# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All substitutionary models of the atonement are here declared null and void. Moses saved the people by being their representative, and offering to not enter the land for their sakes, so that they might enter. And in a way this was accepted by God. God didn’t accept Moses’ offer to die as a <em>substitute</em> for Israel, for each must be judged for their own sins. But He did accept Moses as a <em>representative</em> of Israel and accepted his mediation for their salvation on this basis; just as He accepted the work of Christ on the same basis. Paul learnt the lesson when he says that he <em>could wish</em> himself condemned and Israel saved (<em><a href='B:520 9:1-3'>Rom 9:1-3</a></em>); but he recognized God didn’t accept Moses’ offer of dying for them as a substitute. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you. Behold, My angel shall go before you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :1, they had disbelieved this. They wanted visible gods to "go before" them. They are again being bidden accept invisible Divine leadership rather than visible secular leadership. It is the struggle between religion and spirituality. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 33:11-12'>Exo 33:11-12</a></em> show Moses talking to the LORD "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend"- i.e. in a relaxed, friendly way. Thus the identity of the 'LORD' is clearly an Angel. This Angel says in <em><a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a></em> that&nbsp; His face cannot be seen by any man, but His back parts may be seen by Moses. The fact He could be seen at all shows He was not God Himself.&nbsp; Perhaps we are hearing another Angel speak, more mighty than the one with whom Moses spoke face to face. Or the Angel with whom Moses spoke started to manifest God to a different degree. The 'LORD'- the Angel- then says, <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em>, "My presence shall go with you". This "presence" was another Angel, as <em><a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a></em> makes clear. This would suggest there were two Angels involved.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nevertheless in the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That God 'visits' or punishes sin is a fundamental part of God's Name (<em><a href='B:20 34:7'>Exo 34:7</a></em> s.w.). The question is when and how. Israel's sin of rejecting Yahweh for an idol (<em><a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a></em> s.w.) need not have been 'visited' or 'punished'- had they repented. But there is no evidence that they did, neither in that immediate generation nor in subsequent ones. And so finally, God 'visited' His people's sins in the destructions at the hands of the Babylonians and Assyrians (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 14:10'>Jer 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 8:13'>Hos 8:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh struck the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Biblical record highlights the sin of Aaron and the people; the Jewish literature excuses it by blaming it on Satan / "mastema". Time and again, the Jewish apocryphal literature wrongly sought to distance God from doing anything negative in human life. <em><a href='B:10 22:1'>Gen 22:1</a></em> clearly states that it was <em>God </em>who put Abraham to the test by asking him to kill his son Isaac; Jubilees retells the story with "Prince Mastema", the Satan figure, telling Abraham to do this (Jub. 17:15-18). Likewise <em><a href='B:20 4:24'>Exo 4:24</a></em> recounts how "the Lord", presumably as an Angel, met Moses and tried to kill him for not circumcising his son; but Jubilees again claims that Mastema / Satan did this (Jub. 48:1-3). Indeed, several times the Hebrew word <em>mastema</em> ('hostility, enmity') occurs, it is in the context of urging Israel to see that <em>they</em> and their internal desires to sin are the true <em>mastema</em>. <em><a href='B:350 9:7'>Hos 9:7</a></em> is an example: "Because your sins are so many and your hostility (<em>mastema</em>) so great".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, Depart, go up from here, you and the people that you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your seed’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is God showing sensitivity and recognition of Moses' prayer in <em><a href='B:20 32:13'>Exo 32:13</a></em> "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them...". God could have given legitimate answers to each of Moses' objections; for He intended to fulfil the promises to Abraham, but through Moses. But such is His sensitivity and pure pity that He accepted Moses' pleas.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The manifestation of God in a person leads to a mutuality between them. There’s a nice example of the mutuality between God and Moses here, where God says that<em> Moses</em> brought up Israel out of Egypt; but in <em><a href='B:20 32:11'>Exo 32:11</a></em>, Moses says (as frequently) that <em>God</em> brought Israel out of Egypt. And we too can experience this mutuality in relationship with the Father.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will send an angel before you; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "I will send at the same time my angel before thy face" implies that as Moses led the people onward from Sinai, so the Angel would move in to Canaan to drive out the tribes. But this potential didn't happen. The people were to wander 40 years, and the tribes weren't driven out before their arrival. God instead ammended His purpose to drive them out slowly, to allow the people battle experience. We see how God is constantly amending His purpose as He ever seeks to take into account human responses.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are different levels of fellowship between men and God. Thus God’s original intention was that His presence in the Angel should go up to Canaan in the midst of Israel; but because of their weakness, He went in front of them, somewhat separate from them. Likewise the glory of God progressively distanced itself from the temple and people of God in Ezekiel’s time.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>to a land flowing with milk and honey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The promised land was to flow with milk and honey to those who kept covenant. And yet Saul later precluded the people from experiencing the blessings of the covenant by petty legalism and a desire for personal control. The people were obedient to his word, but then totally disobeyed Yahweh's command about not eating blood as a result of it (<em><a href='B:90 14:25'>1Sa 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I will not go up in the midst of you, for you are a stiff-necked people, lest I consume you in the way-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seems to have pleaded with the Angel to change His stated purpose of not going up with the children of Israel through reminding the Angel of the mockery this would bring Him into among the nations around. Thus <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em> shows Moses pleading for this "O LORD, let my Lord (the Angel) I pray thee, go amongst us" after the clear statement in <em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em> "I will not go up in the midst of thee". So let us not be afraid to ask God to change what seems like His purpose in our lives, no matter how hard it seems, if we truly feel that another way would give Him more glory. Moses would not have tried if he did not think success in that prayer was possible. But he not only tried, he succeeded. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was because of the physical presence of the Angel in the tabernacle that when the Angel located Himself outside the camp, the tabernacle was set up again in that same location outside the camp- "I will not go up in the midst of thee (said the angel). . . and Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp. . as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended (the Angel). . . and the Lord spake unto Moses face to face" (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:9'>Exo 33:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>). In passing, note that it was because Joshua lived in this tent (he "departed not out of the tabernacle") that he is said in Psalms 91 to have made his habitation with the Angel, who therefore protected him in the subsequent wanderings. The Septuagint tells us that Moses "pitched his own tent" and called it the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em> LXX); similarly, "the tent" may be a synonym for Moses' own tent (see <em><a href='B:20 18:7'>Exo 18:7</a></em>). Does this mean that the mighty Angel of Israel was Moses' personal guardian, seeing that "the Angel of the Lord encampeth (tent language again) around about them that fear Him" (<em><a href='B:230 34:7'>Psa 34:7</a></em>)? See on <em><a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a></em><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the people heard this evil news, they mourned; and no one put on his jewellery-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "mourned in mourning apparel". They clearly had plenty of jewellery, taken from Egypt; they had given some of it to make the golden calf, and would respond generously to the appeal for precious metals and stones in order to build the tabernacle. They clearly liked wearing their expensive Egyptian jewellery, and much of it would have had pagan associations.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Tell the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go up into your midst for one moment, I would consume you. Therefore now take off your jewellery from you, that I may know what to do to you’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God told Moses that because Israel were stiffnecked, therefore He could not go up with them (<em><a href='B:20 33:5'>Exo 33:5</a></em>). Moses agrees the people are stiffnecked, but he knows God well enough to ask Him to still go up in the midst of them (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>). And God did! He acted according to how broad was Moses’ conception of God’s grace. If Abraham’s conception of grace had been even broader, perhaps Sodom would’ve been saved… Moses’ achievement is all the more remarkable because he himself struggled with grace. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although the people were "stiff-necked", refusing to bow their necks in obedience, and thereby liable to destruction if God was amongst them (<em><a href='B:20 32:9'>Exo 32:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:15'>Exo 33:15</a></em>), God was willing to give this stiff-necked people a place in God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>). And so although God had said that He would not go in the midst of a stiff-necked people, yet Moses asks Him to do so (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>)- for He senses God's desire to save them by grace despite their hardened disobedience. We contrast this with the God who demands respect, the God who slew Uzzah and insists upon loyalty to Him.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel stripped themselves of their jewellery from Mount Horeb onward-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a></em>. The idea may be that the jewellery taken from Egypt had pagan associations, and from then on they didn't wear it. At least, that was the idea. But they carried their idols with them through the wilderness, the star of Remphan and the tabernacle of Moloch, as well as other Egyptian idols they took with them through the Red Sea, cp. baptism (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>). The total weight of all the gold, silver and brass donated to the tabernacle comes to 10:4 tones or 10,400 kg. (<em><a href='B:20 38:24'>Exo 38:24</a></em>). In addition to this there was the gold used and destroyed in the destruction of the golden calf. They did indeed spoil the Egyptians, but we can assume that they gave nearly all their wealth to the tabernacle project; perhaps that is the intention of the note here that they stopped wearing jewellery from then onwards. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the idea may be that they <em>had stripped </em>themselves of their jewellery there (for Hebrew tenses aren't precise), in order to make the golden calf. As the Egyptians were stripped of their jewellery, so Israel stripped themselves of it before the golden calf (<em><a href='B:20 12:36'>Exo 12:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:6'>Exo 33:6</a></em>). Pharaoh was condemned and Egypt overthrown because of his hard heart- but the very word is used to describe the hardness of Israel's heart at the time (<em><a href='B:20 32:9'>Exo 32:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:3-5'>Exo 33:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>). Israel were really no better than Egypt- just as Egypt was plagued "so that they could not drink the water" (<em><a href='B:20 7:24'>Exo 7:24</a></em>), so we find Israel in the same situation right after leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 15:23'>Exo 15:23</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it outside the camp, far away from the camp, and he called it The Tent of Meeting. It happened that everyone who sought Yahweh went out to the Tent of Meeting, which was outside the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was before the tabernacle was built. Presumably this was Moses' personal tent, or a tent personally associated with him, where the people went to meet with God. Yahweh promised He would meet His people over the ark, and then come forward from the most holy place to meet with His people in the courts of the tabernacle. But before then, He met with His people through meetings with Moses, and they met with God through meeting with Moses. See on :8.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened that when Moses went out to the Tent, that all the people rose up, and stood, each one at their tent door, and watched Moses, until he had gone into the Tent- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This tent pitched outside the camp, where Yahweh met with His people, is to be associated with how the Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorosa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (<em><a href='B:30 4:12'>Lev 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:21'>Lev 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:11'>Lev 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (<em><a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:3-4'>Num 5:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:35-36'>Num 15:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:13'>Num 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:19'>Num 31:19</a></em>), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when Moses entered into the Tent, that the pillar of cloud descended, stood at the door of the Tent, and spoke with Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pillar of cloud is put by metonym for the Angel within it. The Angel was so closely identified with the pillar of cloud. It was as if a smaller version of the same awesome cloud of Sinai was now to be seen right outside the camp. God's fellowship was not therefore with Israel as a whole, but with those who sought Him and went outside the camp to meet Him there (:7).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the people saw the pillar of cloud stand at the door of the Tent, and all the people rose up and worshiped, everyone at their tent door- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see a difference between these people, and those who went outside the camp to meet with Yahweh there (:7). It is one thing to acknowledge God, and stand up in acceptance of Him. It is another to go forth without the camp and seek Him. The scene is similar to how it was God's initial intention that Israel would ascend Sinai and meet with Him in the cloud. But they stood and worshipped afar off, and wanted Moses alone to go to Him (<em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>). Intimacy with God may sound a great idea, but sinful man shies away from it when it is offered as a reality.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. He turned again into the camp, but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, didn’t depart out of the Tent-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are told in <em><a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a></em> that no man can see the face of God and live; but in <em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em> we read that “The LORD (Yahweh) spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend” - i.e. directly. It could not have been the LORD, Yahweh, Himself in person, who spoke to Moses face to face, because no man can see God Himself. It was the angel who carried God’s name who is in view; and so we read of the LORD speaking face to face with Moses when it was actually an angel who did so (<em><a href='B:510 7:30-33'>Act 7:30-33</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. God knew Moses by name (<em><a href='B:20 33:12'>Exo 33:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a></em>) and so He shows Moses <em>His </em>Name (<em><a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>)- there developed a mutuality between the two. See on <em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 90:1'>Psa 90:1</a></em>. God spoke to Moses "mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of Yahweh shall he behold" (<em><a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a></em>) is the basis of <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>: "Now (in the period of the Spirit gifts) we see through a glass darkly; but then (in the dispensation of the completed word) face to face: now I know in part (from the ministry of the gifts); but then shall I know, even as also I am known". The point of this connection is simply this: The close relationship between God and Moses is now available to us through the word. But do we feel God speaking to us face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>)? For this is how close God and Moses came through the word. Yet it is possible. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joshua is consciously set up as our example. When Paul says that we <em>each</em> with unveiled face have beheld the glory that shines from the face of the Lord Jesus, just as the glory to a lesser extent shone from the face of Moses (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). Yet the only person to behold Moses’ unveiled glory was Joshua, who alone lived in the tabernacle where Moses received the glory (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>). And it was he who alone accompanied Moses up the mount to meet with God (<em><a href='B:20 24:13'>Exo 24:13</a></em>). When Moses left Joshua and went out to the people, he veiled his face. But Joshua would have seen the glory shining off Moses’ unveiled face. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joshua needed to be constantly told “fear not”. His fear is all the more reprehensible when we consider the testimony of Psalms 91. Here Moses speaks about Joshua, the one who dwelt in the secret place or tabernacle of God (<em><a href='B:230 91:1'>Psa 91:1</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>), and who therefore was miraculously preserved throughout the wilderness wanderings. Thousands of Joshua’s generation died at his side from the various plagues which wasted out his generation during those wanderings; but they never came near him (<em><a href='B:230 91:5-8'>Psa 91:5-8</a></em>). As a result of this, he was commanded by Moses to “not be afraid” (<em><a href='B:230 91:5'>Psa 91:5</a></em>), perhaps Moses was thinking specifically about peer pressure, with the assurance that truly God would hear Joshua’s prayers (<em><a href='B:230 91:14-15'>Psa 91:14-15</a></em>). His amazing preservation during the wilderness years ought to have instilled a faith and lack of fearfulness within him; and yet the implication is that he did very often fall prey to fearfulness in later life. Just as with us, the circumstances of earlier life are controlled by the Father to give us faith with which to cope with later crises; but we don’t always learn the lessons we are intended to. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Soncino Commentary on <em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em> suggests that Joshua being described as a "young man" devoted to the service of the tabernacle implies in Hebrew that he was an unmarried man, devoted to the things of the Kingdom. For Joshua was not literally a young man at this time.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Yahweh, Behold, You tell me, ‘Bring up this people’ and yet You haven’t let me know whom You will send with me. Yet You have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found grace in My sight’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God assures Moses that he has found grace in His eyes (i.e. before the Angel with whom Moses met?). And yet Moses says: “If I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way that I may know thee, to the end that I may find grace in thy sight” (<em><a href='B:20 33:12-13'>Exo 33:12-13</a></em> RV). Despite having been told that he had found grace, Moses still wanted confirmation… as if the voice of God wasn’t enough! And maybe there is even the implication that he mistakenly thought that he needed more <em>knowledge</em> of God before he could find that grace… as if it depended upon his own mental faculties. And yet God patiently assures Moses yet again: "Thou <em>hast</em> found grace in my sight”, and goes on to proclaim His Name to Moses. “I <em>will be gracious</em> to whom I will be gracious” (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>) was surely said specifically to Moses, given the context of Moses’ doubts about his receipt of God’s grace. The coming down of Yahweh to pronounce His Name was, in the context, to show how far God would go to assure Moses that yes, His grace towards Moses was real. We too struggle with grace, and are given, also by grace, this undeserved assurance upon assurance. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore, if I have found grace in Your sight, please show me now Your ways, that I may know You, so that I may find grace in Your sight; and consider that this nation is Your people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses states that "I have <em>not</em> found grace in Your eyes" (<em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em>) when God had specifically said that Moses had (<em><a href='B:20 33:12'>Exo 33:12</a></em>). At that time too, Moses had questioned this Divine assurance (<em><a href='B:20 33:13'>Exo 33:13</a></em>); he had the same struggle to believe God's grace as we have. He wanted more assurance that Yahweh really did consider Israel His people; for their apostacy with the golden calf had elicited His condemnation of them. Moses had interceded successfully for them, but now he wonders whether that prayer had really been answered. God had repeatedly assured Moses that "you <em>have</em> found grace in My eyes" (<em><a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>); but still Moses doubts it. "Kill me, I pray, if I have (indeed) found grace in Your eyes" (<em><a href='B:40 11:15'>Num 11:15</a></em>) would therefore appear to be a very inappropriate sarcasm by Moses- against the God of all grace. And we too are given, also by grace, this undeserved assurance upon assurance.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, My presence will go with you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God had 'gone before' Israel through the Angel which was to lead them through the desert (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:23'>Exo 23:23</a></em>). But as with all religious but not spiritual people, they wanted a visible leader. And so when Moses apparently disappeared in the mountain, they demanded that gods be made to "go before us". It was only by grace that God responded that despite their apostacy, He would still "go before you" through the Angel (<em><a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em>). Even the Gentile world had more faith than Israel in this; they believed that Yahweh "went before" His people in an Angel (<em><a href='B:40 14:14'>Num 14:14</a></em>). But Israel themselves at the time of the golden calf didn't believe that. Moses in his final speech therefore urges the people to believe that indeed the Angel was going before them (<em><a href='B:50 1:30'>Deu 1:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And I will give you rest-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>. &nbsp;But they did not enter that rest (<em><a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>). The Kingdom was given them, but they didn't enter it. "Rest" was defined as the land being subdued before God with all the tribes driven out (<em><a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:21-22'>Num 32:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 22:18'>1Ch 22:18</a></em>). This being conditional on Israel's faithfulness, we conclude that when the Angel said "I will give you rest" He was speaking of what was possible in prospect; or perhaps He over-estimated Israel's obedience, or was unaware of the degree to which their entering the rest was conditional on their obedience.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Yahweh met Moses, it was as if He met with Israel (<em><a href='B:20 3:18'>Exo 3:18</a></em>). God promised to go with Moses, but Moses re-quotes this as God going with “us” (<em><a href='B:20 33:14-16'>Exo 33:14-16</a></em>). This is how inextricably linked were Moses and his people, even in their condemnation. And so it is, thankfully, with us and the Lord.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to Him, If Your presence doesn’t go with me, don’t carry us up from here- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses later is depressed by Israel complaining at how boring the manna was. He doubts God's earlier promises to him: " Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight (God said he had, in <em><a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a></em>)... have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto them, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child unto the land which thou swearest unto their fathers (not "our" - notice the uncharacteristic separation between Moses and Israel). Whence should I give flesh unto all this people... if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in the sight (as God had earlier promised him that he had)" (<em><a href='B:40 11:12'>Num 11:12</a></em>). God was the father and conceiver of Israel, the one who would carry them to the land (<em><a href='B:20 19:4'>Exo 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:15'>Exo 33:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:11-12'>Deu 32:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>); it is as if Moses is saying: They're your children, you look after them, don't dump them on me. Although compare this with his earlier love for them, willing to sacrifice himself for them. God then says that He will provide more food for Israel. But Moses almost mocks God: "Shall the flocks and herds be slain for them, to suffice them?". And the Angel angrily replied: "Is the Lord's hand waxed short? thou shalt see whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not". If he had faith, Moses surely would have realized that if God could provide manna, he could provide any food. Moses seems to have suffered from fits of depression and also high spirituality.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For how would people know that I have found favour in Your sight, I and Your people? Isn’t it in that You go with us, so that we are separated, I and Your people, from all the people who are on the surface of the earth?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses here continues to doubt whether really his intercession for Israel had 'worked' as God had said it would. Moses felt that God's unwillingness to go directly in Israel's midst implied that in fact God hadn't really heard his pleas. But God said that He had, and He was not going up in their midst for the sakes, lest He destroy them for their continued stiff-necked attitude to Him. We see Moses, like us, struggling to believe in the extent of grace shown and promised. This is why Moses is making such an issue about Yahweh not going up in their midst.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'setting apart' of Israel from Egypt is a major theme (<em><a href='B:20 8:22'>Exo 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:4'>Exo 9:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:7'>Exo 11:7</a></em> "put a difference"). It was part of a 'sanctifying' of Israel for priestly service to Yahweh as a nation, as well as a lesson for Egypt that the only way to salvation was through separation from their own people and culture, and joining the people of God. We marvel at the multi functional way in which God works. The same word is used to describe how God "has set apart him that is Godly for Himself" (<em><a href='B:230 4:3'>Psa 4:3</a></em>); even though Israel were far from being Godly. And it is used of God's special grace, 'set apart', a grace known by no other people (<em><a href='B:230 17:7'>Psa 17:7</a></em>). The word is used in this sense in <em><a href='B:20 33:16'>Exo 33:16</a></em>, where Moses reasons that it is God's grace and the visible presence of that grace which is what sets apart Israel from all other peoples. And that is true to this day. God's grace is what is the lead and distinguishing characteristic of His way from all other religions. It is the experience of that grace which makes us distinct from all others who have not claimed it for themselves. And it all began with God 'setting apart' a sinful, idolatrous Israel from the Egyptians around them, all by grace, seeing they were largely no better than Egypt.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, I will do this thing also that you have spoken; for you have found favour in My sight, and I know you by name- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God could have given legitimate answers to each of Moses' objections and fears about whether God really loved them as much as He said. He could have repeated that He was not going up in their midst lest He destroy them. But such is His sensitivity and pure pity that He accepted Moses' pleas.