbols. Spiritual death, as the consequence of the fall, personal sinfulness, and personal guilt lay beyond the reach of the Temple-provision, and pointed directly to Him who was to come. Every death, every case of leprosy, every Day of Atonement, was a call for His advent, as the eye, enlightened by faith, would follow the goat into the wilderness, or watch the living bird as, bearing the mingled blood and water, he winged his flight into liberty, or read in the ashes sprung from the burning of the red heifer the emblem of purification from spiritual death. Hence, also, the manifest internal connection between these rites. In the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement and of the purified leper, the offering was twofold, one being slain, the other sent away alive, while the purification from leprosy and from death had also many traits in common.
These Sacrifices Defiled Those Who Took Part In Them
Lastly, all these sacrifices equally defiled those who took part in their offering, * except in the case of leprosy, where the application would necessarily only be personal.
* Hence the high-priest was prohibited from offering the red heifer.
Thus, also, we understand why the red heifer as, so to speak, the most intense of sin-offerings, was wholly burnt outside the camp, and other sin-offerings only partially so (Lev_4:11-12, Lev_4:20, etc.) For this burning signified that ‘in the theocracy there was no one, who by his own holiness, could bear or take away the sin imputed to these sin-offerings, so that it was needful, as the wages of sin, to burn the sacrifice which had been made sin’ (Keil, Bibl. Archaeol. vol. i. p. 283). The ashes of this sin-offering, mixed with living water and sprinkled with hyssop, symbolised purification from that death which separates between God and man. This parallelism between the blood of Christ and the ashes of an heifer, on the one hand, and on the other between the purification of the flesh by these means, and that of the conscience from dead works, is thus expressed in Heb_9:13-14 : ‘If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the defiled, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?’ And that this spiritual meaning of the types was clearly apprehended under the Old Testament appears, for example, from the reference to it in this prayer of David (Psa_51:7): ‘Purge me from sin * (purify me) with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow’; which is again further applied in what the prophet Isaiah says about the forgiveness of sin (Isa_1:18).
* The Hebrew (Piel) form for ‘purge from sin’ has no English equivalent, unless we were to coin the word ‘unsin’ or ‘unguilt’ me- my sin.

Significance of the Red Heifer
This is not the place more fully to vindicate the views here propounded. Without some deeper symbolical meaning attaching to them, the peculiarities of the sin-offering of the red heifer would indeed be well-nigh unintelligible. This must be substantially the purport of a Jewish tradition to the effect that King Solomon, who knew the meaning of all God’s ordinances, was unable to understand that of the red heifer. A ‘Haggadah’ maintains that the wisest of men had in Ecc_7:23 thus described his experience in this respect: ‘All this have I proved by wisdom,’ that is, all other matters; ‘I said, I will be wise,’ that is, in reference to the meaning of the red heifer; ‘but it was far from me.’ But if Jewish traditionalism was thus conscious of its spiritual ignorance in regard to this type, it was none the less zealous in prescribing, with even more than usual precision, its ceremonial. The first object was to obtain a proper ‘red heifer’ for the sacrifice. The Mishnah (Parah, i. ii.) states the needful age of such a red heifer as from two to four, and even five years; the colour of its hide, two white or black hairs springing from the same follicle disqualifying it; and how, if she have been put to any use, though only a cloth had been laid on her, she would no longer answer the requirement that upon her ‘never came yoke.’
The Sacrifice of the Red Heifer
Even more particular are the Rabbis to secure that the sacrifice be properly offered (Parah, iii. iv.). Seven days before, the priest destined for the service was separated and kept in the Temple- ‘the House of Stoves’- he was daily sprinkled with the ashes- the Rabbis fable- all the red heifers ever offered. When bringing the sacrifice, he was to wear his white priestly raiments. According to their tradition, there was an arched roadway leading from the east gate of the Temple out upon the Mount of Olives- arched, that is, arched also over the supporting pillars, for fear of any possible pollution through the ground upwards. Over this the procession passed. On the Mount of Olives the elders of Israel were already in waiting. First, the priest immersed his whole body, then he approached the pile of cedar-, pine-, and fig-wood which was heaped like a pyramid, but having an opening in the middle, looking towards the west. Into this the red heifer was thrust, and bound, with its head towards the south and its face looking to the west, the priest standing east of the sacrifice, his face, of course, also turned westwards. Slaying the sacrifice with his right hand, he caught up the blood in his left. Seven times he dipped his finger in it, sprinkling it towards the Most Holy Place, which he was supposed to have in full view over the Porch of Solomon or through the eastern gate. Then, immediately descending, he kindled the fire. As soon as the flames burst forth, the priest, standing outside the pit in which the pile was built up, took cedarwood, hyssop, and ‘scarlet’ wool, asking three times as he held up each: ‘Is this cedarwood? Is this hyssop? Is this scarlet?’ so as to call to the memory of every one the Divine ordinance. Then tying them together with the scarlet wool, he threw the bundle upon the burning heifer. The burnt remains were beaten into ashes by sticks or stone mallets and passed through coarse sieves; then divided into three parts- of which was kept in the Temple-terrace (the Chel), the other on the Mount of Olives, and the third distributed among the priesthood throughout the land.
Children Used in the Offering
The next care was to find one to whom no suspicion of possible defilement could attach, who might administer purification to such as needed it. For this purpose a priest was not required; but any one- a child- fit for the service. In point of fact, according to Jewish tradition, children were exclusively employed in this ministry. If we are to believe the Mishnah (Parah, iii. 2-5), there were at Jerusalem certain dwellings built upon rocks, that were hollowed beneath, so as to render impossible pollution from unknown graves beneath. Here the children destined for this ministry were to be born, and here they were reared and kept till fit for their service. Peculiar precautions were adopted in leading them out to their work. The child was to ride on a bullock, and to mount and descend it by boards. He was first to proceed to the Pool of Siloam, * and to fill a stone cup with its water, and thence to ride to the Temple Mount, which, with all its courts, was also supposed to be free from possible pollutions by being hollowed beneath.
* Or Gihon. According to Jewish tradition, the kings were always anointed at Siloam (1Ki_1:33, 1Ki_1:38).
