Jonathan Edwards · 315 of 409

XII. TYPES OF THE MESSIAH · Part 8

Sin or corruption, which it is evident by the prophecies the Messiah comes to heal, is called by the same general names that belonged to the leprosy, as wounds, and bruises, and nullifying sores, from the crown of the head to the soles of the feet. Something that should be in the Messiah’s times is spoken of under the name of a trumpet, an instrument much in use by God’s appointment, in the observances of the ceremonial law; Isa. xxvii. 13. and something seems to be spoken of under the name of that sound that was made with the trumpets on their joyful festivals, especially on the year of jubilee; Psal. lxxxix. 15. Something that should be fulfilled in the Messiah’s times, is called by the name of that which the serpent is doomed to, Gen. iii. 14. “Dust shalt thou eat.” Isa. lxv. 25. “Dust shall be the serpent’s meat.” Something that should be done by the Messiah is spoken of under the name of the application that was made of water in the legal purifications. Isa. lii. 15. “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26. “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you.” Zech. xiii. 1. “In that day there shall be a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness.” Compare these with Num. viii. 7. and xix. 13,18-21.

The congregation in the wilderness were in the form of an army, and an army with banners. So the church of the Messiah is often represented as an army. They are represented as being called forth to war, and engaged in battle, gloriously conquering and triumphing, in places innumerable, and are spoken of as being God’s goodly horse in the battle, and as a company of horses in Pharaoh’s chariots, and being made as the sword of a mighty man, and being gathered to an ensign, (Isa. xi. 10, 12.) and standard; Isa. xlix. 22. lix. 19. and lxii. 10. And having a banner given them, Psal. lx. 4. And setting up their banners in God’s name, Psal. xx. 5. And being terrible as an army with banners, Cant. vi. 4, 10.

Something in the kingdom of the Messiah is spoken of in the prophecies under the name of pomegranates, which were represented in the work of the tabernacle and temple. Cant. iv. 3, 13. vi. 7, 11. vii. 12. viii. 2. Figures that were made in the tabernacle and temple were called cherubim, the same name by which angels are called in the Old Testament: which is an evidence that they were made as types or representations of angels. The church and people of the Messiah are in the prophecies of the Messiah compared to and called a palm-tree, or palm-trees; Cant. vii. 7, 8. Psal. xcii. 12. which is an argument that they were typified by the figures of palm-trees in the tabernacle and temple. Something that should be in the Messiah’s time is represented by what appertained to the manner of God’s appearance in the holy of holies. Psal. xcvii. “Clouds and darkness are round about him.” Compare 2 Sam. xxii. 12.

Some of the persons that we have an account of in the history of the Old Testament, are expressly spoken of as resembling the Messiah. So Moses, “A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee, like unto me.”Deut. xviii. 15, 18. So Melchizedek,Psal. cx. “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” And the account we have, Isa. vii. concerning Shear-ja-shub, the son of Isaiah the prophet, is equivalent to expressly declaring him to be a type of the Messiah. And Zerubbabel and Joshua are evidently spoken of as types of the Messiah. Haggai ii. 23. “In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, I will take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, and make thee as a signet.” Zech. iv. 7. “Who art thou, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain; and he shall bring forth the head-stone thereof with shoutings; crying, Grace, grace unto it.” Ver. 10. “For who hath despised the day of small things? For they shall rejoice and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven. They are the eyes of the Lord,” &c. Zech. iii. “And he showed me Joshua the high priest and unto him he said I will clothe thee with a change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. Hear now, O Joshua, the high priest, thou and thy fellows that sit before thee, (for they are men wondered at,) for behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch.” Zech. vi. 11, 12. “Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua, the son of Josedech the high priest, and speak unto him, Behold, the man whose name is the Branch.”

It is an evidence, that some of the more eminent persons that we have an account of in the history of the Old Testament, are types of the Messiah, that some of them and the Messiah are plainly spoken of under one. It is plain concerning David in the 89th Psalm,. where the name of David is mentioned once and again, and yet the psalm evidently looks beyond David to the Messiah. It is also plain concerning Solomon in the 72d Psalm,. which the title declares to have respect to Solomon, and yet the matter of the psalm most evidently shows that it has respect to the Messiah; many things in it being true of the Messiah, and peculiar to him, and not true of Solomon.