&nbsp; We are told that God "hearkened" to Moses' prayers for them (<em><a href='B:50 9:19'>Deu 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:10'>Deu 10:10</a></em>). He prayed for them with an intensity they didn't appreciate, he prayed for <em>and gained </em>their forgiveness before they had even repented, he pleaded <em>successfully</em> for God to relent from His plans to punish them, even before they knew that God had conceived such plans &nbsp;(<em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:14'>Exo 32:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a></em>&nbsp; etc.). The fact we will, at the end, be forgiven of some sins without specifically repenting of them (as David was in <em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em>) ought to instill a true humility in us. This kind of thing is in some ways a contradiction of God's principles that personal repentance is required for forgiveness, and that our own effort is required if we are to find acceptability with Him. Of course ultimately these things are still true, and were true with respect to Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Please show me Your glory-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>. Moses asked to see the face of the Angel (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> cp. :20); presumably it was a different Angel to whom he spoke face to face (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>), or perhaps the same Angel but manifesting God to a different degree or alternatively a different, more powerful Angel. The fact Moses saw the back parts of this 'LORD' shows that the 'LORD' was not God Himself in person- no man has ever seen Him, or even started to approach the light in which He dwells (<em><a href='B:610 6:16'>1Ti 6:16</a></em>); this must include Moses. This conclusion chimes in with the type of statements about 'the LORD' which we read in these chapters, which suggest reference to the Angel rather than to God Himself:<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>33:1 "The LORD said. . the land which I sware unto Abraham. . ". We have seen that it was the Angel which made these promises. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>33:2 "I will drive out the Canaanite. . "; this was done by the Angel of the LORD sent before to do this. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>33:3 "I will not go up in the midst of thee (i. e. the Angel was saying He would no longer dwell in the Holiest): lest I consume thee"- the consuming of Israel for their sins on the journey was done by the 'destroyer' Angel. We can therefore suggest that the Angel was manifest in some way, perhaps through two separate Angels, both in the pillar of fire going before them, and also in the Holy of Holies. See on <em><a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses knew his closeness to God through manifestation, and yet he yearned to see God physically, he struggled with his distance from God (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are many references in the Upper Room discourse to Moses- without doubt, Moses was very much in the Lord’s mind as He faced His end. Consider at your leisure how <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 14:31'>Exo 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:11'>Joh 14:11</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a></em>. When the Lord speaks in the Upper Room of manifesting the Father and Himself unto the disciples (<em><a href='B:500 14:21-22'>Joh 14:21-22</a></em>), he is alluding to the way that Moses asked God to “manifest thyself unto me” (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> LXX). The Lord’s allusion makes Himself out to be God’s representatives, and all those who believe in Him to be as Moses, receiving the vision of God’s glory. Note that it was that very experience above all others which marks off Moses in Rabbinic writings as supreme and beyond all human equal. And yet the Lord is teaching that that very experience of Moses is to be shared to an even higher degree by all His followers. It would’ve taken real faith and spiritual ambition for those immature men who listened to the Lord that evening to really believe it… And the same difficult call comes to us too.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, I will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of Yahweh before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It has been argued that the very name of God, YHWH, is related to the Hebrew root <em>hwy</em>, passionate love. He is the one who was and is and will be the passionate one. See S.D. Goitein, <em>Vetus Testamentum</em> Vol. 6 pp. 1-9. Whether or not this is the case linguistically, the declaration of God’s Name in <em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em> defines the Name as primarily concerning God’s grace and mercy. "I <em>will</em>" is in answer to Moses' doubts as to whether his intercession for the people has really worked. He is a man struggling with accepting a level of grace which seemed too huge, although God's direct word to him had assured him that it was indeed so. We are in that same position. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>John's Gospel contains several references to the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ 'shows' the Father to those who believe in him, and that it is possible to "see the Father" and his glory through seeing or accurately believing in him as the Son of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 11:40'>Joh 11:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:45'>Joh 12:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:9'>Joh 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>). Moses earnestly wished to see the Father fully, but was unable to do so. The height which Moses reached as he cowered in that rock cleft and heard God's Name declared is hard to plumb. But we have been enabled to <em>see</em> the Father, through our appreciation of the Lord Jesus. But does an appropriate sense of <em>wonder</em> fill us? Do we really make time to <em>know</em> the Son of God? Or do we see words like "glory" as just cold theology? <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was not only a type of Christ, but representative of us all: "If you would believe, you would see (like Moses) the glory of God" (<em><a href='B:500 11:40'>Joh 11:40</a></em>). "The word was made flesh... we beheld his (Christ's) glory... full of grace and truth" (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). Philip asks Jesus to “show us the Father” (<em><a href='B:500 14:8'>Joh 14:8</a></em>), and Jesus replies that He is the manifestation of the Father. Israel had asked that "the word" be not spoken to them any more; only Moses saw God's glory. But we are being invited to be equal to Moses, seeing from the cleft in the rock the awesome majesty of the perfection of Christ's character; the full glory of God. Paul likewise invites us to behold with unveiled face, as Moses did (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV), and thereby, just from appreciating the glory of Christ's character, be changed into the same glory. Note too how in Romans 11 we are each bidden “behold the goodness and severity of God”- a reference to Moses beholding all the goodness of Yahweh. We are in essence in his position right now (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>). Moses likewise asks God “show yourself to me” (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> LXX). The answer was in the theophany on Sinai, with the Name of Yahweh declared, as full of grace and truth. This, according to Philip’s allusion to it, is what we see in Jesus. And this is why John 1 speaks of Jesus in terms of the theophany of Exodus, that in His personality the full glory of the Father dwelt.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses is an example of the mutuality between God and man. God said that because He knew Moses by name, He would show Moses <em>His</em> Name (<em><a href='B:20 33:12'>Exo 33:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>). Daniel is another example. He heard the voice of God's words, and then the Angel comes and tells him that God has heard the voice of his (Daniel's) words (<em><a href='B:340 10:9'>Dan 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 10:12'>Dan 10:12</a></em>). "Proclaim the Name" (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:5'>Exo 34:5</a></em>) is the same phrase used about 'calling upon the Name' (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>). The calling out / proclamation of Yahweh's Name, in the Gospel and ultimately in the declaration of the Name on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), elicits a desire to call that Name upon us, which we initially do through baptism into that Name. And like Moses, we in turn proclaim the Name to others (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> s.w.).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, You cannot see My face, for man may not see Me and live- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>). John here makes clear allusion to Moses. This alludes to Moses being unable to see God, whereas Christ now is cuddled in the bosom of the Father- such closeness, such a soft image, even now in his heavenly glory! Christ declared God's character (alluding to the Angel declaring God's Name at the same time as Moses was unable to see God) in his perfect life and above all on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh also said, Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God through the Angel had earlier stood upon a rock in Sinai with Moses next to Him (<em><a href='B:20 17:6'>Exo 17:6</a></em>). Later, Yahweh asks Moses to stand upon a rock in Sinai next to Him (<em><a href='B:20 33:21'>Exo 33:21</a></em> s.w.). We see how God gently and progressively leads His people closer to Him, using every experience He gives us to prepare for the next one, on an ever more intimate level with Him.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will happen, while My glory passes by- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had earlier experienced the Angel passing by on Passover night (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:23'>Exo 12:23</a></em>). He was to realize that he was only being spared from death by grace, as happened at Passover. He had been so confident that he could see God's glory, but now he is being shown that he needed to appreciate more his own sinfulness.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand until I have passed by-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a connection between Moses hiding in the "cleft of the rock" and Elijah hiding in a similar place to witness a theophany whose aim was to <em>humble</em> him. <em><a href='B:290 2:10-12'>Isa 2:10-12</a></em> makes a similar connection. At the day of judgment, we will all go through the Moses experience; hiding in the rock in the presence of God's glory (<em><a href='B:290 2:10'>Isa 2:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 33:22'>Exo 33:22</a></em>). And our vision of that glory in the face of the Lord Jesus <em>even now</em> should have the same humbling effect.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Even a righteous man must realize his sinfulness if he is to truly comprehend the essential perfection of God. Moses was brought to cower in the rocks, just as the unworthy will do (<em><a href='B:20 33:22'>Exo 33:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:290 2:21'>Isa 2:21</a></em>); and he only saw the back, not the face of God, which is the attitude God adopts to those He rejects (<em><a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a></em>). And only in this position could Moses see the vision of God's moral glory.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then I will take away My hand, and you will see-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same phrase for turning aside (s.w. "take away") to "see" was used earlier when Moses turned aside ("take away" s.w.)&nbsp; to 'see' God at the burning bush (<em><a href='B:20 3:3-4'>Exo 3:3-4</a></em>). Now God does this to Moses. Here again we see the mutuality between God and Moses. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>My back; but My face shall not be seen.</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At the time when Moses doubts whether he and Israel really have found grace, the God who speaks to Moses face to face then turns and shows Moses only His back parts (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:22'>Exo 33:22</a></em>). I suggest this is to be read negatively. This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a></em> and there interpreted as being a sign of God's anger- to turn away His face and show His back parts. God was so angry with Moses' disbelief in His grace.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape (Gk. form, view). And ye have not his word abiding in you... I am come in my Father's Name, and ye receive me not... there is one that accuseth you, even Moses... for had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me" (<em><a href='B:500 5:37-46'>Joh 5:37-46</a></em>) Nearly all these statements were true of Moses, but untrue of the Jews. Yet there was one glaring contrast: Moses earnestly desired to see God's shape, to view Him, to completely understand Him. This was denied him- but not Jesus. The similarity and yet difference between Moses and Jesus is really brought out here. And again, Moses is shown to be representative of sinful Israel; as he lifted up the serpent, so they would lift up Christ; as he failed to see the Father's "shape", so they did too.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Chisel two stone tablets like the first: and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The tables were the "tables of the covenant", which had been broken by the apostacy with the golden calf. God now assures Moses that the covenant relationship has been restored. This must be read in the context of the previous verses, where Moses has doubted whether his intercession for Israel has in fact "worked". He struggles to believe that God can be that gracious as His word had stated. Just like ourselves. And so just as Aaron had used a chisel to fashion the golden calf, Moses is asked to chisel out two stone tablets, upon which the covenant will be reaffirmed by God. <em><a href='B:50 10:1'>Deu 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:3'>Deu 10:3</a></em> adds that at this time, God asked Moses to also make the ark, into which the tables were to be put. This was to be the sign that His presence was really to abide with His people as promised. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Which you broke-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Which you broke" is emphasized by God. Moses in Exodus 33 had been doubting whether his intercession for Israel had really "worked", even though God assured him that it had. Moses is being reminded that his anger had burned hot just as God's anger had; but it was he and not God who had smashed the symbols of the covenant in that wrath. The idea is that God is kinder and more patient than man- even than a man as patient and loving as Moses. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Broke" is s.w. in <em><a href='B:20 34:13'>Exo 34:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a></em> used of breaking covenant relationship with idols. By doing so, Moses had purposefully sought to break Israel's relationship with Yahweh, despite having earlier prayed for it to be restored. When he saw the apostacy with his own eyes, he wanted God to revert to His 'plan A', to destroy Israel. He realizes in Exodus 33 that he was wrong in this and therefore probes God as to whether indeed His relationship with Israel is indeed intact, despite his having broken the symbols of covenant. And God is assuring him that indeed it is.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Be ready by the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself there to Me on the top of the mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Present" is the word for "stand" in <em><a href='B:20 33:21'>Exo 33:21</a></em>. The idea is that Moses had too confidently asked to see Yahweh's glory, so he was asked to stand on the rock, knowing that he would humble himself and hide in a cleft of the rock when the glory passed by (:8). For no man can stand before the devouring fire which was "on the top of the mountain" (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:17'>Exo 24:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:410 1:6'>Nah 1:6</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No one shall come up with you; neither let anyone be seen throughout all the mountain; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The contrast with the earlier, similar commands seem to be that even Joshua wasn't allowed to come even part way up the mountain. Just as the Lord Jesus was absolutely alone in obtaining and restoring covenant relationship for His sinful people, so was Moses to be. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He chiselled two tablets of stone like the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up to Mount Sinai, as Yahweh had commanded him, and took in his hand two stone tablets- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a difference between the first tables, which were "tables of (a singular) stone", carved by God from the same stone (<em><a href='B:20 24:12'>Exo 24:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 31:18'>Exo 31:18</a></em>); whereas the second were "tables of stones" (Heb.), made from two different stones. The idea was perhaps that God was indeed inviting Moses and Israel into a mutual, two sided covenant relationship with Him.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>); Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a></em>); Job (1:5); Moses (<em><a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a></em>); Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a></em>); Gideon (<em><a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a></em>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<em><a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a></em>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<em><a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a></em>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ultimate pattern for mission is in God Himself. His Name, YHWH, means ‘I will be who I will be / am who I am’. And the declaration of His Name is followed by statements of how He ‘will be’ grace, love, justice, judgment etc. (<em><a href='B:20 34:5-7'>Exo 34:5-7</a></em>). &nbsp;He will work out His purpose of glorifying the characteristics of His Name. If we align ourselves with this aim of glorifying God’s Name, then our lives become focused, our aims and goals are clearer. Our baptism into the Name means that His mission, His restless, 24/7 working towards the goal of His glory filling the earth, becomes ours.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Proclaim the Name" (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:5'>Exo 34:5</a></em>) is the same phrase used about 'calling upon the Name' (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>). The calling out / proclamation of Yahweh's Name, in the Gospel and ultimately in the declaration of the Name on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), elicits a desire to call that Name upon us, which we initially do through baptism into that Name. And like Moses, we in turn proclaim the Name to others (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> s.w.).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The overriding desire of the Lord Jesus was for the glorification of Yahweh’s Name, not proving others wrong. God’s Name is His characteristics (<em><a href='B:20 34:5-7'>Exo 34:5-7</a></em>). We glorify that Name when due to us, those characteristics are manifested somehow- maybe through others, or through ourselves. The fruits of the Spirit glorify those characteristics&nbsp; / the Name of Yahweh. When the Lord saw faith, or joy, or repentance, or even the possibility of these things in men, He worked to develop them. He didn’t give up because they were also selfish or unloving or not joyful… And so with us, as the petty selfishness and weaknesses so evident in the flesh of our fellows presses upon our consciousness, focus instead on what is good, on what potential is there, and work on that. Abound in the life of grace, of outgiving when there is no response and no appreciation; and rejoice to live it, and see the honour of being called to live the life of the Saviour in <em>your</em> little life. John Thomas rightly observed that God manifestation rather than individual human salvation is the essential aim of the preaching of God’s word. The Lord Jesus struggled in Gethsemane between “save <em>me</em>...” and “Father, glorify Your Name”. The glorifying of the Father’s Name meant more to Him than His personal salvation. Likewise Moses and Paul (in spirit) were prepared to sacrifice their personal salvation for the sake of Yahweh’s Name being glorified in the saving of His people (<em><a href='B:20 32:30-34'>Exo 32:30-34</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 9:1-3'>Rom 9:1-3</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh passed by before him, and proclaimed, Yahweh! Yahweh! A merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, and abundant in loving kindness and truth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angelic 'passing by' recalled Passover (s.w.), where the mercy and saving grace of God was revealed to His people. There is a clear connection between the idea of the fullness of God, and <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em>, where God proclaims His Name to be "Yahweh, a God full of compassion", grace and His other characteristics (see R.V.). So by bearing God's Name, we have His fullness counted to us. As Christ had the fullness of God dwelling in Him in a bodily form (<em><a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a></em>), so the church, as the body of Christ, "is (Christ's) body, the fullness of him (God) that filleth all in all" (<em><a href='B:560 1:22-23'>Eph 1:22-23</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We read of God being slow to anger (<em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em>), at others, of Him not restraining His anger, or restraining it (<em><a href='B:230 78:38'>Psa 78:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:9'>Isa 48:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:8'>Lam 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:22'>Eze 20:22</a></em>), and holding His peace (<em><a href='B:290 57:11'>Isa 57:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:21'>Psa 50:21</a></em>), and being provoked to anger by the bad behaviour of His covenant people (<em><a href='B:50 32:21'>Deu 32:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:58'>Psa 78:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:3'>Isa 65:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:19'>Jer 8:19</a></em>). God clearly has emotions of a kind which are not unrelated to the emotions we experience, as beings made in His image. But those emotions involve a time factor in order to be emotions. We read of the anger of God "for a moment" (<em><a href='B:230 30:5'>Psa 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:7-8'>Isa 54:7-8</a></em>), and of His wrath coming and going, leaving Him "calm" and no longer angry (<em><a href='B:330 16:42'>Eze 16:42</a></em>). When we sin, we provoke God to anger- i.e. at a point in time, God sees our sin, and becomes angry. This is attested many times in Scripture. But it's meaningless if God is somehow outside of our time and emotions. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Name was declared on the cross, as the Lord had foreseen (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). It was as if the Lord suffered as He did with a placard above Him which effectively said: 'This is Yahweh'. The declaration of Yahweh’s Name to Moses in <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> thus becomes a foretaste of the Lord’s crucifixion. Some texts render <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> as ‘Yahweh, Yahweh, a man full of mercy....’. In the crucifixion of the man Christ Jesus, the essence of Yahweh was declared. And we, John says with reference to the cross, saw that glory, as it were cowering in the rock like Moses, full of grace and truth (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> RV). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s Name is essentially His characteristics and personality; this declaration of the Name is in response to the request to reveal His glory (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em>). How we pronounce or transliterate God’s Name isn’t so important; the essence of God’s Name is who He is and what He does by grace in the lives of people. Jesus alludes here when He predicted that His death would be a declaration of God’s Name; in the cross we see the quintessence of God’s mercy, grace, judgment etc. (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). We are baptized into the Name, whereby all God’s perfect character is counted to us. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>keeping loving kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and disobedience and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the children’s children, on the third and on the fourth generation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That God 'visits' or punishes sin is a fundamental part of God's Name. The question is when and how. Israel's sin of rejecting Yahweh for an idol (<em><a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a></em> s.w.) need not have been 'visited' or 'punished'- had they repented. But there is no evidence that they did, neither in that immediate generation nor in subsequent ones. And so finally, God 'visited' His people's sins in the destructions at the hands of the Babylonians and Assyrians (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 14:10'>Jer 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 8:13'>Hos 8:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact punishment was not always given until the third or fourth generation may simply reflect God’s characteristic grace in relenting upon His threatened judgments. But it may also be because the judgment is carried out by the Angels, who changed their decreed intentions with Israel, Moses and others. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses hurried and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had specifically been asked to "stand" there (<em><a href='B:20 33:21'>Exo 33:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:2'>Exo 34:2</a></em>), because it was God's intention that he be&nbsp; humbled, and perceive that his insistent, bold requests to see the glory of God were not completely appropriate for sinful man. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, If now I have found favour in Your sight, Lord, please let the Lord go in the midst of us; although this is a stiff-necked people; pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for Your inheritance-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>. God had already given Moses this assurance, but as discussed on Exodus 33, Moses was slow to grasp the reality of grace. The declaration of the Yahweh Name had assured him that indeed God "will" pardon sin. And yet he still feels the need to plead for it. We note that God had assured Moses of personally giving him an inheritance, but here he begs Go to "take <em>us</em> for Your inheritance", as for him, personal salvation was bound up with that of God's sinful people. This is a strong challenge to those who think they can walk to God's Kingdom with no care for their brethren and wider community of believers.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seems to have pleaded with the Angel to change His stated purpose of not going up with the children of Israel through reminding the Angel of the mockery this would bring Him into among the nations around. Thus <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em> shows Moses pleading for this "please let the Lord go in the midst of us"- after the clear statement in <em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em> "I will not go up in the midst of you". So let us not be afraid to ask God to change what seems like His purpose in our lives, no matter how hard it seems, if we truly feel that another way would give Him more glory. Moses would not have tried if he did not think success in that prayer was possible. But he not only tried, he succeeded. Also consider&nbsp; <em><a href='B:20 32:11'>Exo 32:11</a></em>: "Moses besought the face of the LORD (A. V. mg-i. e. the Angel) and said, LORD, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people, which Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt (the Angel did this)... turn from Thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against Thy people". Thus <em><a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a></em> says that God's eye (the Angel) "spared them... in the wilderness" when they provoked Him. Psalms 90 is Moses meditations on the fact that his generation were slowly dying in the wilderness, and on the vapidity of life at that stage. And yet he is bold enough to plead with God to change His purpose- "Return, O LORD, how long? and let it repent Thee concerning Thy servants. O satisfy us early with Thy mercy (i. e. don't leave it till some distant point in the future when Messiah is here to show me Thy mercy- do it early, do it now)... make us glad according to the days wherein Thou hast afflicted us... " (:13-15). So from his previous experience of changing God's purpose , Moses was not afraid to try and do so again. This possibility of God changing His mind about this is shown by the Hebrew of <em><a href='B:230 95:11'>Psa 95:11</a></em>: "That they should not (Heb. 'If they enter', as AVmg.) enter My rest". The ambiguity here nicely shows the possibility of them entering.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angel's eagerness to repent and willingness to accept even the slightest sign of repentance in His charges, explains why Moses was so willing to strive to make the Angel repent by his prayers. Thus in <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em> Moses asks the Angel to forgive the peoples' sin, although it was one of the Angel's stated principles not to do so (<em><a href='B:20 23:21'>Exo 23:21</a></em>). Moses had had personal experience of such repenting; the Angel "sought" to kill him, but God changed his mind due to Moses' repentance (<em><a href='B:20 4:24'>Exo 4:24</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite God's evident pleasure with Moses personally, manifest in the revelation He gave him, Moses still fumbled around in his recognition of his own humanity: "If now I have found grace in Your sight... pardon <em>our </em>iniquity and <em>our</em> sin" (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>). Moses was always so aware of his connection with God's people, and was not at all interested in personal glory and even salvation, compared to the overall purpose of God's saving of His people.