(6) It is equally unmistakable that the visible dwelling-place of God, i.e. the Tabernacle and the Temple, was a symbol of His invisible dwelling- place. In point of fact, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies correspond respectively to the heavens and the highest heaven (own ‘py 1 K 827 etc.), while the forecourt was the analogue of the earth, which, according to Is 66!, is God’s footstool. Josephus was quite right, then, when he said long ago that the subdivision of the sanctuary was an imitation of the constitution of the universe (An¢.
Il. vi. 4: mpds ulunow ris Tov bev dicews). The same notion is favoured by He 94 od yap els . . dvrirura . . . GAN els adrdv rdv otpaydv. Hengsten-
berg contended that the OT sanctuary was to be viewed as symbolizing the pre-Christian stage of the Kingdom of God (Authentie des Pent. ii. 628 ff. ). But in that case the arrangement of the sanctuary of the religion of Israel would have pointed to the imperfection of that religion; and the view that this arrangement was chosen in order to express the truth that the OT religion was im- perfect, is unnatural. Still less conceivable is the notion (Schegg, Bibl. Arch. 1887, p. 418) that ‘the sacred tent typified the Christian Church.’
(c) A symbolical meaning of newmbers cannot be certainly demonstrated for the OT. This question has already been so exhaustively discussed in art. NUMBER in vol. iii., that only a very little needs to be added here.—The circumstance that the sanctuary was divided into three parts, has just been explained. It was not, then, on account of the number ‘three’ that this arrangement was adopted. That number was not a symbol of the Deity (Schege, l.c. 420) at the OT stage of religion. As little is a symbolical meaning of the number ‘ four’ evident
in the construction of the Sanctuary. Nor was the number ‘ten’ meant to express the idea of ‘per- fection’ (Schegg, /.c. 419), as one may see from the fact that the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s temple formed a cube of 20 cubits (1 K 6%).
(dz) With somewhat more foundation it may be contended that the colours selected for the adorn- ment of the OT sanctuary had a symbolical mean- ing. Why, for instance, does blue- or violet-purple (tékheleth) occupy the first place among the four colours of the curtains of the sanctuary (Ex 26")? Without doubt, because it was meant to allude to the unclouded sky and thus to God. But, to take another instance, it appears to the present writer doubtful whether the red-purple (‘agaman) ‘ recalls the God of judgment,’ as was suggested by Franz Delitzsch in his interesting work, Jris: Studies in Colour and Talks about Flowers, 1888, p. 55. On the other hand, the white colour which we note in the high priest’s dress (Ex 28° etc., Rev 44), and in the horses, ete., of Zec 6°* and Rev 6? 19" (cf. 1414), is as certainly a symbolical expression of purity, salvation, and victory as black (Zee 67, Rev 6° 1") is a symbol of death.
(e) It may be added that the forms of the CHERU- BIM in the Tabernacle (Ex 2518 etc., 261: *4) and the Temple (1 K 6*- ®-%, Hzk 4118) were symbols of the presence of God (cf. Ps 18"). Again, what but God’s dominion over nature can have been meant to be represented by the carved palms and flowers (1 K 6%. 85 736, 2 Ch 37)? As to the lions, finally, which were to be seen on various pieces of the furniture of the Temple (1 K 7%-%*) and on the throne of Solomon (10), were these not symbols of the power exercised by the heavenly or the earthly king of Israel? This symbolical significance of the lion shows itself also in the description of the Cherubim (Ezk 1! 10°) and the four apocalyptic creatures (Rev 4’); and in the same passages we find the ox, the eagle, and the man as symbols of strength, swiftness, and reason.
ili. SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS.—While it is a debate- able question how far the realm of Symbol extends in the Biblical literature, the sphere of symbolical actions is defined with almost complete precision. For it is easy, in the case of each particular action, to perceive whether it is performed for its own sake or in order to express an idea. But what is the best classification for the wide department of sym- bolical actions? Perhaps as suitable a course as any will be to distinguish symbolical actions (A) of common life and (B) of religious life. The latter class will then be subdivided again into ordinary and extraordinary actions.
A, SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS IN COMMON LIFE—(a) The very beginning of life was connected with a symbolical transaction. The newborn child used to be placed on the knees of the father, not merely to be caressed by him (Is 66”), but also to be acknowledged as his offspring. This is the most probable meaning of Job’s question, ‘ Why did the knees receive me?’ (Job 3), For in the two stichoi of v." it is most natural to find a reference to the action respectively of the father and the mother, and the placing of the newborn child on the knees of the father is encountered also outside Israel as a recognition of the child by the father (cf. Jl. ix. 455, etc., and Lat. follere). It is essentially the same act that is referred to when in the MT of Gn 50> it is said that great- grandsons of Joseph were ‘born upon his knees.’ The expression '272->y answers to the question Whither?, and the meaning is that great-grand- sons of Joseph were brought after their birth to the supreme head of the family that they might be recognized by him as new members of it. It is quite natural that this statement should have come in later times to be regarded as incredible.