And here, by the way, I would observe, that to the many evidences that have already been taken notice of, that David and Solomon are types of the Messiah, this may be added, that the Jews themselves looked on them as types of the Messiah. (See Basnage’s History of the Jews, page 367.)

Many things occasionally appointed of God, if they signify nothing spiritual, must be wholly insignificant actions, and so wholly impertinent. Such as the setting up a brazen serpent for man to look upon, in order to a being healed. God’s appointing the princes of the congregation to dig a well with their staves, to supply the congregations with water, and a public record’s being made of it by divine inspiration, and its being celebrated in a song of the people that is also recorded by divine inspiration. Num. xxi. 17, 18. Moses’s holding up his hand by divine direction, that Joshua and Israel might prevail over Amalek: Elijah’s stretching himself three times upon the widow of Zarephath’s son, in order to raise him to life. 1 Kings xvii. 21. Elisha’s ordering his staff to be laid on the face of the Shunamite’s dead child, and afterwards his lying upon the child, and putting his mouth on his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and stretching himself on the child, in order to raise it to life. And so many other like actions that God appointed, might be mentioned.

But to say something more particularly concerning the ceremonial law. There is abundant evidence even in the Old Testament, that the things that belong to that law are typical of the things of the Messiah.

If the things of the ceremonial law are not typical of moral and spiritual things, they are wholly insignifiCant. and so wholly impertinent and vain. For God does abundantly declare, even in the Old Testament, that he has no delight in them on their own account, and that they are in his esteem worthless and vain in themselves, and therefore it will follow that they must be worthless and vain to all intents and purposes, unless they are otherwise by the relation they bear to something that God delights in on its own account, i. e. unless they are some way significant of things moral and spiritual. If the things of the ceremonial law were pleasing to God, and were not pleasing on their own account, or by reason of any thing that God saw in them; then it must be on account of something else that they represent, and because they some way stand in stead of them. For instance, when God went out through the land of Egypt to smite the first-born, and saw the blood of the paschal lamb on the door-posts of a house, it is represented as being something pleasing to God, for the sake of which he would spare the inhabitants of that house. But the Old Testament reveals, that blood was not at all pleasing on its own account. For that declares that God hath no delight in the blood of beasts; and therefore the way in which it was something pleasing to God, must be its being something which represented or stood in stead of something that was truly in itself pleasing. So the sweet savour that was made in offering incense is spoken of as something sweet and pleasant to God; and a white clean garment as something pure, and so pleasing to God. But we know that these things were not pleasant or acceptable on their own account, and therefore it must be only as related to something else that was so. But in what way is a sweet smell related to any thing really sweet to God, except as it is a type, or has some signification of it? And which way has the purity of a garment any relation to spiritual purity, but as it has a representation of it?

This leads me to observe, that there is an apparent and designed resemblance between those things that were instituted, that were in themselves worthless, and those moral and spiritual things that in themselves were valuable in the sight of God. Thus it is apparent, that outward cleanliness and purity resemble and shadow forth that which is in the sight of God real purity; and outward sweetness resembles real sweetness to God. So the light of the lamps in the sanctuary had a resemblance of spiritual light; and the preciousness of gold and pearls, that were used in the sanctuary and priests’ garments, had a resemblance of some real preciousness in the sight of God; and the beauty and ornaments of the sanctuary and its vessels and holy garments, &c. had a resemblance of real beauty, and of those things that were ornaments in the sight of God. So that seeming atonement for sin, that was in the legal sacrifices, had a resemblance of that only true atonement the prophecies speak of. The seeming vicariousness there was in the sufferings of beasts for sinners, had a resemblance of a true vicariousness and substitution. And it is also manifest, that God chose those things, or had respect to them in his choice and appointment of them, because they did resemble or shadow forth those correspondent spiritual things, that have a real value and excellency in themselves in his sight. The very nature of the thing makes it manifest. Thus it is manifest that God chose pure garments rather than filthy ones, because outward purity did more resemble real purity. He chose a sweet smell to be offered as a pleasant savour unto him, because sweet smell has more resemblance of what is really sweet to him. It is manifest that he chose the suffering of beasts as an atonement for sin, rather than the feeding and pampering of them, because this has more of a resemblance of a true atonement, which the prophecies speak of as being by the sufferings of a surety. It is evident that God chose the blood or life of the creature to be offered, to make atonement for the soul, rather than the hair, because it has a greater resemblance of the life of a surety, which is a true atonement for the soul, as the prophecies of the Old Testament do represent. But if it be evident, that God in the institution of the things of the ceremonial law, had respect to the resemblance that was in them of spiritual things and things of the Messiah, and appointed those rather than things of a diverse nature, for the sake of that resemblance, this is the same thing as to say, that the former are appointed as types of the latter.