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although he spoke to God as a friend, with an open-faced relationship, he still took upon himself the sin of Israel, he felt as condemned as they felt (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em> cp. 33:11); when he pleaded for God's sentence on him to be lifted , he pleaded for the same sentence on Israel to be lifted too ( <em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>). When Yahweh met Moses, it was as if He met with Israel (<em><a href='B:20 3:18'>Exo 3:18</a></em>). God promised to go with Moses, but Moses re-quotes this as God going with “us” (<em><a href='B:20 33:14-16'>Exo 33:14-16</a></em>). This is how inextricably linked were Moses and his people, even in their condemnation. And so it is, thankfully, with us and the Lord.&nbsp; Moses manifested / represented both God and Israel, superbly prefiguring the nature of the Lord's work and mission far later. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although the people were "stiff-necked", refusing to bow their necks in obedience, and thereby liable to destruction if God was amongst them (<em><a href='B:20 32:9'>Exo 32:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:15'>Exo 33:15</a></em>), God was willing to give this stiff-necked people a place in God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>). And so although God had said that He would not go in the midst of a stiff-necked people, yet Moses asks Him to do so (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>)- for He senses God's desire to save them by grace despite their hardened disobedience. We contrast this with the God who demands respect, the God who slew Uzzah and insists upon loyalty to Him.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Behold, I make a covenant- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is presented as a one sided covenant of grace, as was that of Genesis 15. There are no immediate demands made upon Israel regarding their side of it; just the request that having such a covenant relationship, they should therefore not seek to enter any other covenant (:12).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been worked in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among which you are shall see the work of Yahweh; for it is an awesome thing that I do with you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel refused to be obedient, were stiffnecked, because they were "not mindful of your wonders" (<em><a href='B:160 9:17'>Neh 9:17</a></em>). <em><a href='B:230 78:32'>Psa 78:32</a></em> likewise: "For all this they sinned still, and believed not in his wondrous works". Our perception of God's wonder is intended to inspire us not to sin, to be obedient to Him at whom we marvel / wonder (:11). The marvel of what God was to do was that He would grant His Kingdom to a thoroughly underserving people, by grace alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Observe that which I command you this day. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Already the process had started. But these fine words of assurance were forgotten by Israel when they heard the reports of the unfaithful spies. They were assured that in fact these nations were far stronger than them, and all God's assurances about having already begun to drive them out were therefore fake. They believed the word of men rather than that of God. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Be careful, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be for a snare in the midst of you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh's covenant in :10 is presented as a one sided covenant of grace, as was that of Genesis 15. There are no immediate demands made upon Israel regarding their side of it; just the request that having such a covenant relationship, they should therefore not seek to enter any other covenant (:12).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The prohibition of marriage with unbelievers in <em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em> was made straight after the awesome declaration of God's holiness on Sinai. It was as if God was telling Moses: 'See, this is your God, so wondrous in grace and determination to save you. So please, be mine, don't unite yourselves in marriage to this world that doesn't know Me. If I, in all My moral and physical glory, am your God, how can you intermarry?'. There is a kind of juxtaposition between the heights of God's moral revelation in <em><a href='B:20 34:1-8'>Exo 34:1-8</a></em>, and then the 'down to earth' prohibition against marriage out of the Faith<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and you shall cut down their Asherim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were told to "throw down", "break in pieces" and "utterly destroy" the idols and altars of Canaan. There were times during their history when they obeyed this command by purging themselves from their apostasy in this. The Hebrew words used scarcely occur elsewhere, except very frequently in the context of how God "broke down", "threw down" and "destroyed" Israel at the hands of their Babylonian and Assyrian invaders as a result of their not 'breaking down' (etc.) the idols. "Throw down" in <em><a href='B:20 34:13'>Exo 34:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 31:1'>2Ch 31:1</a></em> is the same word in <em><a href='B:140 36:19'>2Ch 36:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:26'>Jer 4:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:28'>Jer 31:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:4'>Jer 33:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 39:8'>Jer 39:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 52:14'>Jer 52:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:39'>Eze 16:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:410 1:6'>Nah 1:6</a></em>. "Cut down" in <em><a href='B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 31:1'>2Ch 31:1</a></em> later occurs in <em><a href='B:290 10:33'>Isa 10:33</a></em>; Jeremiah 48; Jeremiah 25; <em><a href='B:310 2:3'>Lam 2:3</a></em>. So Israel faced the choice: either cut down your idols, or you will be cut down in the day of God's judgment. Those who worshipped idols were like unto them. The stone will either fall on us and destroy us, or we must fall on it and become broken men and women (<em><a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a></em>). For the man untouched by the concept of living for God's glory, it's a hard choice. God will conquer sin, ultimately. When a man dies, it isn't just a biological, clockwork process. It is God's victory over sin in that individual. Either we must be slain by God; or with His gracious help, we must put sin to death in our members through association with the only One who really did this- and thereby rise to life eternal. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for you shall worship no other god; for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jealousy is a lead feature within Yahweh's personality (<em><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>). It speaks specifically of the jealousy of a man concerning the faithfulness of his wife (<em><a href='B:40 5:14'>Num 5:14</a></em>). God was the passionate lover and husband of His people, and it is inevitable therefore that the extent of that love would produce jealousy when they spurned Him and went after other men, the idols.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, lest they play the prostitute after their gods, and sacrifice to their gods, and one call you and you eat of his sacrifice- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a></em>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<em><a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a></em>). The language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<em><a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His. Just as Israel were not to be like the Egyptians they were leaving, nor like the Canaanites into whose land they were going (<em><a href='B:30 18:1-5'>Lev 18:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:23-24'>Lev 20:23-24</a></em>). We are to be a people separated unto Him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you take of their daughters to your sons, and their daughters play the prostitute after their gods, and make your sons prostitute themselves to their gods- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The logic is powerful. To marry their women would be as foolish as a man marrying a prostitute. Yet this is what God did with Israel, as exemplified in the tragic marriage between Hosea and Gomer. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make no cast idols for yourselves- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This clearly alludes to the golden calf which they had made. They were not to ever do this again. And yet we know from <em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em> that they took the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea, and carried the tabernacle and star of their idols throughout the wilderness journey. Even by Joshua's time, he had to urge them to cast away the idols of Egypt. Perhaps they justified them by arguing that they had not cast them themselves. Our flesh is so able to justify sin. And we must beware of that. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall keep the feast of unleavened bread. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month Abib; for in the month Abib you came out from Egypt-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The law was based around regular rituals. God knew that this was what His people needed, and although under the new covenant we don't have such structure, the true Christian life is really one of having the right habits.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All that opens the womb is Mine; and all your livestock that is male, the firstborn of cow and sheep- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on <em><a href='B:20 12:2'>Exo 12:2</a></em> that it was God's initial intention that all the firstborn should be sanctified to His service, from whatever tribe. And the sacrificial animals would be provided by the firstborn of every animal. But this plan didn't work, and so He called one tribe to be His sanctified priests, and all Israel were to provide animals for sacrifice. And they also didn't really do their ministry, and so under the new covenant, all are priests. We marvel at how God continually seeks to forge ahead with His plans for relationship with man.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb: and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The redemption of unclean devoted animals was to be at the basis of the animals value plus one fifth (<em><a href='B:30 27:27'>Lev 27:27</a></em>). But the firstborn of donkeys were to be redeemed with a lamb, and a lamb would have been of less value than a newborn donkey. The firstborn of the donkey was to be redeemed by a lamb (<em><a href='B:20 13:13'>Exo 13:13</a></em>) as a ritual reminder of the power of the Passover lamb's redemption. The value of its blood was far greater than its commercial value. And this was to point forward to the value of the blood of the Lord Jesus, far more precious than of any gold or silver (<em><a href='B:670 1:18'>1Pe 1:18</a></em>). The donkey was the most common domestic animal, and it was an unclean animal. It was therefore representative of common people, in their unclean state. Firstborn donkeys were to be redeemed because they were to be understood as representative of God's people, redeemed by the Passover lamb.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No one shall appear before Me empty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Empty" may mean that they were to not attend without bringing a sacrifice, with empty hands. But "empty" is s.w. "without cause", "in vain". Following this commandment was not be an appearing before Yahweh for no purpose. The meaning of the ritual was to be allowed to have the spiritual results intended. And this is a challenge to all whose Christian lives involve regular attendance at meetings. We can so easily slip into a rut of ritual observance, just going through motions "without cause".&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest: in ploughing time and in harvest you shall rest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are to understand not working when it was most critically needed as a resignation of human works, in order to trust in God's gracious provision; the Sabbath year&nbsp; sought to teach the same. Living in the spirit of this meant that daily work was no longer simply the result of the curse in Eden; the work was done "as unto the Lord", and for Him rather than as merely for self preservation. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall observe the feast of weeks with the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of harvest at the year’s end- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The feast of weeks is here defined as the first fruits of wheat harvest, the two loaves of <em><a href='B:30 23:17'>Lev 23:17</a></em>. The "weeks" were the seven weeks of harvest (<em><a href='B:50 16:9-10'>Deu 16:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:16'>Deu 16:16</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord Yahweh, the God of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Pentateuch uses the term "before Yahweh" or 'to see the face of God', usually translated as 'to come into God's presence'; this was a pagan term used at the time to describe seeing an image of a god (R.E. Clements, Exodus (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1972) p. 152). But Israel were being taught that their God had no image, but all the same, they could come into His presence. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any man desire your land when you go up to appear before Yahweh your God three times in the year- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Mosaic Law required that Israel leave their homes undefended in order to go to the sanctuary to "appear before Yahweh". This was intended to be feasible because the Lord would drive out all the nations in the land. Yet Israel failed to drive out the nations; and thus made it far harder for themselves to obey the command to leave their homes and go to the sanctuary. Failure to obey one command made obedience to others far harder; and the same principle operates today.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left to the morning- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The parallel <em><a href='B:20 23:18'>Exo 23:18</a></em> has: "neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning". Perhaps this was to remove the temptation to go back and take part of the sizzling fat for themselves; for this was seen as the most tasty and desirable part of the animal. We are not to place fences around the law in the legalistic way Judaism has done, but we are to be aware of our own liability to spiritual failure, our weakness in the face of temptation; and to arrange our lives appropriately.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring the first of the first fruits of your ground to the house of Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God was to be honoured with "the first of the first". Yahweh was "one", or "the first (and only)", and so all was to be devoted to Him.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The laws in the "Book of the Covenant" abruptly end with this, as if it summed up the spirit of all the others (<em><a href='B:20 23:19'>Exo 23:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:26'>Exo 34:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:21'>Deu 14:21</a></em>). Kid goats were thought to be most tasty when boiled in their mother’s milk. It seems that God considered this narcissistic and absolutely over indulgent, and without thought to the feelings of the mother goat; even though goats (rather than sheep) are at times a symbol of sinners and the unclean. The Mosaic law sought to inculcate a culture of kindness and extreme sensitivity to all, even animals. Read like this, it is similar to the prohibitions of killing on the same a cow and a calf, or a ewe and her lamb (<em><a href='B:30 22:28'>Lev 22:28</a></em>). It is likely that this was also related to a paganic fertility ritual, performed at harvest time (which is the immediate context of the prohibition); and God didn't want His people to even remotely be associated with that. For He alone was the source of all fertility.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Write you these words; for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commands which constituted the covenant were given to Moses personally (<em><a href='B:160 1:7-8'>Neh 1:7-8</a></em>), insofar as&nbsp;he represented Israel. Thus there is a parallel drawn in <em><a href='B:230 103:7'>Psa 103:7</a></em>: He made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel". In the context of describing Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, they are said to have been delivered from “the basket” (<em><a href='B:230 81:6'>Psa 81:6</a></em> RV)- clearly associating them with Moses’ deliverance. <em><a href='B:290 63:11'>Isa 63:11</a></em> (Heb.) is even more explicit: " He remembered...<em> Moses his people</em>". Moses seems to have appreciated fully his representative role on that last glorious day of life when he addressed Israel: "The Lord said unto <em>me</em>... I will deliver (Og) into <em>thy</em> hand... so the Lord our God delivered into <em>our</em> hands Og" (<em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>). David recognized this unity between Moses and Israel; David describes both Israel and Moses as God's chosen (Ps. 16:5,23). Moses is described as encamping in the wilderness, when the reference clearly is to all Israel (<em><a href='B:20 18:5'>Exo 18:5</a></em>). Moses recalled how “the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have delivered up Sihon and his land before thee (you singular- i.e. Moses); begin to possess it, that thou (you singular again!) mayest inherit his land”. Yet Moses then comments that therefore God “delivered” Sihon “before <em>us</em>” (Deuteronomy 31, 33 RV). The land and victory that Moses personally could have had- for it was God’s wish to destroy Israel and make of him a new nation- he shared with Israel. <em><a href='B:20 7:16'>Exo 7:16</a></em> brings out the unity between them by a play on words: “The LORD God of the Hebrews hath <em>sent me</em> (lit. ‘let me go’) unto thee, saying, <em>Let</em> my people <em>go</em>”. “Let go” translates the same Hebrew word as “sent me”. Just as Moses had been let go by Yahweh, so Israel were to be.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He was there with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread, nor drank water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be argued that this is not speaking of absolutely not eating nor drinking (it would be hard not to drink for 40 days), but rather that He didn't eat bread nor drink water. The implication is that He had food to eat from God, associated with the word given him, which others weren't aware of. The Lord may allude to this in <em><a href='B:500 4:32'>Joh 4:32</a></em>. This is the third period of 40 days which Moses was there, and the Rabbis calculate that he would have therefore returned from the mountain (cp. the Lord's second coming from Heaven) on the Day of Atonement. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Old Covenant is defined here and elsewhere as the ten commandments, which include the Sabbath. The New Testament teaches that the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ- and He never commanded us to keep the Sabbath.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mountain, that Moses didn’t know that the skin of his face shone by reason of His speaking with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are described in <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> as also like Moses beholding the glory of God, in terms of His moral perfection as it is in the face of Jesus (see on :6), and as the physical glory reflected off Moses’ face, so the more we are in the presence of Jesus, meditating upon His character, the more that glory in a moral sense will increasingly shine off our faces. Paul uses the metaphor of looking in a mirror, until we find that the image in the mirror is no longer our face but the face of Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come near him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The eyes of Israel had seen Yahweh's glory in <em><a href='B:20 24:17'>Exo 24:17</a></em>, and it seems the first time they did in fact come up the first part of the mountain even when told not to. But the effect of sin, in this case with the golden calf, is to make man shy of God's glory. But that was only because they had not deeply enough believed in their forgiveness. Perhaps Moses' face only shone now, and not after the previous ascents of the mount, because he needed this extra authority added to him. And yet despite this, Israel still despised and disobeyed him. Clearly enough, visible evidence for God such as this, the manna, the Angel in the pillar of cloud and fire, didn't deeply persuade Israel. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned to him; and Moses spoke to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This calling was surely in the form of words assuring them of God's acceptance of them, and that they need not fear Yahweh and His glory, despite His holiness and their sinfulness. For He wanted to meet with them in fellowship and acceptance. It was the essence of the Gospel. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Afterward all the children of Israel came near, and he gave them all of the commandments that Yahweh had spoken with him on Mount Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We think of Joseph urging his sinful brothers to "come near" to him, to believe in his grace to them, even though they were far from fully penitent (<em><a href='B:10 45:4'>Gen 45:4</a></em> s.w.). It was the same here. It was the priests who "came near" (<em><a href='B:20 19:22'>Exo 19:22</a></em>), but we see here how all Israel were bidden "come near". God wanted the all to have intimacy with Him, and not leave it to the religious leaders. And it is the same with us in church life today. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses was done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:540 3:15-18'>2Co 3:15-18</a></em>. This was apparently the regular experience of Israel with Moses. Throughout <em><a href='B:540 3:15'>2Co 3:15</a></em> to <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>, Paul comments on how Moses' face shone with God's glory, and yet he spoke to Israel through a veil, with the result that Israel did not appreciate God's glory. He speaks of him and all preachers of the true Christian Gospel as "able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life" (<em><a href='B:540 3:6'>2Co 3:6</a></em>)- clear allusion to Moses as the minister of the old, inferior covenant. Paul uses this to explain why Israel did not respond to his preaching; "if our preaching be hid, it is hid to them that are lost" (<em><a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a></em>). Paul therefore saw himself and his fellow preachers as like Moses, radiating forth the glory of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to an Israel which had the veil upon their heart. This allusion must have so angered the Jews- to suggest that Christian preachers were like Moses! <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When a (Jewish) man turns to the Lord Jesus, the veil of obedience to the Law is taken away (<em><a href='B:540 3:16'>2Co 3:16</a></em> RVmg.). Yet the Law also led men to Christ; and yet it also veils Him from them- depending whether they read it as God intended. But the "it" which turns to the Lord could refer to the hearts of Jewish people. The veil is the Law; the veil is not taken away by intellectual purity of understanding. It is taken away when the heart turns to the Lord Jesus, and this is the realm of the spirit or heart. <em>Epistrepho</em>, "turn to", is a form of <em>strepho </em>which is the usual word for conversion. But it is often used of what is done to a person by the Lord- we are converted by Him. 'To be converted' suggests the conversion is done to us. The Lord's wish is to heal and convert human hearts (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>); that they might be healed and converted. John the Baptist's mission was to convert hearts to Jesus as Christ, to turn or convert Israel to the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 1:16-17'>Luk 1:16-17</a></em>). When a heart is turned to the Lord by the Lord, then the veil is taken away. But the person must allow the process to happen, and not harden their hearts against it. If they do, then they shall be confirmed in that by being hardened the more- as <em><a href='B:540 3:14'>2Co 3:14</a></em> has just stated. It is an openness to the leading of the Lord in the spirit which is so important. It is response to that leading which brings about conversion, rather than decades of poring over ancient Hebrew and Greek words. <em><a href='B:540 3:17'>2Co 3:17</a></em> will go on to speak explicitly about the work of the Lord Jesus as the work of the Spirit.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But when Moses went in before Yahweh to speak with Him, he took the veil off, until he came out; and he came out, and spoke to the children of Israel that which he was commanded-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We <em>each</em>, with unveiled face, have like Moses seen the glory of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). When Moses saw the glory, he was immediately given a ministry to preach to Israel, to share that glory with them (<em><a href='B:20 34:34'>Exo 34:34</a></em>). And Paul drives home the similarity; we <em>each</em> have had the experience of Moses, and so “therefore seeing <em>we</em> (too, like Moses) have this ministry”, “we each” are to exercise it to Israel. Moses was and is seen in the Jewish world as a larger than life figure. Theologically, Judaism has placed Moses greater even than Messiah. It was the purpose of John's Gospel to correct this. The idea that ordinary believers can in any sense be equal to or even greater than Moses was (and is) absolute anathema to the Jewish mind. And yet through allusion and almost explicit statement, the Lord Jesus and the New Testament writers invite us to see ourselves as equal to or greater than Moses, on account of the spiritual riches made available to us in Christ, with the light of a greater glory shining from our faces too. How radical this was to the first century mind is extremely hard for us to enter into. The point is, God intellectually stretches us to an extent which may be almost unacceptable to us; as with our first century brethren, we too are challenged to radically turn against many of the concepts and attitudes which are fundamental to our upbringing. &nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel saw Moses’ face, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with Him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the same way as Moses spoke to the Angel without a veil on his face, and thereby came to reflect the glory which shone from the Angel's face (<em><a href='B:20 34:33-35'>Exo 34:33-35</a></em>), so we are bidden look at the glory of God in the face of Jesus, to consider his character, and be changed into that same glory by reflecting his character in our lives. By simply beholding the glory of Christ's righteousness, truly appreciating it, we will be changed (<em><a href='B:540 3:15-18'>2Co 3:15-18</a></em> RV). Paul seems to be arguing that whenever a Jew turns to the Lord Jesus and fellowships with Him, then he is living out the pattern of Moses. And further, <em><a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a></em> speaks of our Gospel being 'veiled' to those who are lost- as if <em>we</em> are as Moses, the Gospel we preach being as the glory of God which shone from Moses' face. Let's keep remembering how huge and radical was the challenge of this to a first century Jewish readership for whom Moses was an almost untouchable hero. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In Psalms 90 Moses pleads for his rejection and that of his people to be reversed. He says that the reason for their rejection was God setting their "secret sins" in the light of His countenance (<em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>). He felt his rejection was due to his secret sins- not the one painfully public failure. The Hebrew for "secret" means 'that behind the veil'; it is from the same root as the Hebrew for 'young girl', i.e. a veiled one. He felt the sins he had committed behind the veil had been exposed in the light of the Angel's face. Remember that Moses always appeared to Israel with a veil (<em><a href='B:20 34:33-35'>Exo 34:33-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:16-18'>2Co 3:16-18</a></em> RV), only removing it when he spoke face to face with the Angel, radiating the light of God's glory to him. It seems Moses is alluding to this in <em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>; he felt that he had many secret sins, hidden to Israel, but completely open to the Angel when he met with him. Likewise Israel were rejected because of the sins of their heart rather than their grosser failures (<em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>; and see the reason for their condemnation given in many other passages). “You have set our iniquities before You, our secret sins in the light of Your face" (<em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>) is not Moses reproaching God; rather is it him soberly recognizing why they were barred from the land. Notice "our iniquities... our sins"- Moses was completely at one with condemned Israel, he knew exactly how they felt- just as the Lord Jesus with us. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"But we, with an unveiled face and reflecting the glory of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). "Beholding as in a mirror" (RV). In the same way as Moses spoke to the Angel without a veil on his face, and thereby came to reflect the glory which shone from the Angel's face (<em><a href='B:20 34:33-35'>Exo 34:33-35</a></em>), so we are bidden look at the glory of God in the face of Jesus, to consider his character, and be changed into that same glory by reflecting his character in our lives. By simply beholding the glory of Christ's righteousness, truly appreciating it, we will be changed (<em><a href='B:540 3:15-18'>2Co 3:15-18</a></em> RV). Christ-centeredness, regularly thinking of Him, grabbing a few verses from the Gospel records in the course of the day- this is the essence of the Christian life, of beholding Him with unveiled face. Paul seems to be arguing that whenever a Jew turns to the Lord Jesus and fellowships with Him, then he is living out the pattern of Moses. And further, <em><a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a></em> speaks of our Gospel being 'veiled' to those who are lost- as if we are as Moses, the Gospel we preach being as the glory of God which shone from Moses' face. Let's keep remembering how huge and radical was the challenge of this to a first century Jewish readership for whom Moses was an almost untouchable hero.