Dismounting, he would approach the ‘Beautiful Gate,’ where the vessel with the ashes of the red heifer was kept. Next a goat would be brought out, and a rope, with a stick attached to it, tied between its horns. The stick was put into the vessel with the ashes, the goat driven backwards, and of the ashes thereby spilt the child would take for use in the sacred service so much as to be visible upon the water. It is only fair to add, that one of the Mishnic sages, deprecating a statement which might be turned into ridicule by the Sadducees, declares that any clean person might take with his hand from the vessel so much of the ashes as was required for the service. The purification was made by sprinkling with hyssop. According to the Rabbis (Parah, xi. 9), three separate stalks, each with a blossom on it, were tied together, and the tip of these blossoms dipped into the water of separation, the hyssop itself being grasped while sprinkling the unclean. The same authorities make the most incredible assertion that altogether, from the time of Moses to the final destruction of the Temple, only seven, or else nine, such red heifers had been offered: the first by Moses, the second by Ezra, and the other five, or else seven, between the time of Ezra and that of the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans. We only add that the cost of this sacrifice, which was always great, since a pure red heifer was very rare, * was defrayed from the Temple treasury, as being offered for the whole people. **
* It might be purchased even from non-Israelites, and the Talmud relates a curious story, showing at the same time the reward of filial piety, and the fabulous amount which it is supposed such a red heifer might fetch.
** Philo erroneously states that the high-priest was sprinkled with it each time before ministering at the altar. The truth is, he was only so sprinkled in preparation for the Day of Atonement, in case he might have been unwittingly defiled. Is the Romish use of ‘holy water’ derived from Jewish purifications, or from the Greek heathen practice of sprinkling on entering a temple?
Those who lived in the country would, for purification from defilement by the dead, come up to Jerusalem seven days before the great festivals, and, as part of the ashes were distributed among the priesthood, there could never be any difficulty in purifying houses or vessels.
Purification of the Leper
2. After what has already been explained, it is not necessary to enter into details about the purification of the leper, for which this, indeed, is not the place. Leprosy was not merely the emblem of sin, but of death, to which, so to speak, it stood related, as does our actual sinfulness to our state of sin and death before God. Even a Rabbinical saying ranks lepers with those who may be regarded as dead. *
* The other three classes are the blind, the poor, and those who have no children.
They were excluded from ‘the camp of Israel,’ by which, in later times, the Talmudists understood all cities walled since the days of Joshua, who was supposed to have sanctified them. Lepers were not allowed to go beyond their proper bounds, on pain of forty stripes. For every place which a leper entered was supposed to be defiled. They were, however, admitted to the synagogues, where a place was railed off for them, ten handbreadths high and four cubits wide, on condition of their entering the house of worship before the rest of the congregation, and leaving it after them (Negaim, xiii. 12). It was but natural that they should consort together. This is borne out by such passages as Luk_17:12, which at the same time show how even this living death vanished at the word or the touch of the Saviour.
Examination of the Leper
The Mishnic tractate, Negaim, enters into most wearisome details on the subject of leprosy, as affecting persons or things. It closes by describing the ceremonial at its purification. The actual judgment as to the existence of leprosy always belonged to the priest, though he might consult any one who had knowledge of the matter. Care was to be taken that no part of the examination fell on the Sabbath, nor was any on whom the taint appeared to be disturbed either during his marriage week, or on feast days. Great precautions were taken to render the examination thorough. It was not to be proceeded with early in the morning, nor ‘between the evenings,’ nor inside the house, nor on a cloudy day, nor yet during the glare of midday, but from 9 a.m. to 12 o’clock noon, and from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.; according to Rabbi Jehudah, only at 10 or 11 o’clock a.m., and at 2 and 3 o’clock p.m. The examining priest must neither be blind of an eye, nor impaired in sight, nor might he pronounce as to the leprosy of his own kindred. For further caution, judgment was not to be pronounced at the same time about two suspicious spots, whether on the same or on different persons.
Right Meaning of Leviticus 13:12-13
A very curious mistake by writers on typology here requires passing notice. It is commonly supposed * that Lev_13:12-13 refers to cases of true leprosy, so that if a person had presented himself covered with leprosy over ‘all his flesh,’ ‘from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh,’ the priest was to pronounce: ‘He is clean.’
* All popular writers on typology have fallen into this error. Even the learned Lightfoot has committed it. It is also adopted by Mr. Poole in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible (ii. p. 94), and curiously accounted for by the altogether unfounded hypothesis that the law ‘imposed segregation’ only ‘while the disease manifested activity’!
If this interpretation were correct, the priest would have had to declare what was simply untrue! And, mark, it is not a question about cleansing one who had been a leper, but about declaring such an one clean, that is, not a leper at all, while yet the malady covered his whole body from head to foot! Nor does even the doctrinal analogy, for the sake of which this strange view must have been adopted, hold good. For to confess oneself, or even to present oneself as wholly covered by the leprosy of sin, is not yet to be cleansed- requires purification by the blood of Christ. Moreover, the Old Testament type speaks of being clean, not of cleansing; of being non-leprous, not of being purified from leprosy! The correct interpretation of Lev_13:12-13 evidently is, that an eruption having the symptoms there described is not that of true leprosy at all. *
* Even the modified view of Keil, which is substantially adopted in Kitto’s Encycl. (3rd edit.), p. 812, that the state described in Lev_13:12-13, ‘was regarded as indicative of the crisis, as the whole evil matter thus brought to the surface formed itself into a scale, which dried and peeled off,’ does not meet the requirements of the text.
But where, in the Divine mercy, one really leprous had been restored, the law (Lev 14) defined what was to be done for his ‘purification.’ The rites are, in fact, twofold- first (Lev_14:1-9), to restore him to fellowship with the congregation; the other to introduce him anew to communion with God (Lev_14:10-20). In both respects he had been dead, and was alive again; and the new life, so consecrated, was one higher than the old could ever have been.
The Mishnah
This will appear from an attentive study of the ceremonial of purification, as described in the Mishnah (Negaim, xiii.). The priest having pronounced the former leper clean, a quarter of a log (the log rather less than a pint) of ‘living water’ was poured into an earthenware dish. Then two ‘clean birds’ were taken- Rabbis say two sparrows * – whom one was killed over ‘the living water,’ so that the blood might drop into it, after which the carcass was buried.
* May not our Saviour refer to this when He speaks of ‘sparrows’ as of marketable value: ‘Are not two sparrows sold for one farthing’ (Mat_10:29)?