All the people of Israel, if they exercised consideration, must suppose and understand that these things pertaining to the ceremonial law were appointed and used as representations and symbols of something spiritual, and not for the sake of any innate goodness in them, or any value God had for them. As for instance, that God appointed white garments rather than yellow, green, or black, not for any excellency of the colour, but as a more proper representation of righteousness and spiritual purity; and the making a sweet odour with spices, not that God smelt that odour and so was pacified towards men as though he were recompensed by the great pleasure they thereby gave him; but to represent something spiritual that was highly acceptable to him: and so that God appointed them to offer the flesh of beasts and bread, as the food or bread of God as these things are called, and the drink-offering of wine, not that God eat and drank those things, and was pleased with the taste of them, and received refreshment and benefit, as a hungry and thirsty man does by meat and drink; but that these things were mystical and symbolical representations of things of a higher and more divine nature. They must know, that laying hands on the head of the sacrifice, and what was called laying sins on the scape goat, was no real laying sins on those beasts. And besides, God did expressly and abundantly teach his people under the Old Testament the contrary of these things. They must naturally therefore suppose, that they were used as things significant of something of a nature higher than themselves. They must naturally suppose, that the eating the passover with the staff in the hand, and with bitter herbs, and putting the blood of the sacrifices upon the tip of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right foot, were mystical, and symbolical, and significant of something in itself of value and importance.

With respect to the legal sacrifices, the evidence that they were types of the Messiah is very strong; which will appear if we consider the following things.

It is evident there is some real and proper atonement for sin, which is in God’s account requisite, and which he insists upon in order to the pardon of sin, and which he accepts as a true atonement, and is willing to forgive sin on account of it. Otherwise, God never would designedly have taken a course by such an abundance of institutions, to bring up his people of the nation of Israel in the notion of the need of some atonement for sin, and some vicariousness and substitution of suffering for the sinner, in order to satisfy divine justice, and not only to bring up the Jews in this nation, but his church and people from the beginning of the world, insomuch that all nations received this notion from the first progenitors and founders of the nations and families of the earth.

It is also very manifest that the legal sacrifices of beasts and birds were no real atonement. This appears not only from the nature of the thing, but it is what God abundantly taught his people under the Old Testament, of whom he required these sacrifices. Psal. xl. 6. 1. 5,. to the end, li. 16. Isa. i. 11,. &c. lxvi. 2, 3. Hos. vi. 6. Jer. vii. 21-23,. and especially Mic. vi. 6-8.

It is apparent by the prophecies of the Old Testament, that the Messiah was to offer a true and real atonement for the sins of men. That the Messiah should offer up himself a sacrifice for sin, is very clearly implied in many places there mentioned. But this doctrine is not only implied, but it is declared, that the Messiah should atone for sin, or expiate it by sacrifice. Isa. liii. 10. “When thou shall make his soul an offering for sin.” Dan. ix. 24. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city” to make reconciliation for iniquity, or to expiate iniquity by sacrifice, or to make atonement for iniquity; for the word in the original is the very same that is used from time to time in the law about sacrifices for making atonement. In what follows, it is declared how this atonement was to be made, viz. by anointing the most holy and the coming of the Messiah, and by his being cut off, but not for himself, and making the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the last half of the seventieth week. And it is evident that the atonement for sin here spoken of is a proper atonement, that makes real satisfaction for sin, and truly pays and finishes the debt, by the other expressions that are added, Dan ix. 24. “To finish the transgression, and make an end of sin, and bring in everlasting righteousness;” and making the sacrifice and oblation to cease, i. e. by making sin to cease, making an end of sin and finishing the transgression, that there shall be no further occasion for sacrifice and oblation. And making atonement for sin is here prophesied of as that which was to be, but never yet was: it was a new thing, as the prophecy must be understood. But it could be a new thing in no other sense but that, viz. that a true and proper atonement for sin should be offered. For atonement in other senses beside this had been abundantly offered from the beginning of the world. What is translated, to finish the transgression, might have been rendered, to consume transgression. But that expiation for sin that consumes transgression and makes an end of sins, and brings into a state of perpetual righteousness, so as to make all further sacrifices, or attempts, and means, and representations of atonement to cease, and should abolish them as now needless, that is undoubtedly a proper atonement for sin.