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>2 Corinthians 3 speaks of our beholding the glory of the Lord Jesus in a mirror; and this process slowly transforms us into that same image of Him which we see. The “glory” of God was revealed to Moses at Sinai in Exodus 34 as the declaration of His character. In this sense, the Lord Jesus could speak of having in His mortal life “that glory which was with (the Father)” when the (Jewish) world came into existence at Sinai (<em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> Ethiopic and Western Text). It was that same glory which, like Moses, He reflected to men. But according to <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>, the very experience of gazing upon the glory of His character will change us into a reflection of it. There is something transforming about the very personality of Jesus. And perhaps this is why we have such a psychological barrier to thinking about Him deeply. We know that it has the power to transform and intrude into our innermost darkness. I have given reason elsewhere for believing that the Gospel records are in fact transcripts of the Gospel message preached by the four evangelists. The 'Gospel according to Matthew' is therefore the Gospel message which he usually preached. And it's significant that at least three of them start and end where many of us would- starting with the promises to the Jewish fathers, and concluding with an appeal for baptism. Actually John's Gospel does this too, if you decode the language he uses. This is surely the explanation of the Lord's otherwise strange remark that wherever the Gospel is preached, the anointing of His feet by Mary would be part of that message. And this is one of the few incidents that all four Gospel writers each mention. What this shows is that the Gospel message is in its quintessence, the account of the man Christ Jesus- with all that involves. It has truly been commented that "the central message of the gospels is not the teaching of Jesus but Jesus himself". This is true insofar as Jesus is the word made flesh.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A mirror by its very nature, because of what it is, reflects the light which falls upon it to others. If we have really seen the light of the Lord Jesus Christ, we will inevitably reflect it to others. Jesus didn't say 'Do good works so that men may see the light'. He said “let your light shine" - and then men will see your good works and glorify the Father. Paul puts the same principle another way when he says that we're all mirrors (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). We naturally reflect to others what has been reflected into us by the Lord Jesus. A mirror by its very nature, because of what it is, reflects the light which falls upon it to others. If we have really seen the light of the Lord Jesus Christ, we will inevitably reflect it to others. Many of the Lord’s parables portray the (preaching of) the Gospel of the Kingdom of God as a kind of secret force: treasure hidden in a field, the tiniest seed in the garden, wheat growing among weeds, a pinch of yeast worked into dough, salt on meat... these are all images of something which works from within, changing other people in an ongoing, regular manner.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said to them, These are the words which Yahweh has commanded, that you should do them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commands to build the tabernacle are repeated twice in Exodus, and there is the record of Israel's golden calf apostasy set in the middle of them. <em><a href='B:20 25:1'>Exo 25:1</a></em> to <em><a href='B:20 31:18'>Exo 31:18</a></em> give the tabernacle building commands, then there's the golden calf incident, and then the commands are repeated in Exodus 35-40. Surely this was edited in this manner to give encouragement to the exiles- the commands to rebuild the temple had been given in detail in Ezekiel 40-48, but the exiles failed- and yet, the implication runs, God was still willing to work again with His people in the building of His sanctuary despite their failure. There is good internal reason to think that the Pentateuch likewise was re-written in places to bring out the relevance of Israel's past to those in captivity. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of solemn rest to Yahweh: whoever does any work in it shall be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were to put to death those who were so addicted to works that they refused to keep the Sabbath. This was how earnestly God wished to impress upon them the need for salvation by grace rather than works. It was because God's people had been sanctified or made holy (<em><a href='B:20 31:13'>Exo 31:13</a></em>) that they were to sanctify or set apart / make holy the seventh day for God's service. We are to respond to God's setting of us apart- by setting apart what we have for Him. That is the essential take away from this, even though we are no longer required to keep the Sabbath.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day’.-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It has been widely noted that many elements of the ten commandments are to be found in the legislation of Mesopotamia. Thus there are references to the Sabbath being kept as a monthly festival; and later "the name Shabattu was applied by the Babylonians and Assyrians to the day of the full moon, the fifteenth of the month, which was especially dedicated to the worship of the moon-god... the days of the full moon were considered days of ill luck... the Israelite Sabbath was instituted, it seems, in antithesis to the Mesopotamian system" (Umberto Cassuto, <em>A Commentary On The Book Of Exodus</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997) p. 244). Thus most pagan festivals of the time were begun by the lighting of a candle in the home; but a candle was not to be kindled on the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 35:3'>Exo 35:3</a></em>). Yahweh <em>blessed</em> the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 20:11'>Exo 20:11</a></em>). Work was not to be done so as to rest and remember God's creative grace; whereas in pagan thought, work wasn't done because 'Sabbath' was an unlucky day on which it was best to do as little as possible in case some 'Satan' figure struck. Such belief was being deconstructed in the Sabbath law. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke to all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which Yahweh commanded, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"All the congregation" rather than "the princes" is stressed because the entire people were invited to donate. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Take from among you an offering to Yahweh. Whoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, Yahweh’s offering: gold, silver, brass- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Willing hearted giving to God is important- the giving must never be from a sense of unavoidable obligation. In appealing for generosity to our poorer brethren, Paul uses this idea- speaking of how a willing heart in a cheerful giver is so loved by God (<em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul pleads with Corinth to see the similarities between them and the ecclesia in the wilderness; he wants them to personalize it all. He sees their gathering and redistribution of wealth as exactly analogous to Israel’s gathering of manna (<em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>)- and he so wishes his Corinthians to think themselves into Israel’s shoes. For then they would realize that as Israel had to have a willing heart to give back to God the wealth of Egypt which He had given them, so they were to have a willing heart in being generous to their poorer brethren (<em><a href='B:20 35:5'>Exo 35:5</a></em> = <em><a href='B:540 8:12'>2Co 8:12</a></em>). And they would have realized that as “last year” they had made this offer (<em><a href='B:540 8:10'>2Co 8:10</a></em> Gk.), so the year before, Israel had received Egypt’s wealth with a similar undertaking to use it for the Lord’s cause. As Moses had to remind them a second time of their obligations in Exodus 35, so Paul had to bring it again before Corinth. And if they had seen these similarities, they would have got the sense of Paul’s lament that there was not one wise hearted man amongst them- for the “wise hearted” were to convert Israel’s gold and silver into tools for Yahweh’s service (<em><a href='B:20 35:10'>Exo 35:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goats’ hair- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These were the things which Israel had taken with them from Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:36'>Exo 12:36</a></em>); we likewise should use whatever resources we have taken from this world (cp. Egypt) in order to do God’s work and build and enhance His dwelling place amongst His people. There is an apparent juxtaposition between the scarlet, the clothing of kings and rulers, and goats' hair. They had taken the scarlet clothing from Egypt when they left, but the goats' hair was what they had shorn from their own animals which they had with them. So God was asking them to bring their own small offerings along with the more valuable things they had taken from Egypt / the world. This all speaks of our attitude to giving and wealth on our wilderness journey.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>rams’ skins dyed red, sea cow hides- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sea cow hides were what they had picked up whilst camped on the shores of the Red Sea. Likewise what we pick up along the way in our wilderness journey is to be given to God. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Acacia wood- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Acacia was plentiful in the wilderness, but it is little more than brushwood; a surprising choice of material to be used in God’s dwelling place. But His choice of <em>us</em> with all our weakness and dysfunction, the common, weak stuff of the wilderness, is no less surprising. The choice of acacia wood for constructing the tabernacle is one of several points in the whole enterprise where it seems a less than ideal material was chosen, from a construction point of view. This aspect emphasizes that God prefers to work with the soft, weak and broken in order to do His work (as also in <em><a href='B:330 15:2-5'>Eze 15:2-5</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the sweet incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 27:20'>Exo 27:20</a></em> had commanded "that they bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light". But here we read that they only brought "oil". "Pure olive oil" apparently refers to olive juice which bursts naturally from the first ripe olives. But we enquire where Israel obtained olive oil from in the wilderness, especially such "pure" olive oil to such great amounts as required here? Perhaps they had been given lots of it as they left Egypt and gave it to the priests. But that would not have been this fresh, "pure" oil. So I think they simply brought ordinary olive oil, as stated here. And they did this for 40 years? I suggest as on <em><a href='B:20 27:8'>Exo 27:8</a></em> that this was God's ideal intention, and many of these laws were applicable only in contexts when obedience to them was possible. God's law is not therefore at all a reflection of a God who is a literalist or legalist. For by its nature, the law of Moses shows that He was not like that.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod and for the breastplate- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The precious stones were donated by the princes or elders (<em><a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a></em>). Yet they are listed along with common acacia wood and goats' hair. There was to be a culture of giving, from the wealthiest to the poorest, which was to characterize the community of God's people. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let every wise-hearted man among you come, and make all that Yahweh has commanded- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As in <em><a href='B:20 28:3'>Exo 28:3</a></em>, the wise were given wisdom, in keeping with God’s principle of confirming people in the way in which they themselves choose to go. This is how God's Spirit also works today on human hearts. "That they <em>may</em> make..." (<em><a href='B:20 28:3'>Exo 28:3</a></em> AV) hints at the way in which God's Spirit is given, but people must still respond to it. Thus the Corinthians were given the Spirit (1 Corinthians 1), but didn't use it; and so Paul couldn't speak to them as spiritual people (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). Perhaps only Bezaleel and Aholiab were wise hearted, although it was God's intention that there should be many such- which would mean Paul may be alluding here in lamenting that there was not a wise hearted man in Corinth (<em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the tabernacle, its outer covering, its roof, its clasps, its boards, its bars, its pillars, and its sockets- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ark was covered in the tabernacle by the various layers of the tent detailed in <em><a href='B:20 26:1-6'>Exo 26:1-6</a></em>: sea cows' skins, red rams skins, goats hair, blue, purple, scarlet and linen. These would form a kind of rainbow over the ark, and above that there was the Angel in the pillar of cloud or fire. This "pattern of things in the Heavens" (<em><a href='B:650 9:23-24'>Heb 9:23-24</a></em>) replicated the visions of a throne (the ark) over-arched by a rainbow and the glory of God. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When David says in <em><a href='B:100 7:2'>2Sa 7:2</a></em> that he doesn't want Yahweh to have to dwell in "curtains", this doesn't mean that David was concerned that God's ark was under a tent, whilst he lived in a house. Rather is the reference to the ten curtains which comprised the tabernacle. David was assuming that he could change the Mosaic commandments about the tabernacle, and move God's purpose forward to something more permanent. We see here how he didn't consider the laws of Moses (of which the commands about the tabernacle were part) to be static. He saw them as open to interpretation and development. This was not a position he came to lightly, seeing he had been terribly punished for thinking he could flout the legislation about how the ark was to be transported.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the ark, and its poles, the mercy seat, the veil of the screen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pole" is s.w. "strength". There is again a juxtaposition of ideas- the weak acacia wood, which is no more than a thorn bush, was to be turned into God's strength through being overlaid with gold.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the table with its poles and all its vessels, and the show bread- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the lampstand also for the light, with its vessels, its lamps, and the oil for the light;-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We read in <em><a href='B:690 2:20'>1Jn 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em> that we have each been anointed. The idea of anointing was to signal the initiation of someone. I'd therefore be inclined to see <em><a href='B:690 2:20'>1Jn 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em> as alluding to baptism; when we become in Christ, in the anointed, then as <em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em> says, we too are anointed in a sense. We're given a specific mission and purpose. "The anointing that you received" would therefore refer to our commissioning at baptism. It seems to imply a one time act of being anointed / commissioned / inaugurated for service. Baptism isn't therefore merely an initiation into a community; it's a specific commissioning for active service, in ways which are unique to us. We do well to bring this point out to those we prepare for baptism. The words for 'anointing' are unique to 1 John but they occur in the LXX to describe the anointing / initiation of the priests, and of the tabernacle / dwelling place of God (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 29:7'>Exo 29:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:14'>Exo 35:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:28'>Exo 35:28</a></em>). John sees us as the dwelling place / tabernacle of the Father. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the altar of incense with its poles, the anointing oil, the sweet incense, the screen for the door, at the door of the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The structure of the tabernacle pointed ahead to man's approach to God under the Christian dispensation. First, a man had to bow his head in order to pass through the gate. Humility is essential. Then there was acceptance of the principle of sacrifice, the large altar; followed by the laver or washing basin, speaking of baptism. Beyond that is the table of shewbread (breaking of bread), the candlestick (church life) and the incense altar (prayer). After this is the veil, through which we can pass in Christ into the most holy place, and the presence of God Himself. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the altar of burnt offering, with its grating of brass, its poles, and all its vessels, the basin and its base- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "poles" see on :13. For the basin / laver and altar, see on :15. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the hangings of the court, its pillars, their sockets, and the screen for the gate of the court- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :15, the entrance to the court was of such a height that a man would need to bow his head to enter- a sign that humility was and remains the initial and crucial requirement for a person who wishes to come to God, and begin the journey which ends in fellowship with God Himself, His very presence (cp. the ark in the most holy).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the pins of the tabernacle, the pins of the court, and their cords- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "pins" are the tent pegs. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the finely worked garments, for ministering in the holy place, the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest’s office’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The first group of garments were not the same as the "holy garments", and likely refer to aprons, towels and the coverings for the tabernacle items whilst they were transported. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the congregation of the children of Israel departed from the presence of Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The departing and coming back with the gifts (:22) applies to both men and women (:22). So "all the congregation" included women- in a society where religion was largely a male preserve, Yahweh's call involved both men and women.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They came, everyone whose heart stirred him up, and everyone whom his spirit made willing, and brought Yahweh’s offering, for the work of the Tent of Meeting, and for all of its service, and for the holy garments- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "everyone" who had material gave it for the construction of the tabernacle, according to <em><a href='B:20 35:23'>Exo 35:23</a></em>; although this "every man" is elsewhere defined as "every one whom his spirit made willing" to donate (<em><a href='B:20 35:21'>Exo 35:21</a></em>). "Every knee shall bow to me... every tongue shall confess... so then every one <em>of us</em> shall give account" (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>) is another example- 'all men', 'every man' means 'every one of God's people'. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They came, both men and women- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The rabbis claim that this means that the men followed the women, as if the women were more enthusiastic. LXX "And the men, even every one to whom it seemed good in his heart, brought from the women...". It is observable that Aaron asked the women to bring their earrings and jewellery to make the golden calf, but it is only recorded that the men responded. Which is why the women now provided their jewellery for the tabernacle. There might possibly be a hint that the women were generally more spiritually committed than the men at this point. it could be that the items now listed are more appropriate to female jewellery. And in this context, :25,26 stress the work of the women in making the tabernacle materials.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As many as were willing-hearted, and brought brooches, earrings, signet rings, and armlets, all jewels of gold; even every man who offered an offering of gold to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:540 8:12'>2Co 8:12</a></em> alludes here: "If there be first (i.e. most importantly) a willing mind, it is accepted according to what a man hath, and not according to that he hath not" . Every man was to contribute to the building of the tabernacle (cp. the ecclesia) with a willing heart (Paul surely alludes here). They weren't told: 'Whoever is willing and able to contribute, please do so'. And yet the majority of us have at least something materially; and as we have been blessed, so let us give. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Willing hearted giving to God is important- the giving must never be from a sense of unavoidable obligation. In appealing for generosity to our poorer brethren, Paul uses this idea- speaking of how a willing heart in a cheerful giver is so loved by God (<em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everyone, with whom was found blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goats’ hair, rams’ skins dyed red- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder whether literally "everyone" made these offerings. Because it was a vast congregation, and the tabernacle items were all very small scale. This may be an example of the generally positive language used by God at this time- for He did not behold iniquity in Israel at this time because he was as it were in love with them.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And sea cow hides, brought them- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sea cow hides were what they had picked up whilst camped on the shores of the Red Sea. Likewise what we pick up along the way in our wilderness journey is to be given to God. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everyone who offered an offering of silver and brass brought Yahweh’s offering; and everyone, with whom was found acacia wood for any work of the service, brought it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The acacia wood was just the common bush wood found in the desert. It is juxtaposed against offering of silver. See on :23. The generous response of the Israelites in giving towards the tabernacle was surely because it was not demanded of them but merely their assistance was invited (<em><a href='B:20 35:24'>Exo 35:24</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the women who were wise-hearted spun with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, the blue, the purple, the scarlet, and the fine linen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This and :26 stresses the work of the women in making the tabernacle materials. I discussed on :22 how there might possibly be a hint in the record that the women were generally more spiritually committed than the men at this point.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun the goats’ hair- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :25. The wise hearted were given the Spirit of God's wisdom in confirmation of this (<em><a href='B:20 36:2'>Exo 36:2</a></em>). We read here of a mental, psychological stirring up; the Spirit of God thus works in harmony with the human spirit. And this is how God works in willing human hearts to this day. It is part of the gift of the Spirit involved in the new covenant (Ezekiel 20; Jeremiah 31, 32) that God can directly revive or stir up human hearts (<em><a href='B:290 57:15'>Isa 57:15</a></em>). He works directly upon human minds and psychologies. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The rulers brought the onyx stones, and the stones to be set, for the ephod and for the breastplate- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The precious stones were donated by the princes or elders. Yet in <em><a href='B:20 25:4-7'>Exo 25:4-7</a></em> they are listed along with common acacia wood and goats' hair. There was to be a culture of giving, from the wealthiest to the poorest, which was to characterize the community of God's people. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the spice, and the oil for the light, for the anointing oil, and for the sweet incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The incense was "sweet" in that it smelled sweet to God. But that depended upon the components being brought to Him. “A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel brought a freewill offering to Yahweh; every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for all the work, which Yahweh had commanded to be made by Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word here and in <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em> for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God's grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to the children of Israel, Behold, Yahweh has called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To be called by name meant that this man had a special purpose intended for him ahead of time; "name" in Hebrew suggests a personality and character. But we too are called by name as Jeremiah was. There were good works intended for us to do, designed before the world was. But like Bezalel, we must accept the gift of God's Spirit in order to fulfil those intentions and potentials (<em><a href='B:510 15:18'>Act 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bezaleel means shelter of / for God, appropriate for a man who built His tent / tabernacle. This reinforces the idea that God prefers to dwell in a tent, and not in a physical brick building. David and Solomon willfully ignored this in their obsession with building a temple. It's possible (although see my commentary on <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>) that Bezaleel was little more than a child. For <em><a href='B:130 2:19-20'>1Ch 2:19-20</a></em> says that Caleb was the father of Hur. Caleb was only 40 when he first spied out the land (<em><a href='B:60 14:7'>Jos 14:7</a></em>). "The son of..." is not a precise term in Hebrew and can simply mean a relative, but there is still the idea of a relative in a younger generation than the 'father'. Bezaleel was a generation or two older than Bezaleel; and when Caleb was 40, Bezaleel made the tabernacle that same year. This would be typical of how God works through the weak and those considered inappropriate by men. He gave His Spirit to the young Bezaleel, who may have been only 12 years old, and through him built His dwelling place. We can be sure there would have been many older and experienced builders, who had worked for the Egyptian building projects, who would have been far more qualified in secular terms. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He has filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of workmanship- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As in <em><a href='B:20 28:3'>Exo 28:3</a></em>, the wise were given wisdom, in keeping with God’s principle of confirming people in the way in which they themselves choose to go. This is how God's Spirit also works today on human hearts. "That they <em>may</em> make..." (<em><a href='B:20 28:3'>Exo 28:3</a></em> AV) hints at the way in which God's Spirit is given, but people must still respond to it. Thus the Corinthians were given the Spirit (1 Corinthians 1), but didn't use it; and so Paul couldn't speak to them as spiritual people (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Wisdom and knowledge were what God created the world with (<em><a href='B:240 3:19-20'>Pro 3:19-20</a></em>), so the idea may be that this tabernacle was a new creation.&nbsp;These men could have refused to do what God asked them. This passage appears to be the basis upon which Paul tells us that each of us have “good works” which God has in mind for us to do, and we must exercise our freewill to perceive them and go do them (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and to make skilful works, to work in gold, in silver, in brass- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Divine commands about the tabernacle likewise allude to the ideas of the surrounding nations, and yet bring out significant differences. In the same way as the Babylonians believed that the temple of Marduk in Babylon was a reflection of the Heavenly temple, so the tabernacle was also a reflection of the pattern of Yahweh's Heavenly temple. The Canaanites spoke of their god El as living in a tent- just as Yahweh dwelt in a tent. The Ugaritic epic of King Keret speaks of how "The gods proceed to their tents, the family of El to their tabernacles" (Tablet 2 D, 5, 31-33). El's tabernacle was thought to be constructed of boards- just as Yahweh's tabernacle was. Both had a veil, just as the Moslem shrine in Mecca has one. But there were significant differences. The Canaanite legends speak of the gods building their temples themselves; Cassuto points out that the very terms used about Bezaleel's skill and talent in building the tabernacle are used in Canaanite legends about the skill and talent of the gods in supposedly building their own temples. Perhaps the Exodus record so labours the point that Moses and the Israelites built Yahweh's tabernacle is in order to highlight the difference between the one true God and the pagan gods, who had to build their own tabernacles. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>in cutting of stones for setting, and in carving of wood, to work in all kinds of skilful workmanship- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The stones in the breastplate and shoulder pieces would have had to be of the same size, and yet the jewels given to Israel on leaving Egypt would have been of different sizes. They would have had to be cut, and also cut in order to reflect the light in an optimal way.