Next, cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool were taken and tied together (as at the burning of the red heifer), and dipped, along with the living bird, which was seized by the tips of his wings and of his tail, into the blood-stained water, when the person to be purified was sprinkled seven times on the back of his hand, or, according to others, on his forehead. Upon this the living bird was set free, neither towards the sea, nor towards the city, nor towards the wilderness, but towards the fields. Finally, the leper had all the hair on his body shorn with a razor, after which he washed his clothes, and bathed, when he was clean, though still interdicted his house * for seven days.
* The Mishnah and all commentators apply this to conjugal intercourse.

The Second Stage
The first stage of purification had now been completed, and the seven days’ seclusion served as preparation for the second stage. The former might take place anywhere, but the latter required the attendance of the purified leper in the sanctuary. It began on the seventh day itself, when the purified leper had again all his hair shorn, as at the first, washed his clothes, and bathed. The Mishnah remarks (Negaim, xiv. 4) that three classes required this legal tonsure of all hair-, Nazarites, and the Levites at their consecration- parallel this between the purified lepers and the Levites, which appears even more clearly in their being anointed on the head with oil (Lev_14:29), and which was intended to mark that their new life was higher than the old, and that, like Levi, they were to be specially dedicated to God. *
* The significance of anointing the head with oil is sufficiently known.
Though not of any special importance, we may add that, according to the Mishnah, as in the analogous case of the two goats for the Day of Atonement, the two birds for the leper were to be of precisely the same colour, size, and value, and, if possible, bought on the same day- mark that the two formed integral parts of one and the same service; the cedar-wood was to be one cubit long and ‘the quarter of a bedpost’ thick; the hyssop of the common kind, that is, not such as had any other bye-name, as Grecian, Roman, ornamental, or wild; while the scarlet wool was to be a shekel’s weight. The rest of the ceremonial we give in the words of the Mishnah itself (Negaim, xiv. 7, etc.):-‘On the eighth day the leper brings three sacrifices- sin-, a trespass-, and a burnt-offering, and the poor brings a sin- and a burnt-offering of a bird. He stands before the trespass-offering, lays his hands upon it, and kills it. Two priests catch up the blood- in a vessel, the other in his hand. He who catches it up in the vessel goes and throws it on the side of the altar, and he who catches it in his hand goes and stands before the leper. And the leper, who had previously bathed in the court of the lepers, goes and stands in the gate of Nicanor. Rabbi Jehudah says:- needs not to bathe. He thrusts in his head (viz. into the great court which he may not yet enter), and the priest puts of the blood upon the tip of his ear; he thrusts in his hand, and he puts it upon the thumb of his hand; he thrusts in his foot, and he puts it upon the great toe of his foot. Rabbi Jehudah says:- thrusts in the three at the same time. If he have lost his thumb, great toe, or right ear, he cannot ever be cleansed. Rabbi Eliezer says:- priest puts in on the spot where it had been. Rabbi Simeon says:- it be applied on the corresponding left side of the leper’s body, it sufficeth. The priest now takes from the log of oil and pours it into the palm of his colleague- if he poured it into his own it were valid. He dips his finger and sprinkles seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping each time he sprinkles. He goes before the leper; and on the spot where he had put the blood he puts the oil, as it is written, “upon the blood of the trespass-offering.” And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest’s hand, he pours on the head of him that is to be cleansed, for an atonement; if he so puts it, he is atoned for, but if not, he is not atoned for. So Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Jochanan, the son of Nuri, saith:- is only the remnant of the ordinance- it is done or not, the atonement is made; but they impute it to him (the priest?) as if he had not made atonement.’
Purification from Suspicion of Adultery
3. It still remains to describe the peculiar ceremonial connected with the purification of a wife from the suspicion of adultery. Strictly speaking, there was no real offering connected with this. The rites (Numbers 5:11-31) consisted of two parts, in the first of which the woman in her wave-offering solemnly commended her ways to the Holy Lord God of Israel, thus professing innocence: while in the second, she intimated her readiness to abide the consequences of her profession and appeal to God. Both acts were symbolical, nor did either of them imply anything like an ordeal. The meat-offering which she brought in her hand symbolised her works, the fruit of her life. But owing to the fact that her life was open to suspicion, it was brought, not of wheat, as on other occasions, but of barley-flour, which constituted the poorest fare, while, for the same reason, the customary addition of oil and frankincense was omitted. Before this offering was waved and part of it burned on the altar, the priest had to warn the woman of the terrible consequences of a false profession before the Lord, and to exhibit what he spoke in a symbolical act. He wrote the words of the curse upon a roll; then, taking water out of the laver, in which the daily impurities of the priests were, so to speak, symbolically cleansed, and putting into it dust of the sanctuary, he washed in this mixture the writing of the curses, which were denounced upon the special sin of which she was suspected. And the woman, having by a repeated Amen testified that she had quite apprehended the meaning of the whole, and that she made her solemn appeal to God, was then in a symbolical act to do two things. First, she presented in her meat-offering, which the priest waved, her life to the heart-searching God, and then, prepared for the consequences of her appeal, she drank the bitter mixture of the threatened curses, assured that it could do no harm to her who was innocent, whereas, if guilty, she had appealed to God, judgment would certainly at some time overtake her, and that in a manner corresponding to the sin which she had committed.
Regulations as Given in the Mishnah
According to the Mishnah, which devotes to this subject a special tractate (Sotah), a wife could not be brought to this solemn trial unless her husband have previously warned her, in presence of two witnesses, against intercourse with one whom he suspected, and also two witnesses had reported that she had contravened his injunction. The Rabbis, moreover, insist that the command must have been express, that it only applied to intercourse out of reach of public view, and that the husband’s charge to his wife before witnesses should be preceded by private and loving admonition. *
* The tractate Sotah enters into every possible detail, with prurient casuistry- tendency, as always in Jewish criminal law, being in favour of the accused.
But if, after all this, she had left such warning unheeded, her husband had first to bring her before the Sanhedrim of his own place, who would dispatch two of their scholars with the couple to Jerusalem, where they were to appear before the Great Sanhedrim. The first endeavour of that tribunal was to bring the accused by any means to make confession. If she did so, she only lost what her husband had settled upon her, but retaind her own portion. *
* According to Rabbinical law adulteresses only suffered death if they persisted in the actual crime after having been warned of the consequences by two witnesses. It is evident that this canon must have rendered the infliction of the death penalty the rarest exception-, almost inconceivable.
