made of the lamp of God going out in the Temple; and in 2 Chron. 13. 11, we read of 'setting in order the candlestick of gold with the lamps thereof, to burn every evening.' So also in Ex. 30. 7, 8, it is mentioned as the duty of the priest to 'dress' the lamps every morn ing, and to 'light' them every evening But then on the other hand in the parallel text, Lev. 24. 2, it is said that the lamps were to burn continually, and though this term is not in itself absolutely decisive of the fact, as continually is often used in the sense of regularly, statedly, yet when we add the authority of Josephus, who was himself a priest, and not likely to be ignorant on this sub

adequate of the construction of this article of the Tabernacle furniture. It consisted of a base or shaft, with seven branches, three on each side, and one in the middle. These branches were all parallel to one another, and were worked out in bowls, knobs (knops), and flowers, placed alternately, of which we shall shortly give a more particular description. On the extremity of each branch was a golden lamp, whose light was supplied by pure olive oil, prepared in a peculiar way, as will be seen by the Note on Ex. 27. 20. This Candlestick, which is affirmed by Josephus to have been hollow within, was wholly of pure gold, and weighed a talent (about 125 lbs.), although no-ject, it would seem to put the matter thing is said of its height, thickness, or any of its dimensions. Nor is mention made of any kind of foot or pediment on which it rested, though we cannot doubt that it had one. The Jewish writers suppose that its height was about double that of the Table of Shew-bread and of the Altar of Incense, which would give it a very majestic appearance, and probably require a stool for lighting and trimming it, while at the same time it was not so much raised as to endanger the curtain-roof of the Tabernacle. It was placed on the south or left hand side of the holy place, as one entered, the row of lamps being probably parallel with the wall, though Lightfoot thinks that that described, Rev. 1. 12, 13, was perpendicular to it. It is a point, however, which it is difficult to determine, and about which the Rabbinical writers are not agreed. The oil for the seven lamps was to be supplied in such quantities as to keep them always burning. It is indeed imagined by some expositors that they did not perpetually burn, but were lighted every evening and went out one after another in the morning, an opinion which is no doubt favored at first view by several passages in the sacred writers. Thus for instance in 1 Sam. 3. 3, mention is not. 'The Lamb is the light thereof.'

beyond question. He says expressly that the lamps continued to burn day and night. And there would seem in fact to have been a necessity for this, unless the priests ministered in the dark; for as there were no windows in the Tabernacle, light could only be admitted through the curtained entrance at the east or unboarded end; and unless that entrance were left open, which we do not learn that it was, the holy place might have been so dark as to render artificial light not less requisite by day than by night. At any rate, it is obvious that the most holy place, where the Ark lay, was entirely dependent for light, when it had any, upon the lamps of the golden Candlestick. This fact explains another allusion in reference to the heavenly city in the Apocalypse, the connexion of which with the holy of holies we have endeavored to show on a preceding page. In Rev. 22. 5, it is said, 'And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light.' In this respect the substance differed from the shadow. The typical heaven needed the artificial light of the lamps of the Candlestick; the anti-typical did

his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, his flowers, shall gmininto es babatai 919 29gbabe of the sameomin berugt zo som

Having thus given a
a general view of the
plan and ases of the golden Candlestick,

tinguishing parts of plants and Freesy indicating indicating a striking affinity in its strac we enter upon the more minute descripture the reason of this singular face With the forms of the vegetable tion of its individual parts

parts

Heb.

mik.

Of beaten to eaten work shah, of hard or solid work; 1. e. i.e. made of the solid material, having no wood! SB 3 920 now. Our present work about it, though Josephus repre sents it as being, hollowbodo rendering beaten work 15 Perupere is peculiarly unfortunate, as it leads the reader to suppose that several of the most ex: quisite fabrics of the Tabernacle were wrought out by a process of beating 105 904 10 4 nothing with a haminer, than which nothing, conceive, can be farther from the fact, as CONTO 70-1945 Erremoulds they were undoubtedly cast in So far as the present term is

194

We shall hope to elucidate the outs reo
marks on the typical import of the
Candlestick. Th the present ease the
has really a plural imports being in
though singular in formj
original term
tended to denote all the branches cod
lectively, as appears from the next
verse, and from the Greek · renderingy
uXuktittle reeds canesblu Of
these the middle one Constituting the
main trunk of it, was of course the inder
important! And hence in 33, 84, and
Chron. 3. 20, it is actually led by the
hame menoran) abfeathe whole

which is used several time ed endlestick? Peisnot indeed expressby

narra

tive, it is designed to acquaint us solely so distinguished in the present text, and with the character of the material, and the reason we suppose to be, that all not with the process of formation. See the lower part of the stock or trunk up the remarks above on the use of the to the point where the different arms term, v. 18, in reference to the construc branched off, three on either side, was tion of the Cherubim. His shaft. called yerek, or thigh. Of the Heb. yerëkah, her shaft; and so thickness of the central or the side in all the following terms, p kanah,branches we have no intimation, but her branches, &c., instead of his. The Jarchi and Abenezra agree with Joseoriginal term yerek, properly sig phus, who denominates them OTTOUS, nifies a thigh, but here is understood by slender. His bowls. Heb. the Rabbins of the base or thick lower gebia, caly or cup; so called from its part on which the main branch (a) o resemblance to that part of the plant rested and from which it rose. We from which the flower springs. The suppose, therefore, the term gerek Gr. however has xparnpes, bowls, and to have been applied to that thick and the Vulg. seyphos, cups, from which the massive portion of the stock which ex- English rendering has flowed. The tended upwards from the foot or bot appendages here called 'bowls,' 'knops, tom to the point where the lowermost and flowers, were mere ornamental pair of branches separated. -T His devices, intended, it would seem, to branches. Heb. kanah, her branch. give to each of the branches the apThe word properly signifies a reed or pearance of a succession of fruits and cane, which each of the branches prob- flowers. As to the form of the bowls," ably somewhat resembled; indeed no-it is clear from v. 33, that they had thing is more remarkable as we shall some relation to sopni see, throughout this description of what respect, the Candlestick than the employment mine. The phrase in the original is of terms evidentlybdrawn from the disona

Vor.. II.