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He has put in his heart that he may teach, both he, and Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole phrase “Behold I have given you…” (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) occurs later when the Priests are told what God has given them (<em><a href='B:20 31:6'>Exo 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:10'>Lev 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:8'>Num 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:21'>Num 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a></em>). What God did at creation, He can do at any time. When Moses “finished the work” of the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em>), there is clear allusion to God ‘finishing the work’ of creation (<em><a href='B:10 2:2'>Gen 2:2</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The wise were made more wise- an idea we often encounter in the opening chapters of Proverbs. God confirms men and women in the way they wish to go, through the work of His Spirit; if they wish to do His work and build up His dwelling place, He will confirm them in their natural talents and give them new ones. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He has filled them with wisdom of heart, to work all kinds of workmanship, of the engraver, of the skilful workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of those who do any workmanship, and of those who make skilful works- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The skilful workman" (singular) of <em><a href='B:20 28:15'>Exo 28:15</a></em> and elsewhere may specifically refer to Aholiab (<em><a href='B:20 35:35'>Exo 35:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 38:23'>Exo 38:23</a></em>). Perhaps Paul saw in this man a representation of us all- for he urged us likewise to be careful workmen when it comes to the understanding and teaching of God's word (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bezalel and Oholiab shall work with every wise-hearted man, in whom Yahweh has put wisdom and understanding to know how to work all the work for the service of the sanctuary, according to all that Yahweh has commanded- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As in <em><a href='B:20 28:3'>Exo 28:3</a></em>, the wise were given wisdom, in keeping with God’s principle of confirming people in the way in which they themselves choose to go. This is how God's Spirit also works today on human hearts. "That they <em>may</em> make..." (<em><a href='B:20 28:3'>Exo 28:3</a></em> AV) hints at the way in which God's Spirit is given, but people must still respond to it. Thus the Corinthians were given the Spirit (1 Corinthians 1), but didn't use it; and so Paul couldn't speak to them as spiritual people (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses called Bezalel and Oholiab, and every wise-hearted man, in whose heart Yahweh had put wisdom, even everyone whose heart stirred him up to come to the work to do it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a careful parallel between Yahweh's action upon the human heart by His Spirit, and the freewill stirrings of the human heart. And yet the work of the Holy Spirit is not simply to confirm the state of the human spirit; it also places ideas within the human heart, according to a schema and equilibrium currently unknowable by us. But we can be assured that grace, and the Divine initiative, is uppermost in that final equation.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bezaleel means shelter of / for God, appropriate for a man who built His tent / tabernacle. This reinforces the idea that God prefers to dwell in a tent, and not in a physical brick building. David and Solomon willfully ignored this in their obsession with building a temple. It's possible (although see my commentary on <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>) that Bezaleel was little more than a child. For <em><a href='B:130 2:19-20'>1Ch 2:19-20</a></em> says that Caleb was the father of Hur. Caleb was only 40 when he first spied out the land (<em><a href='B:60 14:7'>Jos 14:7</a></em>). "The son of..." is not a precise term in Hebrew and can simply mean a relative, but there is still the idea of a relative in a younger generation than the 'father'. Bezaleel was a generation or two older than Bezaleel; and when Caleb was 40, Bezaleel made the tabernacle that same year. This would be typical of how God works through the weak and those considered inappropriate by men. He gave His Spirit to the young Bezaleel, who may have been only 12 years old, and through him built His dwelling place. We can be sure there would have been many older and experienced builders, who had worked for the Egyptian building projects, who would have been far more qualified in secular terms. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they received from Moses all the offering which the children of Israel had brought for the work of the service of the sanctuary, with which to make it. They brought yet to him freewill offerings every morning- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word here and in <em><a href='B:20 35:29'>Exo 35:29</a></em> for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God's grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the wise men, who performed all the work of the sanctuary, each came from his work which they did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These "wise" were from all tribes of Israel. The phrase "performed all the work of the sanctuary" appears to consciously reflect the language of the Levites and priests. Repeatedly we find the hint that it was God's wish that all His people would do the work He had given to the Levites. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they spoke to Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work which Yahweh commanded to make- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The size of the tabernacle and the items within it was very small. There was no need for a huge volume of donations; what was required was wise hearted workers, filled with the Spirit. And as ever, these were in deficit; it's far easier to donate material things than to be a worker with a Spirit filled heart.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make anything else for the offering for the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were extremely generous to God’s work, whilst at the same time carrying with them the idols of Egypt and in their hearts wanting to return there (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:42-43'>Act 7:42-43</a></em>). We too can be externally supportive of God’s work whilst in our hearts being far from Him; this is the nature of our human condition which we must battle against. God above all seeks our hearts and not our external works. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much.</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Stuff" translates the same Hebrew translated "work" later in the sentence. There may be the hint that the donors saw their generosity as an opportunity for justification by works; hence their great enthusiasm to 'do' it<em>. </em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the wise-hearted men among those who did the work made the tabernacle with ten curtains; of fine twined linen, blue, purple, and scarlet, with cherubim, the work of the skilful workman, they made them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ark was covered in the tabernacle by the various layers of the tent detailed in <em><a href='B:20 26:1-6'>Exo 26:1-6</a></em>: sea cows' skins, red rams skins, goats hair, blue, purple, scarlet and linen. These would form a kind of rainbow over the ark, and above that there was the Angel in the pillar of cloud or fire. This "pattern of things in the Heavens" (<em><a href='B:650 9:23-24'>Heb 9:23-24</a></em>) replicated the visions of a throne (the ark) over-arched by a rainbow and the glory of God. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When David says in <em><a href='B:100 7:2'>2Sa 7:2</a></em> that he doesn't want Yahweh to have to dwell in "curtains", this doesn't mean that David was concerned that God's ark was under a tent, whilst he lived in a house. Rather is the reference to the ten curtains which comprised the tabernacle. David was assuming that he could change the Mosaic commandments about the tabernacle, and move God's purpose forward to something more permanent. We see here how he didn't consider the laws of Moses (of which the commands about the tabernacle were part) to be static. He saw them as open to interpretation and development. This was not a position he came to lightly, seeing he had been terribly punished for thinking he could flout the legislation about how the ark was to be transported.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Many of the commands within the "law of Moses" were clearly only intended for the wilderness generation, indeed they could only have been obeyed by them then; and David wondered whether the entire commands about the tabernacle were in that category. Those today who claim that Mosaic legislation is eternally binding need to give this due weight. It's not just that the Mosaic law was abrogated by the Lord's death; but the whole nature of that law was that it was never intended to all be literally applied to every subsequent generation. And that meant that it was the spirit of it which was to be discerned and followed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The length of each curtain was twenty-eight cubits, and the breadth of each curtain four cubits. All the curtains had one measure- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>28 cubits is 42 feet (12:8 meters), and 4 cubits is 6 feet (1:8 meters). "Curtain" in Hebrew is literally a thing which hang and shakes, and the essential word is used for "fear". The impression is of man trembling before Yahweh's holiness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He coupled five curtains to one another, and the other five curtains he coupled one to another-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Coupled together" is s.w. "have fellowship with" (<em><a href='B:230 94:20'>Psa 94:20</a></em>), and often of men 'joining together'. Clearly we are to sense that the curtains represented God's people. The theme of coupling and joining together occurs throughout the record of the tabernacle. Unity amongst believers is to be the outcome of the indwelling of God's glory. Disunity results from simply not having perceived His glory. For before that, all disunity disappears as we are awed by His grace and convicted of our own smallness and unworthiness. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made loops of blue on the edge of the one curtain from the edge in the coupling. Likewise he made in the edge of the curtain that was outmost in the second coupling-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :9. "Blue" may refer to a mussel they had picked up on the shores of the Red Sea, which was used for dying things blue. If we wish to attach symbolic meaning to everything- and that isn't necessarily the right way to read the tabernacle account- then we could think of "blue" as representing the sky, heaven. It is of God that we are bound together, linked together by His Spirit in a unity which can only come from Him. For the human tendency is naturally to disagreement and disunity rather than to unity.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made fifty loops in the one curtain, and he made fifty loops in the edge of the curtain that was in the second coupling. The loops were opposite one to another-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record loves to stress the interlocking nature of the tabernacle. This points forward to our unity between each other, linked together by the blue loops of Heaven; God's unity. See on :11. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made fifty clasps of gold, and coupled the curtains one to another with the clasps: so the tabernacle was a unit-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is great emphasis that the tabernacle was "one", joined together in such a way that taught the lesson of unity. The spiritual tabernacle, the believers, was "pitched" by the Lord- translating a Greek word which suggests 'crucifixion' (<em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em>). Through the cross, the one, united tabernacle was pitched. To tear down that structure by disuniting the body is to undo the work of the cross.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made curtains of goats’ hair for a covering over the tabernacle. He made them eleven curtains-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Covering" is literally 'a tent'. There was to be a tent over the tent, as if a vertical expression of the horizontal division of the tabernacle into the holy and most holy places. The external appearance of the tabernacle would therefore have been rough; and beauty was on the inside. This contrasts with the pagan way of attaching value to external beauty, whilst inside, the places of worship were not so attractive. God looks upon the internal, upon the heart; and leaves the external as unattractive to secular eyes.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The length of each curtain was thirty cubits, and four cubits the breadth of each curtain. The eleven curtains had one measure-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Comparing this with the size of the actual tabernacle, which is far smaller, it is clear that the tent which covered it must have been sloped, and also probably extended to each side of the tabernacle. Hence the mention of an overhang in <em><a href='B:20 26:12'>Exo 26:12</a></em>.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He coupled five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"By themselves" is s.w. "pole" or "stave", and this makes better sense. The idea is 'curtains on poles' or curtain rods.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made fifty loops on the edge of the curtain that was outmost in the coupling, and he made fifty loops on the edge of the curtain which was outmost in the second coupling-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The tabernacle represents God’s dwelling place. He now no longer lives in any physical structure, but in the hearts of His people, who between them comprise His new dwelling place. We can however learn lessons from the principles behind the tabernacle construction. Great emphasis was placed on how the components were all interlocking- the curtains coupled together, the boards were joined by bars etc. It is by our unity and connection with each other that God will dwell amongst us. Christianity can’t be lived in isolation- we need each other.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made fifty clasps of brass to couple the tent together, that it might be a unit- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The account of the tabernacle labours the point that the whole house of God, this huge but delicate structure, was held together by "clasps of brass to couple the tent together, that it might be one" (<em><a href='B:20 36:18'>Exo 36:18</a></em> and often). "That it might be one" is alluded to by the Lord when He prayed for His people, "that they might be one" (<em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21-23'>Joh 17:21-23</a></em>). The tabernacle system was based around a mass of boards, tenons, curtain couplings etc. God's dwelling place, His house, hangs together by millions of inter-personal connections. "Out of church Christians", in the sense of those who think they can go it alone in splendid isolation, are totally missing the point- just as much as those churches who refuse to meaningfully accept others as being in the body of Christ despite acknowledging that they have been baptized into the body. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red, and a covering of sea cow hides above-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :15. The "part that remains" is the half-breadth by which the rough outer tent would overlap the linen covering.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the boards for the tabernacle of acacia wood, standing up- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Acacia" is literally "thorns". It is translated "thorns" in <em><a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a></em>. It refers to the common thorn bushes found in the scrubland they were passing through in the desert. Thorns were part of the curse in Eden. But from this weak material which was very difficult to work with, brittle, fragile and very weak, God covered this weak, difficult wood with gold and constructed a system with it where His glory might dwell. It all speaks of how He uses us. And we connect this with how God speaks of His people are wood from a vine tree, which is not used by anyone else for making anything; but He uses it for His work (<em><a href='B:330 15:1-6'>Eze 15:1-6</a></em>). We shouldn't be surprised at the brittle nature of the folk with whom God works, their difficulty in binding together and resistance to being worked with- this is as it were all God has to work with. It was a surprising choice of material to be used in God’s dwelling place. But His choice of <em>us</em> with all our weakness and dysfunction, the common, weak stuff of the wilderness, is no less surprising. The choice of acacia wood for constructing the tabernacle is one of several points in the whole enterprise where it seems a less than ideal material was chosen, from a construction point of view. This aspect emphasizes that God prefers to work with the soft, weak and easily broken in order to do His work.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Standing up" seems to mean that the boards were not to merely sink into the dust of the earth, but to hold together in such a way that they would be stable, because the outer tent would keep the wind from blowing over the structure. This detail may be significant if we follow through the idea that the boards represent God's people. They are not to sink into the dust, but to take strength and stability from connection with each other, and to trust in God's protection from the wind. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ten cubits was the length of a board, and a cubit and a half the breadth of each board-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Acacia bushes don't grow so long nor straight. These boards would have been very difficult to construct (see on :20), and would have involved much joining together of pieces of wood which were difficult to work with. It was an appropriate symbol for the kind of human material which goes to make up God's dwelling place. For God dwells in the community of His people, and not within wood and stone. The materials of the tabernacle therefore represent us His people. See on :22.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Each board had two tenons, joined one to another. He made all the boards of the tabernacle this way- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Tenons" is the word for "hands", again encouraging us to see the boards as God's people, joined together by as it were holding hands. See on :21.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the boards for the tabernacle: twenty boards for the south side southward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Heb. "on the south side, to the right". Semitic thought is often expressed from the perspective of a person facing east. See on :25.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made forty sockets of silver under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for its two tenons, and two sockets under another board for its two tenons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If each socket weighed a talent (<em><a href='B:20 38:27'>Exo 38:27</a></em>), the forty silver sockets would have been really big and solid. The connection between the boards was critical, because according to <em><a href='B:20 26:15'>Exo 26:15</a></em> they were "standing up". This seems to mean that the boards were not to merely sink into the dust of the earth, but to hold together in such a way that they would be stable. So the large size and weight of the sockets is appropriate. The internal cohesion and corroboration within the account of the tabernacle is such that it is a profound reflection of the Divine inspiration of the record. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the second side of the tabernacle, on the north side, he made twenty boards- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The north side" is literally "the left side". As noted on <em><a href='B:20 36:23'>Exo 36:23</a></em>, the south side was "to the right". Semitic thought is often expressed from the perspective of a person facing east. The left hand side was considered the side of lesser favour (<em><a href='B:10 48:13-20'>Gen 48:13-20</a></em>). This perhaps was why the candlestick was placed on the right or south side of the tent (<em><a href='B:20 40:24'>Exo 40:24</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their forty sockets of silver; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sockets, <em>eden</em>, is related to <em>adon</em>, "Lord", in that the word carries the same idea of strength. Again, language appropriate to persons is used of the tabernacle components; for the whole thing pointed forward to the body of believers, in whom God walks and dwells.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the far part of the tabernacle westward he made six boards- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Westward" is LXX "the back". These six boards would have given a breadth of only nine cubits. We can therefore conclude that the corner post boards of :28 on each side were half a cubit broad, to account for the extra cubit.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made two boards for the corners of the tabernacle in the far part- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :27, these corner posts were half a cubit broad.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They were double beneath, and in the same way they were all the way to its top to one ring. He did this to both of them in the two corners- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew of the commandment in <em><a href='B:20 26:24'>Exo 26:24</a></em> is unclear. GNB, which uses "frames" instead of NEV "boards", offers: "These corner frames are to be joined at the bottom and connected all the way to the top. The two frames that form the two corners are to be made in this way". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There were eight boards, and their sockets of silver, sixteen sockets; under every board two sockets- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The LXX gives "posts" instead of "boards", suggesting there may have been other material in between those posts. "Sockets" is rendered "bases" by some. The idea was that the boards did not sink down into the dust of the earth (see on :15), but the whole structure was kept upright by the tight connection between the boards / posts. These "eight boards" are the six and two of :27,28. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made bars of acacia wood; five for the boards of the one side of the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted often, acacia wood is very weak. The bars themselves would likely have been made from various parts of this weak bush wood being joined together. The boards likewise were made of this very weak material which it was difficult to join together. But the overall design enabled the whole system to stand strongly, without sinking into the earth (<em><a href='B:20 26:15'>Exo 26:15</a></em>), because of the strength of the interconnections. It is a profound picture of the strength of the overall body of believers thanks to the working of God's Spirit and His design; at least potentially. And the strength is only possible if the interconnections are made and not broken by petty arguments about "fellowship". <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is an exact symmetry between the commands to make the tabernacle items- e.g. “You shall make bars...” (<em><a href='B:20 26:26'>Exo 26:26</a></em>) - and the record of the fulfilment of the work: “He made... bars”. This is to demonstrate how strictly obedient Moses was to all the commands, hence the comment that he was faithfully obedient in all the work of God’s house (<em><a href='B:650 3:2'>Heb 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>). In all this, Moses was a type of the perfect obedience of Christ to God. However, we also note that earlier in his life, Moses tended to argue back with God and find every reason <em>not</em> to be obedient. As he grew spiritually, he became more naturally and enthusiastically obedient to God’s demands rather than trying to find ways around them, and as such he becomes a pattern for our spiritual growth too.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and five bars for the boards of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the boards of the tabernacle for the hinder part westward-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are left to assume that these bars would have passed through rings made on the boards for this purpose.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the middle bar to pass through in the midst of the boards from the one end to the other- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This middle bar would therefore have been 30 cubits /&nbsp; 45 feet long. It would have had to be constructed of bits of acacia, which is no more than a common thorn bush. This singular middle bar, which held the boards in shape and close to each other, looks forward to the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He overlaid the boards with gold, and made their rings of gold for places for the bars, and overlaid the bars with gold- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The weak acacia wood was to be overlaid with gold. "Overlay" in Hebrew carries the idea of to be seen, to be looked at. This was how God looked at that weak acacia wood, as if it was the finest gold. This was an Old Testament anticipation of what the New Testament calls imputed righteousness; we the weak acacia wood, the thorn bush, are looked at as pure gold. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and one outcome of love is to consider the beloved as far more glorious than they are. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the veil of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cherubim. He made it the work of a skilful workman- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The veil symbolized the flesh of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>); and yet into it was woven scarlet, a symbol of His blood and sacrifice which permeated His mortal life. The lesson is that the cross is a daily way of life. The Lord taught this when He asked us to take up the cross daily: to live each day in the exercise of the same principles which He lived and died by. Let's not see spiritual life as a survival of a few crises, as and when they present themselves. It's a way of life, and the principles which lead us to the little victories (when we scald ourselves with hot water, when we dirty a newly washed shirt...) will give us the greater ones also, when (e.g.) we stand before a tribunal, or face death in whatever form.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The veil represented the flesh of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>), and also the fact that the way into the most holy place, representing God Himself in Heaven, was somehow barred. But when the Lord died, the veil was torn from top (by God) to bottom (<em><a href='B:470 27:51'>Mat 27:51</a></em>), and thus the way into direct personal fellowship with God was permanently opened for all- not just the high priest once a year (<em><a href='B:650 9:8'>Heb 9:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>). This understanding was so radical for Jewish minds. For the high priest could only nervously enter the most holy place briefly, once every year on the day of atonement. But now the believer in Christ can enter into full and permanent fellowship with God Himself. This was all achieved through the Lord's flesh being torn. The fine linen speaks of His righteousness (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>), the blue of His association with God in Heaven, the crimson of His blood, and the purple of His Kingship (<em><a href='B:500 19:2'>Joh 19:2</a></em>). All this was worked into the veil, and the overall product of it was glory to God, represented by the image of cherubim superimposed upon all this.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made four pillars of acacia for it, and overlaid them with gold. Their hooks were of gold. He cast four sockets of silver for them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At this point we may note that the LXX usually gives "incorruptible wood" for "acacia". Yet as noted on :20, "acacia" is s.w. "thorn". It was the common thorn bush of the desert, a result of the curse in Eden; and yet there is this sense of incorruption and eternity associated with it by the LXX. The LXX has <em><a href='B:20 30:1-10'>Exo 30:1-10</a></em> coming after <em><a href='B:20 26:32'>Exo 26:32</a></em>, and this may well be correct.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made a screen for the door of the tent, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work of an embroiderer- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The New Testament therefore speaks of "the second veil" (<em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em>) which screened the most holy place. This was of the same material as the veil which covered the door into the holy place, but was more elaborate, including the cherubim motif whereas the first veil didn't. Perhaps the idea is that it is through the Lord Jesus, represented by the veil, that we enter into the community of believers; He is the door and by Him alone a sheep can enter the fold. But it is likewise also through Him, displaying an even greater glory and beauty, that we shall enter into the presence of God Himself. By entering into Him we in prospect enter into the salvation presence of God personally; we are saved in prospect, we live the eternal life, as John's Gospel stresses. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "fine twined linen" was given to them on leaving Egypt, as it was characteristic of Egypt ("fine twined linen from Egypt" <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>). It was apparently only in Egypt at that time that such fine linen was "made from yarn of which each thread was composed of many delicate strands". We see that the best wealth we take from Egypt / the world is to be devoted to the Lord's work.