If she persisted in her innocence, she was brought through the eastern gate of the Temple, and placed at the gate of Nicanor, where the priest tore off her dress to her bosom, and dishevelled her hair. If she wore a white dress, she was covered with black; if she had ornaments, they were taken from her, and a rope put round her neck. Thus she stood, exposed to the gaze of all, except her own parents. all this to symbolise the Scriptural warning (Isa_65:7): ‘Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom’; for in what had been her pride and her temptation she was now exposed to shame. The priest was to write, in ink, Num_5:19-22, of course leaving out the introductory clauses in verses 19 and 21, and the concluding ‘Amen.’ The woman’s double response of Amen bore reference first to her innocence, and secondly to the threatened curse.
The waving of the woman’s offering was done in the usual manner, but opinions differ whether she had to drink ‘the bitter water’ before or after part of her offering had been burned on the altar. If before the writing was washed into the water she refused to take the test, her offering was scattered among the ashes; similarly, if she confessed herself guilty. But if she insisted on her innocence after the writing was washed, she was forced to drink the water. The Divine judgment was supposed to overtake the guilty sooner or later, as some thought, according to their other works. The wave-offering belonged to the priest, except where the suspected woman was the wife of a priest, in which case the offering was burned. If a husband were deaf or insane, or in prison, the magistrates of the place would act in his stead in insisting on a woman clearing herself of just suspicion. An adulteress was prohibited from living with her seducer. It is beside our purpose further to enter into the various legal determinations of the Mishnah. But it is stated that, with the decline of morals in Palestine, the trial by the ‘water of jealousy’ gradually ceased (in accordance with what we read in Hos_4:14), till it was finally abolished by Rabbi Jochanan, the son of Zacchai, some time after the death of our Lord. While recording this fact the Mishnah (Sotah, ix. 9-15) traces, in bitter language, the decay and loss of what had been good and precious to Israel in their worship, Temple, wisdom, and virtues, pointing forward to the yet greater sorrow of ‘the last day,’ ‘shortly before the coming of Messiah,’ when all authority, obedience, and fear of God would decline in the earth, and ‘our only hope and trust’ could spring from looking up to our Heavenly Father. Yet beyond it stands out, in the closing words of this tractate in the Mishnah, the final hope of a revival, of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and of the blessed resurrection, all connected with the long-expected ministry of Elijah!

‘But now is Christ risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep.’…’These were purchased from among men- firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.’? 1Co_15:20; Rev_14:4
Vows
‘If a man vow a vow unto Jehovah, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not profane his word; he shall do according to all that hath proceeded out of his mouth’ (Num_30:2). These words establish the lawfulness of vows, define their character, and declare their inviolableness. At the outset a distinction is here made between a positive and a negative vow, an undertaking and a renunciation, a Neder and an Issar. In the former ‘a man vowed a vow unto Jehovah’- is, he consecrated unto Him some one or more persons or things, which he expressly designated; in the latter he ‘swore an oath to bind his soul with a bond’- is, he renounced the use of certain things binding himself to abstinence from them. The renunciation of the fruit of the vine would seem to place the Nazarite’s vow in the class termed Issar. But, on the other hand, there was, as in the case of Samson and Samuel, also such positive dedication to the Lord, and such other provisions as seem to make the Nazarite’s the vows of vows- is, the full carrying out of the idea of a vow, alike in its positive and negative aspects-, in fact, a voluntary and entire surrender unto Jehovah, such as, in its more general bearing, the Aaronic priesthood had been intended to express.
Man Can Only Vow His Own Things
It lies on the surface, that all vows were limited by higher obligations. A man could not have vowed anything that was not fairly his own; hence, according to the Mishnah, neither what of his fortune he owed to others, nor his widow’s portion, nor yet what already of right belonged unto the Lord (Lev_27:26-28); nor might he profane the temple by bringing to the altar the reward of sin or of unnatural crime (this is undoubtedly the meaning of the expression ‘price of a dog’ in Deu_23:18). Similarly, the Rabbinical law declared any vow of abstinence ipso facto invalid, if it interfered with the preservation of life or similar obligations, and it allowed divorce to a woman if her husband’s vow curtailed her liberty or her rights. On this ground it was that Christ showed the profaneness of the traditional law, which virtually sanctioned transgression of the command to honour father and mother, by pronouncing over that by which they might have been profited the magic word Corban, which dedicated it to the Temple (Mar_7:11-13). In general, the Rabbinical ordinances convey the impression, on the one hand, of a desire to limit the obligation of vows, and, on the other, of extreme strictness where a vow had really been made. Thus a vow required to have been expressly spoken; yet if the words used had been even intentionally so chosen as afterwards to open a way of escape, or were such as connected themselves with the common form of a vow, they conveyed its obligations. In all such cases goods might be distrained to secure the performance of the vow; the law, however, providing that the recusant was to be allowed to retain food for a month, a year’s clothing, his beds and bedding, and, if an artisan, his necessary tools. In the case of women, a father or husband had the right to annul a vow, provided he did so immediately on hearing it (Num_30:3-8). All persons vowed unto the Lord had to be redeemed according to a certain scale; which, in the case of the poor, was to be so lowered as to bring it within reach of their means (Lev_27:2-8). *
* The Mishnah declares that this scale was only applicable, if express reference had been made to it in the vow; otherwise the price of redemption was, what the person would have fetched if sold in the market as a slave.
Such ‘beasts’ ‘whereof men bring an offering,’ went to the altar; all others, as well as any other thing dedicated, were to be valued by the priest, and might be redeemed on payment of the price, together with one-fifth additional, or else were sold for behoof of the Temple treasury (Lev_27:11-27). How carefully the law guarded against all profanity, or from the attempt to make merit out of what should have been the free outgoing of believing hearts, appears from Deu_23:22-24, Lev_27:9-10, and such statements as Pro_20:25. As Scriptural instances of vows, we may mention that of Jacob (Gen_28:20), the rash vow of Jephthah (Jdg_11:30-31), the vow of Hannah (1Sa_1:11), the pretended vow of Absalom (2Sa_15:7-8), and the vows of the sailors who cast Jonah overboard (Jon_1:16). On the other hand, it will be understood how readily, in times of religious declension, vows might be turned from their proper object to purposes contrary to the Divine mind. *
* In general the later legislation of the Rabbis was intended to discourage vows, on account of their frequent abuse (Nedar, i., iii., ix.). It was declared that only evil-doers bound themselves in this manner, while the pious gave of their own free-will. Where a vow affected the interests of others, every endeavour was to be made, to get him who had made it to seek absolution from its obligations, which might be had from one ‘sage,’ or from three persons, in the presence of him who had been affected by the vow. Further particulars are beyond our present scope.

