Page images
PDF
EPUB

Judaism, so it inevitably places the prophet in direct contradiction to the writers of the New Testament. For our Lord and his apostles taught as plainly as language could do it the entire and total cessation of the peculiarities of Jewish worship, and on grounds which are not of temporary, but of permanent validity and force. This he confirms by special citations from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. And as we find the apostles arguing at length, as is done especially in the epistle to the Hebrews, for the disannulling of the old covenant with its Aaronic priesthood and carnal ordinances, we are reduced to the necessity of holding, either that the shadowy services of Judaism have finally and forever ceased, or that these sacred writers very much misrepresented their Master's mind regarding them. No intelligent and sincere Christian can adopt the latter alternative; he ought, therefore, to rest in the former. And he will adopt this conclusion in the rational persuasion, that, in the wise administration of God, the laws and ordinances under which man is placed, must be in conformity with his condition, so that the carnal institutions, which were adapted to the nonage of the church, cannot, in the nature of things, be in proper correspondence with her maturity and millennial glory. Thus our author arrives at a perfect justification, by the explicit statement of Scripture, in adopting the strong language of Douglas on the Structure of Prophecy, in which he says, that,

"A temple with sacrifices now, would be the most daring denial of the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and of the efficacy of the blood of his atonement. He who sacrificed before, confessed the Messiah; he who should sacrifice now, would most solemnly and sacrilegiously deny him."

Having by these considerations, settled his convictions, of the exclusively ideal character of the description in this last vision, our author advances a step further, and affirms, that the idealism here is precisely of the same kind as that which appeared in some of the earlier visions; visions which must necessarily have already passed into fulfilment, and which, therefore, may justly be regarded as furnishing a key to the right understanding of the one before us. The leading char

acter of those earlier visions, which coincide in nature with this, we have found to be, the historical cast of their idealism. The representation of things to come is thrown into the mould of something similar in the past, and presented as simply a reproduction of the old, or a returning back again to what is past, only with such diversities as might be necessary to adapt it to the altered circumstances contemplated; while still, the thing meant was, not that the outward form, but that the essential nature of the past should revive. The instances which he cites are from chaps. vi; xx; xxviii. 11–19; xxix. 1–16. He contends, that, in all these cases of apparent, we should entirely err if we looked for an actual, repetition of the past. It is the nature of the transactions and events, not their precise form, or external conditions, that is unfolded to our view. The representation is of an ideal kind, and the history of the past merely supplies the mould into which it is cast. It is remarked by the author, that, by availing ourselves of the guiding light, furnished by those earlier revelations, where we can compare the prediction with the fulfilment, in our investigations of the vision before us, we shall only be giving the prophet the benefit of the common rule, of interpreting a writer by a special respect to his own peculiar method, and explaining the more obscure by the more intelligible parts of his writings. As we have been particularly impressed with the author's concluding observations, in this connection, we quote them entire.

"In all the other cases referred to, where his representation takes the form of a revival of the past, we see it is the spirit and not the letter of the representation that is mainly to be regarded; and why should we expect it to be otherwise here? In this remarkable vision we have the old produced again, in respect to what was most excellent and glorious in Israel's past condition; its temple, with every necessary accompaniment of sacredness and attraction; the symbol of the Divine presence within, the ministrations and ordinances proceeding in due order without, the prince and the priesthood; everything, in short, required to constitute the beau-ideal of a sacred common wealth, according to the ancient patterns of things. But, at the same time, there are such changes and alteration superinduced upon the old, as sufficiently indicate, that something far greater and better than the past was concealed under this antiquated form. Not the coming reali

ties in their exact nature, could the prophet as yet distinctly unfold; while the old dispensation lasted, they must be thrown into the narrow and imperfect shell of its earthly relations. But those, who lived under that dispensation might get the liveliest idea they were able to obtain of the brighter future, by simply letting their minds rest on the past, as here modified and shaped anew by the prophet; just as still, the highest notions we can attain to of the state of glory, is by conceiving the best of the church's present condition refined and elevated to heavenly perfection. Exhibited at the time the vision was, and constructed as it is, one should no more expect to see a visible temple realising the conditions, and a re-occupied Canaan after the regular squares and parallelograms of the prophet, than in the case of Tyre literally dwelling in Eden, and, as a cherub, occupying the immediate presence of God; or to behold Israel sent back again to make trial of Egyptian bondage and the troubles of the desert. Whatever might be granted in providence of an outward conformity to the plan of the vis ion, it should only be regarded as a pledge of the far greater good really contemplated, and a help to faith in waiting for its proper accomplishment." pp. 397, 398.