Again, it is not only manifest by the Old Testament that the sacrifice of the Messiah is a true real atonement, but that it is the only true and real atonement for sin. For the Old Testament speaks of no other sorts of sacrifices of expiation for sin but those two, viz. the ancient legal sacrifices of beasts, and the sacrifice of the Messiah. What the prophecies sometimes say of sacrifices that should be offered by God’s people, after the Messiah’s ascension, must be understood figuratively; because it is expressly foretold, that the Messiah by his sacrifice should cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. And besides, as I observed before, the Messiah’s making expiation for sin, is prophesied of as a new thing; and as it is foretold as a new thing, or the first thing of that nature, so it is also prophesied of as the last thing of that nature, as is implied in those expressions of his making an end of sin, finishing the transgression, and making the sacrifice and oblation to cease. And these two things put together, imply that this is the only truly expiatory sacrifice. See also Zech. iii. 8, 9. And then, that this is the only sacrifice by which the sins of God’s people are atoned, and that never any one is forgiven and accepted on account of any other atonement, is implied in Isa. liii. 6. ”All we like sheep have gone astray: we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Another thing that is very manifest, is, that the legal sacrifices had a manifold resemblance and representation of that great, true, and proper sacrifice that the prophecies foretold that the Messiah should offer. Thus those beasts that were offered were without blemish, as the prophecies represent the Messiah to be, Isa. liii. and other places. These sacrifices were not of unclean but clean beasts, therein representing that spiritual purity that the prophecies speak of in the Messiah. A very great part of those sacrifices were of lambs, as the paschal lamb, Exod. xxix. 39. and very many other of their sacrifices, which had a resemblance of what the prophecies represent of the feebleness, innocence, meekness, and gentleness of the Messiah. Most of the sacrifices were males, as the Messiah is represented as of the male sex. They were offered by a priest in white robes, representing the purity and holiness of the Messiah; who, when spoken of, Dan. ix. as the great priest that should offer that atonement that should make an end of sin, is called the “Most Holy.” “Seventy weeks are determined to make reconciliation for iniquity and to anoint the Most Holy.” The priests were anointed: herein there was a resemblance between them and the great Messiah, or anointed. The sacrifices suffered as the Messiah, the great sacrifice, is represented to suffer. The sacrifices suffered death, and a violent death, as the Messiah suffered death the sacrifices were burnt by fire from heaven; as the prophecies represent the Messiah as suffering from the immediate hand of God. In most of the sacrifices, their inward parts were to be burnt on the altar, that are abundantly made use of in the Old Testament to represent the soul; which is agreeable to what the prophecies represent of the Messiah’s making his soul an offering for sin. The fat of the inwards of the sacrifices was melted, and consumed, and burnt up in the fire; which is agreeable to Psal. xxii. 14, 15. “I am poured out like water my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels; my strength is dried up like a potsherd;” and Psal. cii. 4. “My heart is smitten and withered like grass;” and Isa. liii. 12. “He hath poured out my soul unto death.” There was the resemblance of the substitution of the sacrificed beast in suffering for the sinner, as the prophecies represent concerning the Messiah. There was an appearance of laying the iniquities of those for whom the sacrifices were offered, on the animal sacrificed, especially on some of the sacrifices on the head of which the hands of those for whom they were offered were laid, that they might lay their sins upon them. This is agreeable to Isa. liii. 6. “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The scape-goat is represented as bearing the sins of those for whom he was offered into the wilderness; which is agreeable to Isa. liii. 4. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, he hath carried our sorrows.” The Messiah is expressly spoken of as being like a lamb, in his being slain, and offered as a sacrifice for sin, Isa. liii. The high priest made intercession for the people with the blood of the sacrifices, agreeably to Isa. liii. 12.