Carelessness in Later Times
In the latter times of the Temple such vows, made either thoughtlessly, or from Pharisaical motives, became painfully frequent, and called forth protests on the part of those who viewed them in a more reverent and earnest spirit. Thus it is said, that the high-priest, Simeon the Just- whom tradition ascribes so much that is good and noble- that he had uniformly refused, except in one instance, to partake of the trespass-offering of Nazarites, since such vows were so often made rashly, and the sacrifice was afterwards offered reluctantly, not with pious intent. A fair youth, with beautiful hair, had presented himself for such a vow, with whom the high-priest had expostulated: ‘My son, what could have induced thee to destroy such splendid hair?’ To which the youth replied: ‘I fed my father’s flock, and as I was about to draw water for it from a brook, I saw my wraith, and the evil spirit seized and would have destroyed me (probably by vanity). Then I exclaimed: Miserable fool, why boastest thou in a possession which does not belong to thee, who art so soon to be the portion of maggots and worms? By the Temple! I cut off my hair, to devote it to God.’ ‘Upon this,’ said Simeon, ‘I rose and kissed him on the forehead, saying, Oh that many in Israel were like thee! Thou hast truly, and in the spirit of the Law, made this vow according to the will of God.’
That great abuses crept in appears even from the large numbers who took them. Thus the Talmud records that, in the days of King Jannai no fewer than 300 Nazarites presented themselves before Simeon, the son of Shetach. Moreover, a sort of traffic in good works, like that in the Romish Church before the Reformation, was carried on. It was considered meritorious to ‘be at charges’ for poor Nazarites, and to defray the expenses of their sacrifices. King Agrippa, on arriving at Jerusalem, seems to have done this to conciliate popular favour (Jos. Antiq. xix. 6. 1). A far holier motive than this influenced St. Paul (Act_21:23, etc.), when, to remove the prejudices of Jewish Christians, he was ‘at charges’ for four poor Christian Nazarites, and joined them, as it were, in their vow by taking upon himself some of its obligations, as, indeed, he was allowed to do by the traditional law.
The Nazarite Vow
1. The law concerning the Nazarite vow (Num 6) seems to imply, that it had been an institution already existing at the time of Moses, which was only further defined and regulated by him. The name, as well as its special obligations, indicate its higher bearing. For the term Nasir is evidently derived from nazar, to separate, and ‘the vow of a Nazarite’ was to separate himself unto Jehovah (Num_6:2). Hence the Nazarite was ‘holy unto Jehovah’ (Num_6:8). In the sense of separation the term Nasir was applied to Joseph (Gen_44:26; comp. Deu_32:16), and so the root is frequently used. But, besides separation and holiness, we have also here the idea of royal priesthood, since the word Nezer is applied to ‘the holy crown upon the mitre’ of the high-priest (Exo_29:6; Exo_34:30; Lev_8:9), and ‘the crown of the anointing oil’ (Lev_21:12), as also, in a secondary sense, to the royal crown (2Sa_1:10; 2Ki_11:12; Zec_9:16). *
* The learned writer of the article ‘Nazarite’ in Kitto’s Encycl. regards the meaning ‘diadem’ as the fundamental one, following in this the somewhat unsafe critical guidance of Saalschutz, Mos. Recht. p. 158. In proof, he appeals to the circumstance that the ‘undressed vine’ of the Sabbatical and the Jubilee year is designated by the term ‘Nazir’ in Lev_25:5, Lev_25:11. But evidently the uncut, untrimmed vine of those years derived its designation from the Nazarite with his untrimmed hair, and not vice versa. Some of the Rabbis have imagined that the vine had grown in Paradise, and that somehow the Nazarite’s abstinence from its fruit was connected with the paradisiacal state, and with our fall.
We have, therefore, in the Nazarite, the three ideas of separation, holiness, and the crown of the royal priesthood, all closely connected. With this agree the threefold obligations incumbent on a Nazarite. He was to be not only a priest, but one in a higher and more intense sense, since he became such by personal consecration instead of by mere bodily descent. If the priest was to abstain from wine during his actual ministration in the sanctuary, the Nazarite must during the whole period of his vow refrain from all that belongs to the fruit of the vine, ‘from the kernels even to the husk’ (Num_6:3-4). a priest was to avoid all defilement from the dead, except in the case of his nearest relatives, but the Nazarite, like the high-priest (Lev_21:11), was to ignore in that respect even father and mother, brother and sister (Num_6:7). Nay more, if unwittingly he had become so defiled, the time of his vow which had already elapsed was to count for nothing; after the usual seven days purification (Num_19:11-12), he was to cut off his hair, which, in that case, was buried, not burnt, and on the eighth day to bring two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, the one for a sin-, the other for a burnt-offering, with a lamb of the first year for a trespass-offering; after which he had to commence his Nazarite vow anew. Lastly, if the high-priest wore ‘the holy Nezer upon the mitre,’ the Nazarite was not to cut his hair, which was ‘the Nezer of his God upon his head’ (Num_6:7). And this use of the word Nezer, as applied to the high-priest’s crown, as well as to the separation unto holiness of the Nazarite, casts additional light alike upon the object of the priesthood and the character of the Nazarite vow.