But looking to the manifold and minute particulars given in the description, to some it may appear highly improbable, that anything short of an exact and literal fulfilment should have been intended. Had it been only a general sketch of a city and temple, as in the 60th chapter of Isaiah, and other portions of prophecy, they could more easily enter into the ideal character of the description, and understand how it might chiefly point to the better things of the gospel dispensation. But with so many exact measurements before them, and such a great variety of particulars of all sorts, they cannot conceive how there can be a proper fulfilment, without corresponding objective realities. In our author's reply to this he remarks, that, just here, we are met with another special characteristic of the prophet. Above all the prophetical writers, he is distinguished, for his numberless particularisms. What Isaiah depicts with a few bold and graphic strokes, Ezekiel spreads over a series of chapters. This is instanced in the case of Tyre, which Isaiah despatches with a striking brevity, while Ezekiel draws a full-length picture, filling it up with all manner of details, omitting no circumstance that could augment her greatness upon the one hand, or add to the mortification and completeness of her downfall on the other. The author

shows that the same features were strikingly exhibited in other portions of the prophet's writings, and, indeed, in all his more important delineations; which, even when descriptive of ideal scenes are characterized by such minute and varied details as to give them the appearance of a most definitely shaped and life-like reality.

Now, if this characteristic of the prophet's is duly considered, the difficulty referred to will vanish. It was no more than might have been expected, bearing in mind this peculiarity of manner, that, when about to present a picture of the glorious future of God's church and people, it should be drawn with the minutest particularity. Having done so on similar, but less important occasions, he could not fail to do so here, when rising to the very climax of all his revelations. For it is by means of this very minuteness and particularity of description, that he seeks pre-eminently to impress us with a conviction of the Divine certainty of his revelatians, and to give weight and body to our apprehensions.

As a further vindication of his view, Mr. Fairbairn says, it may also be asked, whether the feeling of hostility to the spiritual understanding of the vision, and a clinging to the literal, does not proceed to a large extent, from false notions regarding the ancient temple and its ministrations and ordinances of worship; as if these possessed an independent value, apart from the spiritual truths they symbolically expressed. He shows on the contrary that the temple and all that belonged to it, bore the impress of Divine realities, presenting to the eye of the worshippers a manifold and varied instruction respecting the things of God's kingdom. It was an image and emblem of the kingdom of God itself, both in respect to the then existing and temporary dispensation, and to its grander development after the advent of Christ. And it was one of the great errors of the Jews to lose sight of the spiritual significancy of these things by their overweening attachment to what was merely external in the temple and its worship. But bearing in mind the typical and spiritual import of the temple and its VOL. VII.-13

arrangements, the necessity for an outward and literal realization of Ezekiel's plan obviously falls to the ground. For if all connected with it was ordered and arranged chiefly for its symbolical value, why might not the description itself be given forth for the edification and comfort of the church on account of what it contained of symbolical instruction? This argument is still further pursued with singular ability and interest by our author, and then he remarks,

“Let the same rules be applied to the interpretation of Ezekiel's visionary temple, which, on the express warrant of scripture, we apply to Solomon's literal one, and it will be impossible to show, why, so far as the ends of instruction are concerned, the same great purposes might not be served by the simple delineation of the one, as by the actual construction of the other."

This line of reflection is still further supported, by reference to other and earlier communications, in which Ezekiel makes much account of the symbolical character of the temple, and the things belonging to it. Nor, says our author, is he at all singular in this. The other prophets represent the coming future with a reference to the symbolical places and ordinances of the past, adjusting and modifying these to suit their immediate design. He instances, Jeremiah xxxi. 38-40 and Isaiah lx. This general consideration, which we regard as peculiarly weighty and convincing, is concluded by an allusion to the two last chapters of Revelation, in which our author shows, that, we have a quite similar vision to the one before us, employed to set forth the ultimate condition of the redeemed church. But with his usual discrimination he discerns differences in the one as compared with the other. In particular, while in Ezekiel's vision the temple was the most prominent figure, in John's there was no temple seen.

"But in the two descriptions the same truth is symbolized, though in the last it appears in a state of more perfect development than in the other. The temple in Ezekiel, with God's glory returned to it, bespoke God's presence among his people to sanctify and bless them; the no-temple in John indicated that such a select spot was no longer needed, that the gracious presence of God was everywhere seen and felt. It is the same truth in both, only in the latter represented, in accordance with the genius of the

« PreviousContinue »