10

but in

it is not easy to deter

which is to be literally rendered cups made or figured almond-wise, by which perhaps is to be understood nothing more than that this calyx-shaped ornament was to be fashioned in imitation of the calyx of the almond, rather than of any other plant. The expression is less likely to have denoted the flower of the almond, because the flower-work is denoted by another term, and because the term 'almond-wise' is in some way inseparably connected with the orig. inal for cups or bowls, as if to indicate their form. For this purpose the calyx would be much more suitable than the corolla. But it may be asked whether the bowls were not shaped like the fruit or nut of the almond, the shell of which when divided into its halves presents the appearance of small scolloped vessels like our spoons. To

this we can only say, that if such ap pendages were intended as containing vessels, they would not only be useless in the place which they occupied,—for what were they to hold?- but would be very unsightly and out of keeping as ornaments. If, moreover, they were intended to represent the fruit of the almond, then besides the intrinsic inappropriateness of the term, they would trench upon what we suppose to have been the design of the 'knops,' which is soon to be explained. On the whole, therefore, we seem to be shut up to the conclusion stated above, that the howls' were exquisitely wrought orna. ments in the shape of the calyx of the almond flower; and the annexed cut of the blossoms, flowers, and fruit of this plant may essentially aid our conception of this part of the workmanship. helloe au Jnisuper of

a

ம:

THE ALMOND.

His knops. Heb. kaph- | biblical usage. It is only in Amos, torim. Gr. opaipwrnpes, spheres. Vulg. 9. 1, and Zeph. 2. 14, that kaphspharulas, little spheres. The term here tor, occurs, in the first of which it is employed receives but little light from rendered door' and in the other 'lin

perah used in connexion with the al mond, and we shall see in the sequel that the evidence in favor of this inter

will be shown to have been the spiritual or typical uses of the Candlestick.

tel,' and doubtless erroneously in both. | direct support from what is said Num. It is probably to be understood in each 17. 8, of the budding and blossoming case of some round moulding, rows of of Aaron's rod; 'And it came to pass knobs, or other architectural ornaments on the morrow Moses went into the of spherical form about the heads of tabernacle of witness; and, behold, the pillars. The Rabbins with somewhat rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was remarkable unanimity interpret it here budded (ά♬ porah), and brought forth by apple,' and Josephus expressly buds (yotzë perah), and likens it to the 'pomegranate' (granate- bloomed blossoms, and yielded alapple), of which a cut and a full ac-monds.' In both passages we find count is given hereafter; and we learn from 1 Kings, 7. 18, that the chapiters of the pillars in Solomon's Temple were adorned with pomegranates. Maimon-pretation is much increased by what ides says, 'The kaphtor had the figure of a little globe, yet not exactly round, but somewhat oblong, like an egg.' He As to the manner in which this threedoes not, however, it will be observed, fold variety of ornament was arranged recognise any allusion to the form of relatively to each other on the branches, the pomegranate, and as the proper the text is not free from ambiguity. If Hebrew for pomegranate is not our conception of the form were governkaphtor, but rimmon, we incline ed solely by what is said v. 33, we to think that the shelled fruit of the should perhaps infer that there was but almond itself is intended, which the one knop and one flower to the three reader will perceive bears a striking re- bowls on each of the branches, as the semblance to the form of an egg, and two former are expressed by words in was well calculated for a decoration of the singular, while bowls' is in the such a fabric as the Candlestick. We plural. Yet upon comparing the subunderstand then by the term in this consequent verses, and making up our idea nexion those rounded spherical swells or knobs occurring alternately with the calyxes and flowers, along the length of the several branches, and which were expressly intended to represent some kind of fruit; and that fruit, if we rightly conceive of the matter, was the nut of the almond.. ¶ His flowers. Heb. hah. Gr. piva, lillies. Vulg. lilia; and so also Maimonides and Josephus. But the word in the original is the general word for flowers, or rather for the blossoms of trees; and we have nothing to guide us, in fixing upon any particular species. Yet as the other connected terms have a dominant reference to the almond tree, we seem to discover an intrinsic probability that the allusion is the same in the case before us; and this suggestion receives perhaps an in

of the whole, we cannot well resist the conclusion, that the bowls, knops, and flowers formed together one complex ornament which was three times repeated on each of the six side-branches, and four times on the central one. And thus we have represented them in the annexed original draft of the Candleperahë-stick, in which the reader will recognise the results of the foregoing researches and reasonings. It will be found to dif fer very considerably from the model given in the Candlestick represented on the Arch of Titus. But it is to be remembered that the utensils carried away by Vespasian were not the same with those made by Moses; and Josephus says the Candlestick was especially altered from its original form. The Mosaic Candlestick was transferred to the Temple and lost in the Babylonish captivity.