The Mishnah Regulations
According to the Mishnah (tractate Nazir), all epithets of, or allusions to, the Nazarite vow, carried its obligation. Thus if one said, ‘I will be it! or, I will be a beautiful one!’- reference to the long hair- made any similar allusion, he had legally taken upon him the vow. If taken for an indefinite period, or without express declaration of the time, the vow lasted for thirty days, which was the shortest possible time for a Nazarite. There were, however, ‘perpetual Nazarites,’ the Mishnah distinguishing between an ordinary ‘perpetual Nazarite’ and a ‘Samson-Nazarite.’ Both were ‘for life,’ but the former was allowed occasionally to shorten his hair, after which he brought the three sacrifices. He could also be defiled by the dead, in which case he had to undergo the prescribed purification. But as Samson had not been allowed under any circumstances to poll his hair, and as he evidently had come into contact with death without afterwards undergoing any ceremonial (Jdg_14:8, Jdg_15:15), so the Samson-Nazarite might neither shorten his hair, nor could he be defiled by the dead. However, practically such a question probably never arose, and the distinction was no doubt merely made to meet an exegetical necessity to the Jews,- of vindicating the conduct of Samson! As already stated, another might undertake part or the whole of the charges of a Nazarite, and thus share in his vow. A father, but not a mother, might make a Nazarite vow for a son, while he was under the legal age of thirteen. The Mishnah (Naz. vi.) discusses at great length the three things interdicted to a Nazarite: ‘defilement, cutting the hair, and whatever proceedeth from the vine.’ Any wilful trespass in these respects, provided the Nazarite had been expressly warned, carried the punishment of stripes, and that for every individual act of which he had been so warned.
Rabbinical Regulations
To prevent even the accidental removal of hair, the Rabbis forbade the use of a comb (Naz. vi. 3). According to the Law, defilement from death annulled the previous time of the vow, and necessitated certain offerings. To this the Mishnah adds, that if anyhow the hair were cut, it annulled the previous time of a vow up to thirty days (the period of an indefinite vow), while it is curiously determined that the use of anything coming from the vine did not interrupt the vow. Another Rabbinical contravention of the spirit of the law was to allow Nazarites the use of all intoxicating liquors other than what came from the vine (such as palm-wine, etc.). Lastly, the Mishnah determines that a master could not annul the Nazarite vow of his slave; and that, if he prevented him from observing it, the slave was bound to renew it on attaining his liberty. The offerings of a Nazarite on the completion of his vow are explicitly described in Num_6:13-21. Along with the ‘ram without blemish for peace-offerings,’ he had to bring ‘a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil,’ as well as the ordinary ‘meat-offering and their drink offerings’ (Num_6:14-15). The Rabbis explain, that the ‘unleavened bread,’ to accompany ‘the peace-offerings,’ was to be made of six-tenth deals and two-thirds of a tenth deal of flour, which were to be baked into ten unleavened cakes and ten unleavened wafers, all anointed with the fourth part of a log of oil; and that all this ‘bread’ was to be offered in one vessel, or ‘basket.’ The sin-offering was first brought, then the burnt-, and last of all the peace-offering. In the Court of the Women there was a special Nazarite’s chamber. After the various sacrifices had been offered by the priest, the Nazarite retired to this chamber, where he boiled the flesh of his peace-offerings, cut off his hair, and threw it in the fire under the caldron. If he had already cut off his hair before coming to Jerusalem, he must still bring it with him, and cast it in the fire under the caldron; so that whether or not we understand Act_18:18 as stating that Paul himself had taken a vow, he might have cut off his hair at Cenchrea (Act_18:18), and brought it with him to Jerusalem. After that the priest waved the offering, as detailed in Num_6:19-20, * and the fat was salted, and burned upon the altar.
* This part of the service was the same as at the consecration of the priests (Lev_8:26).
The breast, the fore-leg, the boiled shoulder, and the waved cake and wafer, belonged to the priests- remaining bread and meat were eaten by the Nazarite. Lastly, the expression, ‘besides that that his hand shall get,’ after mention of the other offerings (Num_6:21), seems to imply that the Nazarites were also wont to bring free-will offerings.
Scripture mentions three Nazarites for life: Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist, to which Christian tradition adds the name of James the Just, ‘the brother of the Lord,’ who presided over the Church at Jerusalem when Paul joined in the Nazarite-offering (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. ii. 23. 3). In this respect it is noteworthy that, among those who urged upon Paul to ‘be at charges’ with the four Christian Nazarites, James himself is not specially mentioned (Act_21:20-25).
Offering the Firstfruits
2. Properly speaking, the offering of the firstfruits belonged to the class of religious and charitable contributions, and falls within our present scope only in so far as certain of them had to be presented in the Temple at Jerusalem. Two of these firstfruit offerings were public and national; viz. the first omer, on the second day of the Passover, and the wave-loaves at Pentecost. The other two kinds of ‘firstfruits’- Reshith, ‘the first, the beginning’- offered on the part of each family and of every individual who had possession in Israel, according to the Divine directions in Exo_22:29; Exo_23:19; Exo_34:26; Num_15:20-21; Num_18:12-13; Deu_18:4; and Deu_26:2-11, where the ceremonial to be observed in the Sanctuary is also described. Authorities distinguish between the Biccurim (primitiva), or firstfruits offered in their natural state, and the Terumoth (primitiae), brought not as raw products, but in a prepared state,- flour, oil, wine, etc. *
* In our Authorised Version ‘Terumah’ is generally rendered by ‘heave-offering,’ as in Exo_29:27; Lev_7:14, Lev_7:32, Lev_7:34; Num_15:19; Num_18:8, Num_18:11; Num_31:41; and sometimes simply by ‘offering,’ as in Exo_25:2; Exo_30:13; Exo_35:5; Exo_36:3, Exo_36:6; Lev_22:12; Num_5:9.
The distinction is convenient, but not strictly correct, since the Terumoth also included vegetables and garden produce (Ter. ii. 5; iii. 1; x. 5). Still less accurate is the statement of modern writers that the Greek term Protogennemata corresponds to Biccurim, and Aparchai to Terumoth, an assertion not even supported by the use of those words in the version of the Septuagint, which is so deeply tinged with traditionalism.
The Biccurim and Terumoth
Adopting, however, the distinction of the terms, for convenience sake, we find that the Biccurim (primitiva) were only to be brought while there was a national Sanctuary (Exo_23:19; Deu_26:2; Neh_10:35). Similarly, they must be the produce of the Holy Land itself, in which, according to tradition, were included the ancient territories of Og and Sihon, as well as that part of Syria which David had subjugated. On the other hand, both the tithes * and the Terumoth were also obligatory on Jews in Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab.
* The Mishnah (Bicc. i. 10) expressly mentions ‘the olive-trees beyond Jordan,’ although R. Joses declared that Biccurim were not brought from east of Jordan, since it was not a land flowing with milk and honey (Deu_26:15)!
The Biccurim were only presented in the Temple, and belonged to the priesthood there officiating at the time, while the Terumoth might be given to any priest in any part of the land. The Mishnah holds that, as according to Deu_8:8 only the following seven were to be regarded as the produce of the Holy Land, from them alone Biccurim were due: viz. wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates. *
* The expression ‘honey’ in Deu_8:8 must refer to the produce of the date-palm.