Beside all that has been already observed, this further is manifest, viz. that they are by God called an atonement, and are said to be an atonement, times without number. (See the Concordance under the word Atonement.) Seeing therefore, that the legal sacrifices are declared expressly and abundantly to be no real atonement, but have evidently a great resemblance of the true atonement, and are plainly representations of it, and are abundantly spoken of by him that instituted them, as being an atonement, and as instituted by him that they might be an atonement; it is very apparent, that they were appointed figures and representations of the true atonement. For there are but these two ways of any thing’s being consistently with truth said to be such a thing, by the name of which it is called, viz. either its being that thing truly and properly, or figuratively and by representation. Either it must be that thing that it is said to be in reality, or by representation of the reality, or not at all. We have often in the law of Moses this expression used with regard to the sacrifices. The priest shall make an atonement for him. Now one of these two meanings must be put upon the words, either that he shall make a real proper atonement, or that he shall make an atonement figuratively or significantly. It is either a true atonement or a seeming atonement: otherwise it could not be an atonement in any sense, nor would it be so called by God. If there be such a thing as a real atonement for sin, and the legal sacrifices be not a real atonement for sin, yet are appointed and accepted as an atonement, then they are appointed and accepted instead of an atonement, for that is the same thing. So that it is evident, that God appointed the legal sacrifices to stand in stead of, or to represent, the real atonement. If a man be appointed to stand for another that is absent, and be accepted for an absent friend, then he is his representative. When the prophet called the arrow that the king of Israel shot out of his window, the arrow of the Lord’s deliverance, nothing else could be meant, but that it was a sign of the arrow of the Lord’s deliverance. So when the man that interpreted his fellow’s dream, said of the barley cake, “this is the sword of Gideon, the son of Joash;” he could mean nothing else, but that this signified the sword of Gideon. So when Joseph said, “The seven lean kine are seven years of famine.” And so in innumerable other instances that might be mentioned. It is evident from what has been already observed, that here are certain resemblances and shadows of sacrifices, and substitutions in suffering for sinners, and atonements for sin: and it is manifest that it was out of regard to this resemblance there was in the shadow of the atonement, that the shadow was appointed. God himself has decided it by calling the shadow by the name of the substance, and by declaring that he appointed the shadow, that it might be for the substance, which he has done in declaring that he appointed it, that it might be for an atonement, i. e. instead of the real atonement, which is the substance.

These shadows of atonement are not merely called by the name of an atonement, but they are spoken of from time to time as being an atonement, and are said to be appointed, that they might be an atonement. Now what other way there is of being an atonement, but either being so really, or being so in figure, and significance, I know not.

The incense appointed in the law had a sweet smell, and was acceptable to the senses, and so had a shadow of that which was acceptable to God and a sweet savour to him. And seeing that it is expressly declared by God in the law, that he appoints this incense for a sweet savour to him, this demonstrates that God in the appointment has respect to that resemblance, that it is appointed to be a standing representation of a true sweet savour to him. Sweet smell is appointed, because it resembles what is truly acceptable to God. When external whiteness and purity, that is a shadow of true purity in the sight of God, is called by the name of true purity; and is declared to be appointed that it might be for purity in the sight of God; this demonstrates that it is appointed to be a standing representation of true purity. So, likewise, when the shadows of sufferings for sinners, and atonements for sin, are called by the name of real sufferings for sinners, and atonements for sin, and are said from time to time to be atonements for sin, and to be appointed that they might be for atonements for sin; it demonstrates clearly, that these shadows of atonement are appointed out of respect to the resemblance they have to the real atonement, and that they might be instead of it, and standing representations of it; or, which is the same thing, that they might be types of it. God appointed the suffering of the creature, rather than the feeding or fatting of it, for the making atonement, because the suffering of the creature has a greater resemblance of that suffering that makes a real atonement for sin. God in thus calling these shadows from time to time by the name of the things resembled, and speaking of them from time to time as being the things resembled, does therein plainly put them in their stead, and does make use of them as representations of them: as if any should on design call one by another’s name, that was not his own name, and ordinarily speak of him and treat him as being that other, this would be the same thing as to substitute him for the other, and to make use of him as the other’s representative.

It is an argument that the sacrifices were types of the Messiah, that when Manoah offered sacrifice by God’s appointment, he that is called the “angel of the Lord,” and who was the Lord, ascended in the flame of the sacrifice, Judg. xiii. 20. And so did, as it were, offer up himself in the flame of the sacrifice, intimating that he was the great sacrifice, that was the antitype of those sacrifices of beasts. The beasts that were sacrificed to God, ascended up in the flame before God for a sweet savour. So the matter is represented in the Old Testament. But here we see, that when the sacrifice was ascending in the flame, the angel of the Lord ascends in the same, to show that that was the end of the sacrificing fire, viz. to cause him to ascend as a sweet savour unto God.