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the five pillars of it with their hooks. He overlaid their capitals and their fillets with gold, and their five sockets were of brass-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We contrast this gold and brass with the gold and silver fittings for the veil which screened the most holy place. It is easy to over interpret, to see significance never intended, in our European obsession with a 'this = that' schema or hermeneutic. Probably the simple idea was that there was to be an increasing sense of glory as one approached closer to the most holy place. We may note that the expense, beauty and intricacy of the tabernacle grew greater the closer one got to the most holy. There was no natural light in the tabernacle; it had no windows. And only the high priest could enter the most holy once / year. The progressive beauty of God's tabernacle was revealed to fewer and fewer people, the further one progressed. This is in total contrast to the religious ways of the surrounding religions, which made the greatest display of glory and beauty on the outside, in the eyes of as many as possible; and progressively decreased in detail and beauty within them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood. Its length was two and a half cubits, and its breadth a cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half its height-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 25:10'>Exo 25:10</a></em> "They shall make an ark" becomes "I made an ark" in Moses' autobiography (<em><a href='B:50 10:3'>Deu 10:3</a></em>), although apparently Bezaleel made the ark (<em><a href='B:20 37:1'>Exo 37:1</a></em>). The people were generous when asked, but were not real workers. Perhaps Moses himself had to make the ark because they didn't get to it. Or maybe his work was counted as theirs, as happens between the Lord Jesus and ourselves. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A cubit is about 18 inches (45 cm.). The ark was not at all large, for God's glory doesn't require grandiose human artistry nor anything large scale. His glory is manifested in the small and humble things. This was a lesson which David and Solomon failed to learn in their obsession about building a grandiose building for God's glory to dwell in.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bezaleel means shelter of / for God, appropriate for a man who built His tent / tabernacle. This reinforces the idea that God prefers to dwell in a tent, and not in a physical brick building. David and Solomon willfully ignored this in their obsession with building a temple. It's possible (although see my commentary on <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>) that Bezaleel was little more than a child. For <em><a href='B:130 2:19-20'>1Ch 2:19-20</a></em> says that Caleb was the father of Hur. Caleb was only 40 when he first spied out the land (<em><a href='B:60 14:7'>Jos 14:7</a></em>). "The son of..." is not a precise term in Hebrew and can simply mean a relative, but there is still the idea of a relative in a younger generation than the 'father'. Bezaleel was a generation or two older than Bezaleel; and when Caleb was 40, Bezaleel made the tabernacle that same year. This would be typical of how God works through the weak and those considered inappropriate by men. He gave His Spirit to the young Bezaleel, who may have been only 12 years old, and through him built His dwelling place. We can be sure there would have been many older and experienced builders, who had worked for the Egyptian building projects, who would have been far more qualified in secular terms.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He overlaid it with pure gold inside and outside, and made a moulding of gold for it around it.</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The weak acacia wood was to be overlaid with gold. "Overlay" in Hebrew carries the idea of to be seen, to be looked at. This was how God looked at that weak acacia wood, as if it was the finest gold. This was an Old Testament anticipation of what the New Testament calls imputed righteousness; we the weak acacia wood, the thorn bush, are looked at as pure gold. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and one outcome of love is to consider the beloved as far more glorious than they are. The mention of a "crown" or "moulding of gold" is as if it represented a person, a King- the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He cast four rings of gold for it, in its four feet- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ark had feet, literally "walking feet", feet bent as if walking, to symbolize how the ark was always moving on. We recall that God spoke of how He had "walked" in the tabernacle and therefore didn't want a fixed temple (<em><a href='B:100 7:6'>2Sa 7:6</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Even two rings on its one side, and two rings on its other side- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God. See on <em><a href='B:20 25:27'>Exo 25:27</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made poles of acacia wood, and overlaid them with gold- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Acacia" is literally "thorns". It is translated "thorns" in <em><a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a></em>. It refers to the common thorn bushes found in the scrubland they were passing through in the desert. Thorns were part of the curse in Eden. But from this weak material which was very difficult to work with, brittle, fragile and very weak, God covered this weak, difficult wood with gold and constructed a system with it where His glory might dwell. It all speaks of how He uses us. And we connect this with how God speaks of His people are wood from a vine tree, which is not used by anyone else for making anything; but He uses it for His work (<em><a href='B:330 15:1-6'>Eze 15:1-6</a></em>). We shouldn't be surprised at the brittle nature of the folk with whom God works, their difficulty in binding together and resistance to being worked with- this is as it were all God has to work with. It was a surprising choice of material to be used in God’s dwelling place. But His choice of <em>us</em> with all our weakness and dysfunction, the common, weak stuff of the wilderness, is no less surprising. The choice of acacia wood for constructing the tabernacle is one of several points in the whole enterprise where it seems a less than ideal material was chosen, from a construction point of view. This aspect emphasizes that God prefers to work with the soft, weak and easily broken in order to do His work.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to bear the ark- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a deconstruction of the Egyptian religious arks, which were displayed and carried in processions. God's ark was concealed, and only carried when it was without religious significance, being moved between sanctuaries.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made a mercy seat of pure gold. Its length was two and a half cubits, and a cubit and a half its breadth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the cover or lid of the ark, with the wings of the cherubim overshadowing it, and upon this the blood of atonement was sprinkled each year at the day of atonement. The blood would have built up over the years. Paul interprets this as symbolic of the blood of the Lord Jesus on the cross. It is a seat or throne in that it is upon that that God's glory is enthroned. But we note the small size of it. God doesn't need anything large scale by human standards. "Mercy seat" is a form of the Hebrew word for 'covering' which is usually used for the covering of sins; literally "the means of propitiation". The LXX word used here is directly applied to the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>. It was the blood which was the basis of atonement (<em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>), but the actual mercy seat, the slab of gold which was the cover of the ark, was put by metonymy for the blood. It is upon this that God's glory dwells and is revealed. His forgiveness is Yahweh at His most glorious, and it is in this that God meets with man (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>). We note that the mercy seat or cover was of pure gold, not acacia word overlaid with gold. It may have been a literal cover over the ark which was detachable.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mercy seat is clearly stated in <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em> to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom has been set forth for all to see the salvation of God in Christ. But note that only the High Priest once / year was able to view the mercy seat covered in the blood of atonement. It's as if we are each now the High Priest, if we are in Christ. We can now with boldness, not as the fearful High Priest, enter the Most Holy place (<em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>). The veil has been opened. We can enter, in order to gain atonement for others. The "seat" implies someone sat upon it- there God was enthroned in all the glory of His forgiveness of men through the blood of Christ. He "dwelt between the cherubim" (<em><a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 99:1'>Psa 99:1</a></em>). There was the impression held by Hezekiah (<em><a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a></em>) and David (<em><a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a></em>) that God dwelt between the cherubim, over the mercy seat. "Justice and judgment" are where God was enthroned (<em><a href='B:230 89:14'>Psa 89:14</a></em>), and this refers to the blood sprinkled mercy seat where God was especially enthroned in glory on the day of Atonement. His forgiveness and salvation has integrity, it's not a turning of a blind eye, a waiving of principle. In this is the wonder of our salvation. Note that the cherubim peered down upon the blood- alluded to in <em><a href='B:670 1:11-12'>1Pe 1:11-12</a></em>, which says that the Angels earnestly look into the things of the blood of Christ. The cherubim were of gold, of one piece with the mercy seat, but Jesus was not an Angel by nature (see Hebrews 1)- which warns us not to over-interpret tabernacle types. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made two cherubim of gold. He made them of beaten work, at the two ends of the mercy seat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The cherubim had wings (:9) and could have human and animal forms, according to Ezekiel 1, 10. In this sense they could be said to resemble the sphinx forms which were such a common part of Egyptian religion. The similarity is in the fact that God was deconstructing Egyptian religion, just as the plagues were aimed at the gods of Egypt. Instead of openly displayed sphinx like creatures memorializing the dead, these were the hidden symbols of God's living presence amongst His people, hidden away in the holiest place, and only briefly seen once every year by the high priest.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other end. He made the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The cherubim represented those through whom God was manifested, be it Angels or His people. For this is how the cherubim are used in Ezekiel. But they are of one part with the mercy seat, which represented the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>). This speaks of His deep unity with us, shown in His life by His being of our nature, and now through the presence of His Spirit within those who are "in" Him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cherubim spread out their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, with their faces toward one another. The faces of the cherubim were toward the mercy seat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Speaking of the things of the blood of the Lord Jesus, Peter comments: "Which things the angels desire to look into" (<em><a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a></em>), as if he saw in the cherubim some representation of the Angels looking down at the blood of atonement sprinkled upon the mercy seat. And yet Peter implies that we too "look into" those things. And thus we note that the cherubim were looking down at the blood, not at each other; as our focus should be upon the Lord's blood, and not each other.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pagan god tabernacles all feature some kind of throne, upon which the god visibly sits. The cherubim of the Israelite tabernacle are similar to the Mesopotamian <em>karibu</em>, cherubim, upon which their gods sat. Phoenician and Egyptian art uncovered by archaeologists shows they believed in cherubim very similar in form to those described in Ezekiel's visions of Yahweh's cherubim. The throne of Yahweh was the ark, covered by the cherubim. There, above the blood spattered lid of the ark (or "mercy seat"), supported by the cherubim, the pagan mind expected to see Israel's God enthroned. The similarities to the pagan shrines were intentional- to set up this expectation. But there was nothing there. It was, to their eyes, an empty throne- just as God appears to be absent to so many people today. There was no visible image resting upon the wings of the cherubim, nothing on the throne / lid of the ark but the blood of atonement (which pointed forward to that of God's Son).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the table of acacia wood. Its length was two cubits, and its breadth was a cubit, and its height was a cubit and a half- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Ugaritic poems speak of the furniture in Baal's heavenly temple, and it's very similar to that in the Most Holy Place. But the poems especially focus upon Baal's bed and chests of drawers for his clothing. These are noticeably absent in Yahweh's tabernacle furniture. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The table of show bread was to be made of acacia wood, which was effectively the weak wood from a thorn bush; but David planned to make it of pure gold, and even worked out the weight of gold required for it (<em><a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a></em>). And Solomon indeed made it of gold (<em><a href='B:110 7:48'>1Ki 7:48</a></em>), leading to it being known as "the pure table" (<em><a href='B:140 13:11'>2Ch 13:11</a></em>). Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content. Likewise the "tables of silver" David ordered to be made (<em><a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a></em>) do not feature in the tabernacle. He was missing the point- that God wanted His holiest symbols made of common, weak things like acacia wood. For His strength and glory is made perfect in weakness. David claims these plans were from God (<em><a href='B:130 28:19'>1Ch 28:19</a></em>), although as discussed on <em><a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a></em>, they were in fact from his own mind. The way these things were taken into captivity, with no record of this golden table ever being returned, surely reflects God's judgment upon this kind of religious show. He prefers a humble house church in an inner city room, rather than a gold plated cathedral. The way some exclusive churches speak of 'maintaining a pure table' suggests they have made the same essential mistake as David did.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He overlaid it with pure gold, and made a gold moulding around it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The table of shewbread looked ahead to the breaking of bread in the Christian experience. It had a crown (NEV "moulding") around it, as if it were the king's table. And indeed it is. We sit there as guests at the king's table, and it is not for us to use it as "our" table, excluding or ejecting others from it.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made a border of a handbreadth around it, and made a golden moulding on its border around it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The golden moulding or crown is twice stressed (:24), as if it really was the king's table. The purpose of the rim was for the rings for carrying it (:27). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He cast four rings of gold for it, and put the rings in the four corners that were on its four feet- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ark had feet, literally "walking feet", feet bent as if walking, to symbolize how the ark was always moving on. We recall that God spoke of how He had "walked" in the tabernacle and therefore didn't want a fixed temple (<em><a href='B:100 7:6'>2Sa 7:6</a></em>). See on :5.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The rings were close by the border, the places for the poles to carry the table- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Places" is the Hebrew word usually used for a house. A different word would have been used if the idea was merely a "place". There is a purposeful juxtaposition between the image of stability carried by the idea of a "house", and the fact that the rings and poles were in order that this furniture could be carried and moved on. God's permanent, characteristic way is the way of dynamism, moving on. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the poles of acacia wood, and overlaid them with gold, to carry the table- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The need to be mobile and always moving on is stressed throughout the record of the tabernacle. There could have been some blanket statement like "All the tabernacle equipment had rings on it so that poles could be put in the rings, and it could be carried". But the record labours this mobile nature of the whole system; see on :14.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the vessels which were on the table, its dishes, its spoons, its bowls, and its pitchers with which to pour out, of pure gold- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh had a "table". The Mesopotamian gods likewise had a table (<em>passuru</em>) upon which food was placed as a meal for the god (as in <em><a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a></em>). But the beakers, cups and vessels on Yahweh's table remained empty; the wine was poured out onto the sacrifices and vaporized; the priests ate the shewbread. There was no pretence that Yahweh was a hungry god who needed to be fed by His worshippers. To the pagan mind, this would've meant that if He didn't eat, He wasn't actually around nor powerful. Again, the difference and similarities were intentional, in order to point up the need for faith in the power and existence of Yahweh.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 25:30'>Exo 25:30</a></em> adds: "You shall set bread of the presence on the table before me always". "The bread of the presence" doesn't simply mean that it was bread which was in God's presence; for that is the meaning covered by "before Me always". Rather the idea is that God's especial presence was there in the eating of the bread. The God who dwelt the other side of the veil, over the mercy seat, as it were came out from there and was present when the bread was eaten. We may have here some hint that there is a special presence of the Father and Son at the breaking of bread, which is the Christian equivalent of this table (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the lampstand of pure gold. He made the lampstand of beaten work. Its base, its shaft, its cups, its buds, and its flowers were of one piece with it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <em><a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a></em> David decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, the one people of God; such was his obsession with mere religion. See on :10.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The candlestick represents the assembly of believers (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>). It was made of beaten work, representing how all those in the true church will be beaten into a shape through which they can be lights for God. "Hammered" or "beaten" suggests that through blow by blow on material heated in the furnace of affliction (<em><a href='B:290 48:10'>Isa 48:10</a></em>), God works out a place where His glory may be revealed. And that place is our lives. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There were six branches going out of its sides: three branches of the lampstand out of its one side, and three branches of the lampstand out of its other side- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lampstand represents God's people (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>), and it had seven lamps; the six branches and the central stem, upon which there was also a lamp. Seven is the number of wholeness and completion. Perhaps the idea is that there is to be a complete manifestation of God through the witness of His people, burning the oil of the Spirit. Each component member witnesses to Him in a slightly different way, not only in this life but throughout the generations of God's people. Likewise the body of Christ in the same way manifests Christ to the world. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>three cups made like almond blossoms in one branch, a bud and a flower, and three cups made like almond blossoms in the other branch, a bud and a flower: so for the six branches going out of the lampstand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The almond is the first tree in Palestine to bud, so it means literally the watching tree, as if it were alive and eager to come to life. So it is appropriate for the candlestick, which represented God's people. Jeremiah sees the branch of an almond tree and is comforted that "I watch over My word to perform it" (<em><a href='B:300 1:11-12'>Jer 1:11-12</a></em>). The word translated 'hasten' or "watch over" is very similar to the word for 'almond'. Almonds are associated with God's eyes; the bowls of the lampstands were almonds (<em><a href='B:20 25:33-34'>Exo 25:33-34</a></em>). <em><a href='B:450 4:2'>Zec 4:2</a></em> talks about these almond bowls on the candlestick, and <em><a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a></em> interprets them as the "eyes of the LORD which run to and fro through the whole earth". <em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em> talks about the Angels in the same way; "the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth to show Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him". Similarly in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:5'>Rev 4:5</a></em> the lamps in the bowls of almond are equated with the "seven spirits (or Angels) of God". <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em> equates the seven eyes with the seven spirits. Thus the almond rod which Jeremiah saw represented God's eyes or Angels who would watch over the word of God which Jeremiah was to speak to perform it. And He does likewise with the witness of all those represented within the candlestick.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel was one nation under God; they were represented by one seven-branched candlestick. But in the New Testament vision of <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>, each church is represented by an individual candlestick, and the body of Christ as a whole is represented by seven candlesticks, seven being the number of completion. This suggests that each local congregation is seen as autonomous by Christ; no other candlestick can dictate to another what they should do. If they fail to give light as they should, then this is dealt with by Christ Himself, the One who walks amongst the seven candlesticks and is in their midst (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:13'>Rev 1:13</a></em>); He alone can remove a candlestick (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:5'>Rev 2:5</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the lampstand were four cups made like almond blossoms, its buds and its flowers-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The menorah or "candlestick" is from a root meaning to yoke. In the Christian context, the yoke, the uniting power, is the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>). He is the unique power which binds together His otherwise disparate people into one candlestick. Thereby Christian unity becomes a witness to the world, at least that is the intention. All disunity between believers therefore causes the candlestick not to function, and the light of witness is thereby the less. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language of buds, flowers and branches invites us to see the candlestick as a tree of life giving light in the darkness of the tabernacle, which had no natural light. The candlestick represents the local church in our times (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>); we as communities of believers are to be as the tree of life, offering eternity to a dark world; hence <em><a href='B:240 11:30'>Pro 11:30</a></em> likens the fruit of the righteous to the tree of life, which results in winning people for eternity. In this sense the ecclesia, the community of believers, is to be as the tree of life to others by their words (<em><a href='B:240 3:18'>Pro 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:30'>Pro 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:4'>Pro 15:4</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Their buds and their branches were of one piece with it. The whole thing was one beaten work of pure gold- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact the candlestick was made from one piece of gold is emphasized; it speaks of the unity of the local church, achieved through much patient beating out of the material which comprises it. The candlestick represents the assembly of believers (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>). It was made of beaten work, representing how all those in the true church will be beaten into a shape through which they can be lights for God. "Hammered" suggests that through blow by blow on material heated in the furnace of affliction (<em><a href='B:290 48:10'>Isa 48:10</a></em>), God works out a place where His glory may be revealed. And that place is our lives. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made its seven lamps, and its snuffers, and its snuff dishes, of pure gold- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention of seven lamps confirms that there was a central stem with a lamp, and six branches coming out of it with a total of six lamps on them- making seven lamps. <em><a href='B:20 25:37'>Exo 25:37</a></em> adds: "And they shall light its lamps to give light to the space in front of it"<em>. </em>The candlestick was on the south end of the holy place, shedding light "opposite" (Heb., NEV "in front of it"), i.e. towards the northern end where the veil was, and where the table of shewbread was, symbolizing fellowship with God. This is the purpose of our witness; to direct people towards fellowship with God and entry to the most holy place. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gold wasn’t the strongest or most practical material for these instruments. But it represents faith (<em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>). We aren’t the best instruments for God to use in His house, but He prefers to use the soft and those who aren’t humanly qualified for His work- because He works by faith in us, and by our faith in Him rather than our human strength.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made it of a talent of pure gold, with all its vessels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A talent was 94 pounds or 42:6 kg. This was a huge amount of gold, but all the same, due to the dense weight of gold, the candlestick would have been quite small if it were solid. 42 kg. of solid gold is about the size of two standard size books. This fits the theme that everything in the tabernacle was small scale, not large. The ecclesia of God, represented by the candlestick (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>), is small but gives huge light in a dark place, pointing towards the entrance to the most holy place. It is depicted as large and a source of particular glory in the famous depiction of the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, but either the candlestick of those times was only gold plated, or the size was exaggerated. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the altar of incense of acacia wood. It was square: its length was a cubit, and its breadth a cubit. Its height was two cubits. Its horns were of one piece with it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Man first had to bow his head to enter the court, referring to humility. Then there was accepting the principle of sacrifice at the altar, followed by baptism in the laver- and then entry to the holy place, where there was the incense altar (prayer- <em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), the table of shewbread (the breaking of bread) and candlestick (church life), shining light towards the entrance to the most holy place where God dwelt between the cherubim. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "18 inches long and 18 inches wide, and it is to be 36 inches high". Again we note the small scale of the tabernacle and its furniture. God doesn't need grandiose religious symbols.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He overlaid it with pure gold, its top, its sides around it, and its horns. He made a gold moulding around it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention of a "crown" or "moulding of gold" is as if it represented a person, a King- the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made two golden rings for it under its moulding crown, on its two ribs, on its two sides, for places for poles with which to carry it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God. See on :3. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the poles of acacia wood, and overlaid them with gold- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pole" is s.w. "strength". There is again a juxtaposition of ideas- the weak acacia wood, which is no more than a thorn bush, was to be turned into God's strength through being overlaid with gold. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the holy anointing oil and the pure incense of sweet spices, after the art of the perfumer-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The specific perfumer in view was Bezaleel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the altar of burnt offering of acacia wood. It was square. Its length was five cubits, its breadth was five cubits, and its height was three cubits- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:140 4:1'>2Ch 4:1</a></em>, David and Solomon replaced this with "An altar of brass, twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and ten cubits in height". This was far larger than the altar of the tabernacle, which was 5 x 5 x 3. 5 cubits is 7:5 feet (225 cm.), 3 cubits is 1:5 feet (45 cm.) Clearly the idea was that far more animals were going to be offered. And yet David and Solomon were forgetting the lesson taught through the sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's mother; God doesn't want sacrifice, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<em><a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a></em>). Just as God didn't want a physical house built to Him, but rather wanted to build a house of people with humble hearts open to the working of His Spirit. The altar was of brass, whereas that of the tabernacle was of common, weak acacia wood (<em><a href='B:20 27:1-2'>Exo 27:1-2</a></em>). This taught that the basis of acceptable sacrifice and approach to God is the recognition of our common weak humanity, and sacrifice is offered to God upon that basis. But Solomon had no recognition of his own moral frailty and humanity, and was convinced that as David's son and the Messianic seed (as he imagined), he was therefore perfect. And it seems David too somehow rationalized his sin with Bathsheba by the end of his life, and lacked grace and humility.