If the distance of the offerer from Jerusalem was too great, the figs and grapes might be brought in a dried state.
The amount of the Biccurim was not fixed in the Divine Law, any more than of the wheat which was to be left in the corners of the fields in order to be gleaned by the poor. *
* The Mishnah enumerates five things of which the amount is not fixed in the Law (Peah, i. 1): the corners of the field for the poor; the Biccurim; the sacrifices on coming up to the feasts; pious works, on which, however, not more than one-fifth of one’s property was to be spent; and the study of the Law (Jos_1:8). Similarly, ‘these are the things of which a man eats the fruit in this world, but their possession passes into the next world (literally, “the capital continueth for the next,” as in this world we only enjoy the interest): to honour father and mother, pious works, peacemaking between a man and his neighbour, and the study of the Law, which is equivalent to them all.’ In Shab. 127, a, six such things are mentioned.
But according to the Rabbis in both these cases one-sixtieth was to be considered as the minimum. From Exo_23:16 and Lev_23:16-17, it was argued that the Biccurim were not to be brought to Jerusalem before Pentecost; nor yet were they to be offered later than the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple. If given at any other time than between Pentecost and the 25th Kislev, the regular service was not gone through at their presentation. Before describing this, we add a few particulars about the Terumoth. In regard to them it was said that ‘a fine eye’ (a liberal man) ‘gives one-fortieth,’ ‘an evil eye’ (a covetous person) ‘one-sixtieth,’ while the average rate of contribution-‘a middling eye’- to give one-fiftieth, or two per cent. The same proportion we may probably also set down as that of the Biccurim. Indeed, the Rabbis have derived from this the word Terumah, as it were Terei Mimeah, ‘two out of a hundred.’
In the class Terumoth we may also include the Reshith or ‘first of the fleece’ (Deu_18:11); which, according to the Mishnah (Chol. xi. 1, 2), had to be given by every one who possessed at least five sheep, and amounted, without dust or dirt, as a minimum, to five Judean, or ten Galilean, shekel weight of pure wool (one Judean, or sacred shekel = to under two hundred and seventy-four Parisian grains); and, further, the Reshith Challah, or ‘first of the dough’ (Num_15:18-21), * which, if the dough was used for private consumption, was fixed by the Rabbis at one-twenty-fourth, if for sale at one-forty-eighth, while if it were made for non-Israelites, it was not taxed at all. The Rabbis have it that the ‘first of the dough’ was only due from wheat, barley, casmin, oats, and rye, but not if the dough has been made of other esculents, such as rice, etc.
* The Mishnah lays down varying rules as to the amount of the Challah in different places outside Palestine (Chal. iv. 8).
Of course, neither tithes, nor Biccurim, nor Terumoth, were to be given of what already belonged to the Lord, nor of what was not fairly the property of a person. Thus if only the trees, but not the land in which they grew, belonged to a man, he would not give firstfruits. If proselytes, stewards, women, or slaves brought firstfruits, the regular service was not gone through, since such could not have truthfully said either one or other of these verses (Deu_26:3, Deu_26:10): ‘I am come to the country which the Lord sware to our fathers to give us’; or, ‘I have brought the firstfruits of the land which Thou, O Lord, hast given me.’ According to Lev_19:23-25, for three years the fruits of a newly-planted tree were to remain unused, while in the fourth year they were, according to the Rabbis, to be eaten in Jerusalem.
Biccurim, Terumoth, and what was to be left in the ‘corners’ of the fields for the poor were always set apart before the tithing was made. If the offering of ‘firstfruits’ had been neglected, one-fifth was to be added when they were brought. Thus the prescribed religious contributions of every Jewish layman at the time of the second Temple were as follows: Biccurim and Terumoth, say two percent; from the ‘first of the fleece,’ at least five shekels’ weight; from the ‘first of the dough,’ say four per cent; ‘corners of the fields’ for the poor, say two per cent; the first, or Levitical tithe, ten per cent; the second, or festival tithe, to be used at the feasts in Jerusalem, and in the third and sixth years to be the ‘poor’s tithe,’ ten per cent; the firstling of all animals, either in kind or money-value; five shekels for every first-born son, provided he were the first child of his mother, and free of blemish; and the half-shekel of the Temple-tribute. Together, these amounted to certainly more than the fourth of the return which an agricultural population would have. And it is remarkable, that the Law seems to regard Israel as intended to be only an agricultural people- contribution being provided for from trade or merchandise. Besides these prescribed, there were, of course, all manner of voluntary offerings, pious works, and, above all, the various sacrifices which each, according to his circumstances or piety, would bring in the Temple at Jerusalem.
Biccurim in the Temple
Having thus explained the nature of the various religious contributions, it only remains to describe the mode in which the Biccurim or ‘firstfruits,’ were ordinarily set apart, and the ceremonial with which they were brought to Jerusalem, and offered in the Temple. Strictly speaking, the presentation of the firstfruits was an act of family religion. As in the first omer at the Passover, and by the Pentecostal loaves, Israel as a nation owned their God and King, so each family, and every individual separately acknowledged, by the yearly presentation of the firstfruits, a living relationship between them and God, in virtue of which they gratefully received at His hands all they had or enjoyed, and solemnly dedicated both it and themselves to the Lord. They owned Him as the Giver and real Lord of all, and themselves as the recipients of His bounty, the dependents on His blessing, and the stewards of His property. Their daily bread they would seek and receive only at His hand, use it with thanksgiving, and employ it in His service; and this, their dependence upon God, was their joyous freedom, in which Israel declared itself the redeemed people of the Lord.