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made its horns on its four corners. Its horns were of one piece with it, and he overlaid it with brass- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whilst there are similarities with the concept of religion which Israel had been used to in Egypt, there were significant differences. The altars of Egypt tended to have the horns of previously sacrificed animals attached to them. But the horns of Yahweh's altar were in order to bind the sacrifices (<em><a href='B:230 118:27'>Psa 118:27</a></em>), they had practical function; and were a symbol of Yahweh's salvation (<em><a href='B:110 1:50'>1Ki 1:50</a></em>)- not the triumph of secular man over an impressive animal. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made all the vessels of the altar, the pots, the shovels, the basins, the forks, and the fire pans. He made all its vessels of brass-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jewish tradition has it that the fire which came down from Heaven in <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> remained burning; and this fire was preserved burning all night and day. Hence the need for "fire pans" (<em><a href='B:20 27:3'>Exo 27:3</a></em>) to keep the fire burning whilst the altar was being cleaned or the remains of sacrifices removed from it. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made for the altar a grating of a network of brass, under the ledge around it beneath, reaching halfway up- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies that the altar was a brass plated box, with a grating on the top to feed air to the fire with air. Through this the ashes would have fallen into a pan below. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He cast four rings for the four ends of brass grating, to be places for the poles- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the poles of acacia wood, and overlaid them with brass- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Acacia" is literally "thorns". It is translated "thorns" in <em><a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a></em>. It refers to the common thorn bushes found in the scrubland they were passing through in the desert. Thorns were part of the curse in Eden. But from this weak material which was very difficult to work with, brittle, fragile and very weak, God covered this weak, difficult wood with gold and constructed a system with it where His glory might dwell. It all speaks of how He uses us. And we connect this with how God speaks of His people are wood from a vine tree, which is not used by anyone else for making anything; but He uses it for His work (<em><a href='B:330 15:1-6'>Eze 15:1-6</a></em>). We shouldn't be surprised at the brittle nature of the folk with whom God works, their difficulty in binding together and resistance to being worked with- this is as it were all God has to work with. It was a surprising choice of material to be used in God’s dwelling place. But His choice of <em>us</em> with all our weakness and dysfunction, the common, weak stuff of the wilderness, is no less surprising. The choice of acacia wood for constructing the tabernacle is one of several points in the whole enterprise where it seems a less than ideal material was chosen, from a construction point of view. This aspect emphasizes that God prefers to work with the soft, weak and easily broken in order to do His work.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He put the poles into the rings on the sides of the altar, with which to carry it. He made it hollow with planks- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pole" is s.w. "strength". There is again a juxtaposition of ideas- the weak acacia wood, which is no more than a thorn bush, was to be turned into God's strength through being overlaid with gold. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the basin of brass, and its base of brass, out of the mirrors of the ministering women who ministered at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps this suggests that their devotion to God led them to no longer be so concerned with their own image and appearance.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the court: for the south side southward the hangings of the court were of fine twined linen, one hundred cubits- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "fine twined linen" was given to them on leaving Egypt, as it was characteristic of Egypt ("fine twined linen from Egypt" <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>). It was apparently only in Egypt at that time that such fine linen was "made from yarn of which each thread was composed of many delicate strands". We see that the best wealth we take from Egypt / the world is to be devoted to the Lord's work. It perhaps appropriately designated the boundary between the believer and the world, represented by the linen fence which marked the enclosure of the tabernacle. 100 cubits is 58 yards or 53 meters.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>their pillars were twenty, and their sockets twenty, of brass; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets were of silver-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Fillets" is rendered "connecting rods" by some, and "sockets" as "bases". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the north side one hundred cubits, their pillars twenty, and their sockets twenty, of brass; the hooks of the pillars, and their fillets, of silver-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nearly all the features of the tabernacle suggest parts of the body. The girl in Solomon's song portrays her lover as having "legs as pillars (s.w. "pillars" here) set upon sockets (s.w. "sockets" here, meaning "bases") of gold" (<em><a href='B:260 5:15'>Son 5:15</a></em>). The pillars therefore correspond to legs, and the bases / "sockets" to feet. It was as if the tabernacle was surrounded by men's legs and feet, holding hands with each other.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the west side were hangings of fifty cubits, their pillars ten, and their sockets ten; the hooks of the pillars, and their fillets, of silver-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "with ten posts and ten bases".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the east side, eastward fifty cubits-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX adds "their pillars ten, and their sockets ten".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The hangings for the one side were fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Summed up in GNB: "On each side of the entrance there are to be 71/2 yards of curtains, with three posts and three bases". Fifteen cubits is 6:8 meters, or 7:5 yards. But LXX gives "fifty cubits". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and so also for the other side: on this hand and that hand by the gate of the court were hangings of fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :14. But LXX gives "fifty cubits". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the hangings around the court were of fine twined linen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "linen" see on :9. "Hangings" is literally 'covering', and covering is a major theme of the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 26:36-37'>Exo 26:36-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:12'>Exo 35:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 37:9'>Exo 37:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 39:34'>Exo 39:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 40:3'>Exo 40:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 40:21'>Exo 40:21</a></em>). For the message was of the atonement or covering which is in the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sockets for the pillars were of brass. The hooks of the pillars and their fillets were of silver; and the overlaying of their heads, of silver; and all the pillars of the court were filleted with silver-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "All the posts around the enclosure are to be connected with silver rods, and their hooks are to be made of silver and their bases of bronze". Silver rods seems another feature of the tabernacle which might appear at first blush to not at all be how man would have designed things. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The screen for the gate of the court was the work of the embroiderer, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen. Twenty cubits was the length, and the height in the breadth was five cubits, like to the hangings of the court- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This describes the curtain over the door of the tabernacle in similar language to how the veil hiding the Most Holy is described. Entrance to both the court and to the most holy place was through a veil made of the same design. The Lord Jesus alludes to this in teaching that "I am the door". The only way to get on the path to God is through Him. This rules out all non-Christian paths to God. Christ is the door of the tabernacle through which we enter at our conversion and baptism (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>). By doing so we also enter, in prospect, through the veil into the Most Holy of eternity and Divine nature. The height of the curtains was such that a man would have to bow his head in order to pass underneath it, teaching the humility required to approach God’s presence.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Their pillars were four, and their sockets four, of brass; their hooks of silver, and the overlaying of the heads, and their fillets, of silver-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Sockets" is GNB "bases", and "fillets" is "rods". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the pins of the tabernacle, and around the court, were of brass-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "pins" are the tent pegs. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the amount of material used for the tabernacle, even the Tabernacle of the Testimony, as they were counted, according to the commandment of Moses, for the service of the Levites, by the hand of Ithamar, the son of Aaron the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB is clearer: "Here is a list of the amounts of the metals used in the Tent of the LORD's presence, where the two stone tablets were kept on which the Ten Commandments were written. The list was ordered by Moses and made by the Levites who worked under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest". We note that the work of accounting was given to Ithamar rather than to Nadab or Abihu, who were later to show themselves apostate. Perhaps they already showed signs of lack of integrity at this stage. Time and again we note the internal corroboration within the inspired record.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, made all that Yahweh commanded Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bezaleel means shelter of / for God, appropriate for a man who built His tent / tabernacle. This reinforces the idea that God prefers to dwell in a tent, and not in a physical brick building. David and Solomon willfully ignored this in their obsession with building a temple. It's possible (although see my commentary on <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>) that Bezaleel was little more than a child. For <em><a href='B:130 2:19-20'>1Ch 2:19-20</a></em> says that Caleb was the father of Hur. Caleb was only 40 when he first spied out the land (<em><a href='B:60 14:7'>Jos 14:7</a></em>). "The son of..." is not a precise term in Hebrew and can simply mean a relative, but there is still the idea of a relative in a younger generation than the 'father'. Bezaleel was a generation or two older than Bezaleel; and when Caleb was 40, Bezaleel made the tabernacle that same year. This would be typical of how God works through the weak and those considered inappropriate by men. He gave His Spirit to the young Bezaleel, who may have been only 12 years old, and through him built His dwelling place. We can be sure there would have been many older and experienced builders, who had worked for the Egyptian building projects, who would have been far more qualified in secular terms. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With him was Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, an engraver and a skilful workman, and an embroiderer in blue, in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This seems to imply that Aholiab was already a master craftsman; but he could only do the work because God blessed and developed the ‘natural’ talent which Aholiab was willing to present to God’s service. God sometimes gives us the opportunity to develop our ‘natural’ talents for use in His service- other times, He asks us to do that which is for us a taking up on the cross.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The skilful workman" of <em><a href='B:20 28:15'>Exo 28:15</a></em> and elsewhere may specifically refer to Aholiab (<em><a href='B:20 35:35'>Exo 35:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 38:23'>Exo 38:23</a></em>). Perhaps Paul saw in this man a representation of us all- for he urged us likewise to be careful workmen when it comes to the understanding and teaching of God's word (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the gold that was used for the work in all the work of the sanctuary, even the gold of the offering, was twenty-nine talents, and seven hundred thirty shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The total weight of all the gold, silver and brass comes to 10:4 tones or 10,400 kg. In addition to this there was the gold used and destroyed in the destruction of the golden calf. This would however only make a very small amount per person, if indeed two million of them left Egypt. But see on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>. They did indeed spoil the Egyptians, but we can assume that they gave nearly all their wealth to the tabernacle project; perhaps that is the intention of the note in <em><a href='B:20 33:6'>Exo 33:6</a></em> that they stopped wearing jewellery from then onwards. And yet they continued worshipping idols all through the wilderness journey, despite their stellar generosity to Yahweh's tabernacle. We also can reflect that transporting this tabernacle on poles was a major exercise. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The silver of those who were numbered of the congregation was one hundred talents, and one thousand seven hundred seventy-five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The census of <em><a href='B:20 30:16'>Exo 30:16</a></em> required each man of military age to pay a half shekel of silver. It was used for the silver sockets in the boards of the tabernacle etc. There were 600,000 men of military age who left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>); if they each paid a half shekel, this would have been 300,000 shekels of silver. 3000 shekels make one talent, so this would have made 1000 talents of silver. Which is exactly the amount of silver mentioned in <em><a href='B:20 38:27'>Exo 38:27</a></em>. However, there were actually 603,550 men (<em><a href='B:20 38:26'>Exo 38:26</a></em>). And we wonder whether each man actually paid what was asked. We see here the way in which the Biblical record often doesn't worry about literal exactitude, but presents an overall picture.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>a beka a head, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for each one who passed over to those who were numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty men- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Beka" is literally 'that which is divided', a divided shekel or half shekel. See the discussion of whether this number is literal on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The one hundred talents of silver were for casting the sockets of the sanctuary, and the sockets of the veil; one hundred sockets for the one hundred talents, a talent for a socket- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If each socket weighed a talent (<em><a href='B:20 38:27'>Exo 38:27</a></em>), the forty silver sockets connecting the boards would have been really big and solid. The connection between the boards was critical, because according to <em><a href='B:20 26:15'>Exo 26:15</a></em> they were "standing up". This seems to mean that the boards were not to merely sink into the dust of the earth, but to hold together in such a way that they would be stable. So the large size and weight of the sockets is appropriate. The internal cohesion and corroboration within the account of the tabernacle is such that it is a profound reflection of the Divine inspiration of the record. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From the one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels he made hooks for the pillars, overlaid their capitals, and made fillets for them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The weak acacia wood was to be overlaid with silver. "Overlay" in Hebrew carries the idea of to be seen, to be looked at. This was how God looked at that weak acacia wood, as if it was the finest silver. This was an Old Testament anticipation of what the New Testament calls imputed righteousness; we the weak acacia wood, the thorn bush, are looked at as pure silver. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and one outcome of love is to consider the beloved as far more glorious than they are.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The brass of the offering was seventy talents, and two thousand four hundred shekels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God remembers to this day how much everyone gave of what material, and has preserved the record in His written word. This is encouragement to us that no sacrifice for God’s house is ever forgotten, but He eternally remembers it.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From this he made the sockets to the door of the Tent of Meeting, the bronze altar, the bronze grating for it, all the vessels of the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Vessels" is the same Hebrew word translated "jewels" when we read that the Hebrews were to 'borrow' "jewels" from the Egyptians (<em><a href='B:20 3:22'>Exo 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a></em>). All they took from Egypt / the world was to be used in the Lord's work, and that is an abiding principle.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the sockets around the court, the sockets of the gate of the court, all the pins of the tabernacle, and all the pins around the court- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The amount of brass was enough for us to assume that the tent pegs and sockets or GNB "bases" were very solid. They would have had to be very strong to hold up the tabernacle against desert winds. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the blue, purple, and scarlet, they made finely worked garments, for ministering in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Scarlet and purple were the colours of royalty or rulership, yet it was intertwined with the priestly garments. There was always the theme of king-priests. It was perhaps God's initial intention that the leadership of Israel should be by the priests, and their choice of a human king and the subsequent ruling dynasty through David and the tribe of Judah was not His ideal intention.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the ephod of gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "fine twined linen" was given to them on leaving Egypt, as it was characteristic of Egypt ("fine twined linen from Egypt" <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>). It was apparently only in Egypt at that time that such fine linen was "made from yarn of which each thread was composed of many delicate strands". We see that the best wealth we take from Egypt / the world is to be devoted to the Lord's work. We also see that the religious style which they had been used to in Egypt was being alluded to but deconstructed. They were being given a system of religion not completely foreign to them, but also radically different to all systems they had previously used or encountered. This is why the Pentateuch alludes to things like the laws of Hammurabi, or the existing creation myths- to deconstruct them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it into wires, to work it in the blue, in the purple, in the scarlet, and in the fine linen, the work of the skilful workman- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may refer to one specific "skilful workman", Bezaleel or Aholiab. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made shoulder straps for it, joined together. At the two ends it was joined together- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "It shall have two shoulder-pieces joined together, fastened on the two sides".&nbsp; "Joined / Coupled together" is s.w. "have fellowship with" (<em><a href='B:230 94:20'>Psa 94:20</a></em>), and often of men 'joining together'. The theme of coupling and joining together occurs throughout the record of the tabernacle, and is used e.g. of the joining together of the curtains (<em><a href='B:20 26:3'>Exo 26:3</a></em>). Unity amongst believers is to be the outcome of the indwelling of God's glory. Disunity results from simply not having perceived His glory. For before that, all disunity disappears as we are awed by His grace and convicted of our own smallness and unworthiness. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The skilfully woven band that was on it, with which to fasten it on, was of the same piece, like its work; of gold, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The significance of the colours should not be over emphasized. Israel in the wilderness only had a limited range of things with them, and as with the use of the acacia wood for the tabernacle construction, God was (and is) in a sense limited by the material He choses to have available to work with. But see on :1.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They worked the onyx stones, enclosed in settings of gold, engraved with the engravings of a signet, according to the names of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "emerald". The LXX is the version quoted repeatedly in the New Testament, often preferring its renderings to that of the Masoretic text. And yet the LXX differs from the Hebrew in the description of the precious stones, and their order in the breastplate. It is unwise therefore to seek to find meaning in the actual stones. These precious stones would have been extracted from the amulets or jewellery given to Israel by the Egyptians when they left Egypt. The significant thing is that the names of God's people were engraved upon them. God's people were carried before God by the High Priest, looking forward to how we are personally represented by name before God, through the mediation of the Lord Jesus in Heaven itself. Man is not alone, none are forgotten or unknown. That is the simple take away.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names of God's people were engraved upon the stones which were on the High Priest's clothing. God's people were carried before God by the High Priest, looking forward to how we are personally represented by name before God, through the mediation of the Lord Jesus in Heaven itself. Man is not alone, none are forgotten or unknown. That is the simple take away. But "engraved" is the word usually translated "open", "to make appear". We are revealed before God, our life situation and personality type is openly made to appear before God, by our great High Priest.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He put them on the shoulder straps of the ephod, to be stones of memorial for the children of Israel, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea wasn’t that God might forget His people and so He needed to be reminded by the Priest wearing these stones with their names on; rather they were a reminder to Israel that they were each personally remembered by God all the time.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bearing on the shoulders by the High Priest in order to gain atonement surely looks forward to the Lord bearing the cross on His shoulders. Yet He bore our sins. The cross is presented as symbolic of the weight of our sins. This is symbolic of how Christ, our High Priest, carries the names of all God’s people on His shoulders and over His heart (:8) as He stands for us in God’s presence. The preciousness of the stones reflects our high value in God’s sight. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 28:10'>Exo 28:10</a></em> adds: "six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the six that remain on the other stone, in the order of their birth". The names of the tribes were to be written on the two shoulder stones of the High Priest "in the order of their birth" (<em><a href='B:20 28:10'>Exo 28:10</a></em>). Seeing that Reuben was deposed from being the first born, we may wonder why there is this curious requirement. And the answer is perhaps just very practical. For if we take the tribes in the order of their birth, the list is: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali upon one stone, and&nbsp; Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin upon the other stone. There are then exactly 25 Hebrew letters on each stone. This kind of perfect symmetry would be impossible to arrange by any uninspired hand. It is this kind of internal corroboration which to me is the most powerful argument for a Divinely inspired Bible.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the breastplate, the work of a skilful workman, like the work of the ephod; of gold, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Breastplate" is LXX "oracle", as if the judgment flashed out from the urim and thummim associated with the breastplate&nbsp; was God's word or oracle to His people. For "linen" see on :2<em>.</em> "The skilful workman" may specifically refer to Aholiab (<em><a href='B:20 38:23'>Exo 38:23</a></em>). Perhaps Paul saw in this man a representation of us all- for he urged us likewise to be careful workmen when it comes to the understanding and teaching of God's word (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It was square. They made the breastplate double. Its length was a span, and its breadth a span, being double- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "9 inches long and 9 inches wide". 23 x 23 cm. Again we note the small size of the things associated with the tabernacle, compared with the grandiose surface level religion of the other peoples. David and Solomon's obsession with building a large scale temple reflects how they failed to grasp this. The breastplate was quite small, compared to the grandiose religious clothing of other religions.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They set in it four rows of stones: a row of ruby, topaz, and beryl was the first row- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The faithful believers are likened to a stone with a unique name written on it (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>). We are each called to uniquely reflect and refract the light of God’s glory in a way slightly different to anyone else, just as the stones on the breastplate all glimmered with their own unique beauty. Unity isn’t the same as uniformity. LXX "a sardius, a topaz, and emerald". See on :6 for the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the second row, a turquoise, a sapphire, and an emerald- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "a carbuncle, a sapphire, and a jasper". See on :6 for the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the third row, a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX has "a ligure" for "jacinth". See on :6 for the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the fourth row, a chrysolite, an onyx, and a jasper. They were enclosed in gold settings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "chrysolite, and a beryl, and an onyx stone". See on :6 for the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text. "Chrysolite" is Hebrew&nbsp; '<em>tarshish</em>', from the idea of long endurance. "Ships of tarshish" therefore refer to long distance trading vessels, not a specific location called Tarshish.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The stones were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names; like the engravings of a signet, everyone according to his name, for the twelve tribes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The long sentence here belabours the point several times over that the names of Israel were engraven or 'opened up' upon the stones. The idea is that the people of God were individually represented by name before God by the High Priest / the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made on the breastplate chains like cords, of braided work of pure gold- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX calls "the breastplate" "the oracle", see on :8. The attachment of the breastplate to the inner clothes of the High Priest is emphasized. The impression is of careful connection of the precious stones to the person of the High Priest- all looking forward to our connection with the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made two settings of gold, and two gold rings, and put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :15, the impression is of careful connection of the precious stones to the person of the High Priest- all looking forward to our connection with the Lord Jesus. LXX is quite different: "And Aaron shall take the names of the children of Israel, on the oracle of judgment on his breast; a memorial before God for him as he goes into the sanctuary".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They put the two braided chains of gold in the two rings at the ends of the breastplate- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The almost monotonous stress continues- that the chains connected the breastplate to the ephod. The lesson from all this is that God's people are indeed truly connected to their High Priest. And that connection, like they themselves, is all supremely precious- the most valuable metal and stones are used to represent it. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The other two ends of the two braided chains they put on the two settings, and put them on the shoulder straps of the ephod, in its front- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :16,17, the cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed in very close up here. The connection of God's people to their High Priest is being laboured.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made two rings of gold, and put them on the two ends of the breastplate, on its edge, which was toward the side of the ephod inward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "make two rings of gold and attach them to the lower corners of the breastpiece on the inside edge next to the ephod"<em>.