As a family feast the presentation of the firstfruits would enter more than any other rite into family religion and family life. Not a child in Israel- least of those who inhabited the Holy Land- have been ignorant of all connected with this service, and that even though it had never been taken to the beautiful ‘city of the Great King,’ nor gazed with marvel and awe at the Temple of Jehovah. For scarcely had a brief Eastern spring merged into early summer, when with the first appearance of ripening fruit, whether on the ground or on trees, each household would prepare for this service. The head of the family- we may follow the sketch in the harvest-picture of the household of the Shunammite- by his child, would go into his field and mark off certain portions from among the most promising of the crop. For only the best might be presented to the Lord, and it was set apart before it was yet ripe, the solemn dedication being, however, afterwards renewed, when it was actually cut. Thus, each time any one would go into the field, he would be reminded of the ownership of Jehovah, till the reapers cut down the golden harvest. So, also, the head of the house would go into his vineyards, his groves of broad-leaved fig-trees, of splendid pomegranates, rich olives and stately palms, and, stopping short at each best tree, carefully select what seemed the most promising fruit, tie a rush round the stem, and say: ‘Lo, these are the firstfruits.’ Thus he renewed his covenant-relationship to God each year as ‘the winter was past, the rain over and gone, the flowers appeared on the earth, the time of the singing of birds was come, and the voice of the turtle was heard in the land, the fig-tree put forth his green figs, and the vines with the tender grapes gave a good smell.’ And as these fruits gradually ripened, the ceremonies connected first with setting them apart, and then with actually offering them, must have continued in every Israelitish household during the greater portion of the year, from early spring till winter, when the latest presentation might be made in the Temple on the 25th Kislev (corresponding to our December).
Songs of Ascent
Of course every family could not always have sent its representatives to Jerusalem. But this difficulty was provided for. It will be remembered that as the priests and the Levites, so all Israel, were divided into twenty-four courses, who were represented in the Sanctuary by the so-called ‘standing men,’ or ‘men of the station.’ This implied a corresponding division of the land into twenty-four districts or circuits. In the capital of each district assembled those who were to go up with the firstfruits to the Temple. Though all Israel were brethren, and especially at such times would have been welcomed with the warmest hospitality each home could offer, yet none might at that season avail himself of it. For they must camp at night in the open air, and not spend it in any house, lest some accidental defilement from the dead, or otherwise, might render them unfit for service, or their oblation unclean. The journey was always to be made slowly, for the pilgrimage was to be a joy and a privilege, not a toil or weariness. In the morning, as the golden sunlight tipped the mountains of Moab, the stationary man of the district, who was the leader, summoned the ranks of the procession in the words of Jer_31:6 : ‘Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion, and unto Jehovah our God.’ To which the people replied, as they formed and moved onwards, in the appropriate language of Psalm 122: ‘I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of Jehovah.’ First went one who played the pipe; then followed a sacrificial bullock, destined for a peace-offering, his horns gilt and garlanded with olive-branches; next came the multitude, some carrying the baskets with the firstfruits, others singing the Psalms, which many writers suppose to have been specially destined for that service, and hence to have been called ‘the Songs of Ascent’; in our Authorised Version ‘the Psalms of Degrees.’ The poorer brought their gifts in wicker baskets, which afterwards belonged to the officiating priests; the richer theirs in baskets of silver or of gold, which were given to the Temple treasury. In each basket was arranged, with vine-leaves between them, first the barley, then the wheat, then the olives; next the dates, then the pomegranates, then the figs; while above them all clustered, in luscious beauty, the rich swelling grapes.
And so they passed through the length and breadth of the land, everywhere wakening the echoes of praise. As they entered the city, they sang Psa_122:2 : ‘Our feet stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem.’ A messenger had preceded them to announce their approach, and a deputation from the Temple, consisting of priests, Levites, and treasurers, varying in numbers according to the importance of the place from which the procession came, had gone out to receive them. In the streets of Jerusalem each one came out to welcome them, with shouts of, ‘Brethren of such a place’ (naming it), ‘ye come to peace; welcome! Ye come in peace, ye bring peace, and peace be unto you!’
As they reached the Temple Mount, each one, whatever his rank or condition, took one of the baskets on his shoulder, and they ascended, singing that appropriate hymn (Psa 150), ‘Praise ye Jehovah! praise God in His sanctuary: praise Him in the firmament of His power,’ etc. As they entered the courts of the Temple itself, the Levites intoned Psalm 30: ‘I will extol Thee, O Jehovah; for Thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me,’ etc. Then the young pigeons and turtle-doves which hung from the baskets were presented for burnt-offerings. After that, each one, as he presented his gifts, repeated this solemn confession (Deu_26:3): ‘I profess this day unto Jehovah thy God, that I am come unto the country that Jehovah sware unto our fathers for to give us.’ At these words, he took the basket from his shoulder, and the priest put his hands under it and waved it, the offerer continuing: ‘A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation-, mighty, and populous.’ Then reciting in the words of inspiration the narrative of the Lord’s marvellous dealings, he closed with the dedicatory language of Deu_26:10 : ‘And now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land which Thou, O Jehovah, hast given me.’ So saying, he placed the basket at the side of the altar, cast himself on his face to worship, and departed. The contents of the baskets belonged to the officiating priests, and the offerers themselves were to spend the night at Jerusalem.
The Word ‘Firstfruits’ in the New Testament
Turning from this to what may be called its higher application, under the Christian dispensation, we find that the word rendered ‘firstfruits’ occurs just seven times in the New Testament. These seven passages are: Rom_8:13; Rom_11:16; Rom_16:5; 1Co_15:20-23; 1Co_16:15; Jam_1:18; Rev_14:4. If we group these texts appropriately, one sentence of explanation may suffice in each case. First, we have (1Co_15:20, 1Co_15:23), as the commencement of the new harvest, the Lord Jesus Himself, risen from the dead, the ‘firstfruits’- first sheaf waved before the Lord on the second Paschal day, just as Christ actually burst the bonds of death at that very time. Then, in fulfilment of the Pentecostal type of the first loaves, we read of the primal outpouring of the Holy Spirit, dispensed on the day of Pentecost. The presentation of the firstfruits is explained by its application to such instances as Rom_16:5, and 1Co_16:15 (in the former of which passages the reading should be Asia, and not Achaia), while the character of these firstfruits is shown in Jam_1:18. The allusion in Rom_11:16 is undoubtedly to the ‘first of the dough,’ and so explains an otherwise difficult passage. The apostle argues, that if God chose and set apart the fathers- He took the first of the dough, then the whole lump (the whole people) is in reality sanctified to Him; and therefore God cannot, and ‘hath not cast away His people which He foreknew.’ Finally, in Rev_14:4, the scene is transferred to heaven, where we see the full application of this symbol to the Church of the first-born. But to us all, in our labour, in our faith, and in our hope, there remain these words, pointing beyond time and the present dispensation: ‘Ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body’ (Rom_8:23).
‘Glory to God on account of all things.’-. Chrysostom