</em><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made two rings of gold, and put them on the two shoulder straps of the ephod underneath, in its front, close by its coupling, above the skilfully woven band of the ephod- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "attach them to the lower part of the front of the two shoulder straps of the ephod, near the seam and above the finely woven belt". There is nowhere that we have more detail about a piece of clothing in the Bible. The attachment of the symbols of God's people to the High Priest is clearly of the utmost importance to Him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They bound the breastplate by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it might be on the skilfully woven band of the ephod, and that the breastplate might not come loose from the ephod, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "so that the breastpiece rests above the belt and does not come loose". Again we note the constant emphasis upon the connection between the breastplate and the ephod, looking ahead to the unbreakable connection between God's people and the Lord Jesus in His work of mediation for us before God. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of blue- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This plain single colour (perhaps indigo) would have thrown into contrast the variegated patterns of the ephod and breastplate.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The opening of the robe in its midst was like the opening of a coat of mail, with a binding around its opening, that it should not be torn-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord having His own clothes put back on Him meant that He would have been dressed in blood sprinkled garments for the walk to Golgotha. Again His holy mind would have been on the Messianic prophecies of <em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em> about a Messiah with blood sprinkled garments lifted up in glorious victory. Or perhaps He saw the connection to <em><a href='B:30 8:30'>Lev 8:30</a></em>, where the priests had to have blood sprinkled garments in order to begin their priestly work. This would have sent His mind to us, for whom He was interceding. Likewise when He perceived that His garment would not be rent, He would have joyfully perceived that He was indeed as the High Priest whose garment was not to be rent (<em><a href='B:20 39:23'>Exo 39:23</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's robe He wore to the cross was without seam and not torn (<em><a href='B:500 19:23-24'>Joh 19:23-24</a></em>). There He acted as High Priest, with the names of God's people on His shoulders, upon which He carried the cross; and in His heart. "Now is the judgment of this world", He predicted of the cross; and the cross was indeed the judgment of the world. This was matched by the urim and thummim being on the breastplate, flashing out judgment.<em>&nbsp;</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Christ died as the supreme High Priest, and the soldiers decided not to rend His garment but instead to throw dice to see which of them should get it (<em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>). As He hung on the cross, looking down and noticing what they were doing, He would have remembered this teaching about the High Priest’s garment, and taken encouragement that He was indeed doing the High Priestly work to its ultimate term. His blood stained, dirty outer garment- perhaps woven by his social outcast of a mother- was equivalent of the High Priest’s robe of “glory and beauty” (<em><a href='B:20 28:2'>Exo 28:2</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made on the skirts of the robe pomegranates of blue, purple, scarlet, and twined linen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The golden bells on the High Priest's garments were familiar in local religions as charm to ward off demons by their noise. But they are used in the Divine scheme of things to remind of God's holiness and the danger of human sin impinging upon this and thus leading to death. And thereby fear of demons was to be replaced by fear of God's holiness and human sin.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "pomegranates of a flowering pomegranate tree".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made bells of pure gold, and put the bells between the pomegranates around the skirts of the robe, between the pomegranates- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pomegranate was full of seeds. The suggestion was that the mediation of the High Priest was to produce a multitudinous seed, in fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. Hebrew tradition claims there were 12 pomegranates on the hem, appropriate to the 12 tribes of Israel. All this came to full term in the priestly work of the Lord Jesus. As noted on :23, the robe looked ahead to that of the Lord Jesus, and so we note how He healed those who took hold of the hem of His robe (<em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>). Perhaps they perceived His High Priestly nature. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, around the skirts of the robe, to minister in, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The bells can be understood as meaning that there was to be an element of proclamation in the work of the priest. <em><a href='B:20 28:35'>Exo 28:35</a></em> adds: "It shall be on Aaron to minister; and his sound shall be heard when he goes in to the holy place before Yahweh, and when he comes out, so that he will not die". <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:530 9:16'>1Co 9:16</a></em>) may be alluding to how the High Priest had to have bells so that "his sound may be heard... that he die not" (<em><a href='B:20 28:35'>Exo 28:35</a></em>; this idea of the sound being heard is picked up in Psalms 19 concerning the spread of the Gospel). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made the coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 28:40'>Exo 28:40</a></em> adds that these clothes were "for glory and for beauty". The idea is not that the clothes should be beautiful and glorious; they were "for" the manifestation of the glory and beauty of God's saving ways, once their significance was perceived. The naked flesh of man was to be covered over with a glory and beauty which was to come from God, looking forward to the idea of imputed righteousness which Paul explains in Romans. Glory and beauty were to be the features of all Israel in their role as priests / teachers of the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:50 26:19'>Deu 26:19</a></em> s.w.). Again we see repeated the ideal intention that all Israel were to be a nation of priests, and not just resign the work of witness to the priestly tribe.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the turban of fine linen, and the linen headbands of fine linen, and the linen breeches of fine twined linen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The fine linen is the righteousness of the saints" (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>) suggests that the entire body of believers ("saints") are seen as indeed they are, a priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). This is how we will be presented to the Lord, as priests now equipped for eternal service. This is what eternity will be about- serving in the spirit of priests. And we are to train for this now, and at least develop the desire to do that work.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the sash of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, the work of the embroiderer, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Sash" is AV "girdle". "The embroiderer" was specifically Bezaleel or Aholiab (<em><a href='B:20 38:23'>Exo 38:23</a></em>), and the word is more commonly translated "needlework". This was typically women's work, but a theme of the construction of the tabernacle is that the work was done by God's Spirit using people for His purpose. We may connect this with how the likes of chemists and goldsmiths were used for the rough work of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah's time. On one hand, our natural talents are used by God; and yet we are also called to step out against the wind of our natural inclination in God's service.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote on it a writing, like the engravings of a signet: HOLY TO YAHWEH- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Most of the surrounding tabernacles featured quite a lot of noise- especially incantations and spoken formulas regarding the holiness of the god and shrine. There were few spoken words in the Mosaic rituals; "Holy to the Lord" was written upon the forehead of the High Priest rather than stated by incantations (GNB 'Dedicated to the LORD', LXX has "holiness of the Lord"). We could maybe go so far as to say that we see here the exaltation of God's written word, with all the faith and understanding which this requires, as opposed to the incantations of other worship systems. The plate or rosette on the High Priest's turban would've recalled pagan plates which warded off supposed demons; but this one spoke of "Holiness to Yahweh", again replacing the negative with the positive.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They tied to it a lace of blue, to fasten it on the turban above, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Lace" is s.w. "wire", "ribband", "line"; we note it was not a golden chain but a lace. That the Priest’s crown was to be made of linen rather than solid gold or some other precious metal could appear some kind of anticlimax- most leaders of other religions had something solid on their heads. White linen represents righteousness (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>); it’s as if the intention was to highlight the fact that simple righteousness is of such great value and power in God’s sight rather than any visible ostentation. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus all the work of the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting was finished. The children of Israel did according to all that Yahweh commanded Moses; so they did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is huge emphasis upon the exact obedience to the commandments given before the apostacy with the golden calf. But it was really Moses, Bezaleel and Aholiab who did most of the work. Their obedience and work was counted to all Israel. The idea of imputed righteousness is found throughout the Bible, and not just in the New Testament letter to the Romans.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They brought the tabernacle to Moses, the tent, with all its furniture, its clasps, its boards, its bars, its pillars, its sockets- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The interconnected nature of the tabernacle construction is continually stressed. For this is the nature of God's system of manifestation amongst His people to this day- various aspects and individuals linking in with each other, according to His design. There is no way an individual can reach God's Kingdom alone. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the covering of rams’ skins dyed red, the covering of sea cow hides, the veil of the screen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sea cow hides would have been picked up by them whilst camped by the Red Sea. Whatever we pick up along the way in our wilderness journey- is to be used by God, and devoted to Him by us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the ark of the testimony with its poles, the mercy seat-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pole" is s.w. "strength". There is again a juxtaposition of ideas- the weak acacia wood, which is no more than a thorn bush, was to be turned into God's strength through being overlaid with gold. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the table, all its vessels, the show bread- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The bread of the presence" (<em><a href='B:20 25:30'>Exo 25:30</a></em>) doesn't simply mean that it was bread which was in God's presence; for that is the meaning covered by "before Me always". Rather the idea is that God's especial presence was there in the eating of the bread. The God who dwelt the other side of the veil, over the mercy seat, as it were came out from there and was present when the bread was eaten. We may have here some hint that there is a special presence of the Father and Son at the breaking of bread, which is the Christian equivalent of this table (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the pure lampstand, its lamps, even the lamps to be set in order, all its vessels, the oil for the light- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB reads in the possible ellipsis: "the lampstand of pure gold".&nbsp;As the gold for it weighed around 40 kg., it would have been quite small, given the density of gold. "The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <em><a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a></em> David decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, the one people of God; such was his obsession with mere religion. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the golden altar, the anointing oil, the sweet incense, the screen for the door of the Tent- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Man first had to bow his head to enter the court, referring to humility. Then there was accepting the principle of sacrifice at the altar, followed by baptism in the laver- and then entry to the holy place, where there was the incense altar (prayer- <em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), the table of shewbread (the breaking of bread) and candlestick (church life), shining light towards the entrance to the most holy place where God dwelt between the cherubim. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the bronze altar, its grating of brass, its poles, all of its vessels, the basin and its base- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the hangings of the court, its pillars, its sockets, the screen for the gate of the court, its cords, its pins, all the instruments of the service of the tabernacle, for the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The tent of meeting is here defined as the tabernacle. The reference is to the tent which included the holy place and the most holy place (<em><a href='B:20 29:11'>Exo 29:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:20'>Exo 30:20</a></em>). But the actual place of meeting between God and His people was over the mercy seat, the lid of the ark of the covenant, which was in the most holy place and only seen by the high priest briefly once / year. But it was as if God as a king left His throne and came forth to meet His people, represented by the priests, at the door of the holy place, the "tent of meeting". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the finely worked garments for ministering in the holy place, the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest’s office- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "the cloths of service" (NEV "finely worked garments") may refer to the cloths used for covering the various items as they were transported around.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did all the work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But it was really Moses, Bezaleel and Aholiab who did most of the work. Their obedience and work was counted to all Israel. The idea of imputed righteousness is found throughout the Bible, and not just in the New Testament letter to the Romans.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it as Yahweh had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses’ personal blessing of the people was that of God (Deuteronomy 33); and when he looked with pleasure upon the completed tabernacle and blessed Israel, he was imitating God’s inspection and blessing of the completed natural creation (<em><a href='B:20 39:43'>Exo 39:43</a></em>). Yet Israel tragically failed to appreciate the degree to which God was manifest in the words of Moses, as they did with Christ. This is shown by them asking for Moses to speak with them, not God; they failed to realize that actually his voice was God’s voice. They failed to see that commandments given ‘second hand’ really are the voice of God (<em><a href='B:20 20:19'>Exo 20:19</a></em>). Perhaps our appreciation of inspiration is similar; we know the theory, but do we really see the wonder of the fact that what we read is the awesome voice of God Himself?<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Moses looked with pleasure upon the completed tabernacle and blessed Israel, he was imitating God’s inspection and blessing of the completed natural creation (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em>); as if now a new creation had been begun in the lives of Israel, just as it is in us through baptism into Christ (cp. the Red Sea crossing)- <em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must remember in interpreting what follows that this was all spoken personally to Moses.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the first day of the first month you shall raise up the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The components of the tabernacle had been made and brought to Moses, and he was to assemble it by hand. Jewish tradition has it that Moses was Divinely empowered in assembling it all in one day, and therefore didn't do it with his own hands. <em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em> appears to allude to this and deconstruct it: "Christ having become a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands". The tabernacle was indeed made or assembled with hands, unlike the spiritual tabernacle of the house of believers which is being put together by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus. Moses pitched the tent, but the spiritual tabernacle has been pitched without hands, by the Spirit of Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em>). The Lord Jesus alluded to these things by saying that He could raise up a new temple through His death and resurrection, without hands (<em><a href='B:500 2:19-21'>Joh 2:19-21</a></em>). "Raise up", used here of raising or assembling the tabernacle, was interpreted by the Lord as implying resurrection. The idea was that the tabernacle looked ahead to the new system of believers which the Lord was to bring about through His sacrifice. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put the ark of the testimony in it, and you shall screen the ark with the veil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The “testimony” refers to the tables of the covenant, the ten commandments, which were within the ark; the connection between the ark and the “testimony” is very strong in the record. The ark was symbolic of Christ, in whom dwelt the word and covenant of God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring in the table, and set in order the things that are on it. You shall bring in the lampstand, and light its lamps- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The candlestick was on the south end of the holy place, shedding light "opposite" (Heb., NEV "in front of it"), i.e. towards the northern end where the veil was, and where the table of shewbread was, symbolizing fellowship with God. This is the purpose of our witness; to direct people towards fellowship with God and entry to the most holy place. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set the golden altar for incense before the ark of the testimony, and put the screen of the door to the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Man first had to bow his head to enter the court, referring to humility. Then there was accepting the principle of sacrifice at the altar, followed by baptism in the laver- and then entry to the holy place, where there was the incense altar (prayer- <em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), the table of shewbread (the breaking of bread) and candlestick (church life), shining light towards the entrance to the most holy place where God dwelt between the cherubim. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set the altar of burnt offering before the door of the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sacrifice is necessary before we can enter God’s presence. Sacrifice doesn’t simply mean giving material things to God; it refers to giving up to God that which is personal and valuable to us. We’re not involved with God simply in order to get from Him; in this case, spirituality would be purely selfish, as it is in many religions. Authentic relationship with God depends upon our having the spirit of sacrifice; not in the sense that we can only get to God if we give something, for that too would be too primitive and a denial of grace as the basis of our relationship with God. But His grace and the wonder of fellowship with Him cannot be accepted by us passively nor with indifference; our natural response, if we believe it, is to want to give to Him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set the basin between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and shall put water therein- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would imply a change of perspective in the description, which so far has been from the most holy place and outwards, whereas this is now from the perspective of someone approaching from the outside. Either that, or the mention of the basin / laver is not placed in order. Possibly the idea is to emphasize the critical importance of washing the priests before entering the holy place, pointing forward to the importance of baptism.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set up the court around it, and hang up the screen of the gate of the court- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For Moses alone to do this all in one day would have perhaps required superhuman help; see on :1,2. The weight of some of the items would have surely been too much for him to carry or manipulate alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is in it, and shall make it holy, and all its furniture; and it will be holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The anointing process takes our Christian minds to the Christ, the anointed one, and we who are anointed through being in Him (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall anoint the altar of burnt offering, with all its vessels, and sanctify the altar; and the altar will be most holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder why the altar is here called "most holy" although it stood outside of the tent of meeting. All the tabernacle was called "most holy" (<em><a href='B:20 30:29'>Exo 30:29</a></em>), but here there seems an especial note made that the altar was to be made "most holy". It was in the court, not in the holy place nor most holy place. The idea may be that the God who dwells in the most holy place between the cherubim is so pleased with sacrifice, that He accepts even the place outside the tabernacle as most holy. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall anoint the basin and its base, and sanctify it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may represent the need for the washing of baptism in order to come to Christ, the altar (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). This was required if they didn’t want to die (<em><a href='B:20 30:20'>Exo 30:20</a></em>). It is baptism which is the washing or "laver" of regeneration by the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>). The fact we are to wash in this laver suggests that all baptized are all priests; we are a royal priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). It is for us to take seriously the work of priestly service, it falls to all who are baptized; and we must therefore overcome the typical human tendency to leave such work to others.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and shall wash them with water- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The laver was situated just in front of the door of the tent, so presumably this was done in the laver.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put on Aaron the holy garments; and you shall anoint him, and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me in the priest’s office- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is hard to imagine how Moses could have erected the tabernacle and done all this on one day. It confirms the suggestion on :2 that he could only have done this with Divine help. However it could be that this anointing of Aaron and his sons was deferred and not done until the time of <em><a href='B:30 8:1'>Lev 8:1</a></em> ff. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring his sons, and put coats on them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :13. <em><a href='B:20 28:40'>Exo 28:40</a></em> adds that these clothes were "for glory and for beauty". The idea is not that the clothes should be beautiful and glorious; they were "for" the manifestation of the glory and beauty of God's saving ways, once their significance was perceived. The naked flesh of man was to be covered over with a glory and beauty which was to come from God, looking forward to the idea of imputed righteousness which Paul explains in Romans. Glory and beauty were to be the features of all Israel in their role as priests / teachers of the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:50 26:19'>Deu 26:19</a></em> s.w.). Again we see repeated the ideal intention that all Israel were to be a nation of priests, and not just resign the work of witness to the priestly tribe.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me in the priest’s office. Their anointing shall be to them for an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word <em>olahm</em>, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines olahm as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the spectre of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Likewise the Sabbath is described as a perpetual, eternal ordinance between God and His people (<em><a href='B:20 31:16'>Exo 31:16</a></em>). Yet in the New Testament we read that the Old Covenant has been done away; and the Old Covenant clearly included the ten commandments (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>), one of which was concerning the Sabbath. For this reason the New Testament is at pains to explain that Sabbath keeping is not now required of God’s people (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:1-3'>Rom 14:1-3</a></em>). Indeed, the whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses did so. According to all that Yahweh commanded him, so he did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is huge emphasis upon the exact obedience of Moses to the commandments<em>.</em> And yet his careful obedience to the letter regarding the "house" or tabernacle is commented upon in <em><a href='B:650 3:2-5'>Heb 3:2-5</a></em>. The idea is that all that obedience to commandment was still nothing compared to that of the Lord Jesus. For He was not only obedient to commandment, but more positively achieved a personality and character which was to be the basis of an eternal spiritual house.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was raised up- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :1,2, this meant that Moses assembled the tabernacle alone in one day- and surely required Divine help to do so.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses raised up the tabernacle, and laid its sockets, and set up its boards, and put in its bars, and raised up its pillars- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The rabbis like to note that there are three references to Moses' assembly of the tabernacle (:2,17,18), which they see as pointing forward to the three temples (the third yet to be built by Messiah). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He spread the covering over the tent, and put the roof of the tabernacle above on it, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"As Yahweh commanded Moses" is a phrase runs as a refrain throughout the chapter, as an appropriate ending to the book. See on <em><a href='B:20 36:31'>Exo 36:31</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the poles on the ark, and put the mercy seat above on the ark- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ark was always ready to be moved on. The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He brought the ark into the tabernacle, and set up the veil of the screen, and screened the ark of the testimony, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There may be a reference here to the two veils (cp. <em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em> "the second veil" ), one over the entrance to the holy place, and the other over the entrance to the most holy<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He put the table in the Tent of Meeting, on the side of the tabernacle northward, outside of the veil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Side" is literally "thigh", and constantly we find language appropriate to the human body used in describing the tabernacle. It was all a hint that it was looking ahead to a greater and more perfect tabernacle (<em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em>) in a person, Messiah, the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He set the bread in order on it before Yahweh, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Before Yahweh" may imply that by this point, there was some presence of God already in the most holy place beyond the veil. Or perhaps an Angel was standing with Moses as he assembled the tabernacle.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He put the lampstand in the Tent of Meeting, opposite the table, on the side of the tabernacle southward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The north side" is literally "the left side". As noted on <em><a href='B:20 26:18'>Exo 26:18</a></em>, the south side was "to the right". Semitic thought is often expressed from the perspective of a person facing east. The left hand side was considered the side of lesser favour (<em><a href='B:10 48:13-20'>Gen 48:13-20</a></em>). This perhaps was why the candlestick was placed on the right or south side of the tent (<em><a href='B:20 40:24'>Exo 40:24</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He lit the lamps before Yahweh, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Before Yahweh" may imply that by this point, there was some presence of God already in the most holy place beyond the veil. Or perhaps an Angel was standing with Moses as he assembled the tabernacle. <em><a href='B:20 27:20'>Exo 27:20</a></em> recorded that "You shall command the children of Israel, that they bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light". "Pure olive oil" apparently refers to olive juice which bursts naturally from the first ripe olives. But we enquire where Israel obtained olive oil from in the wilderness, especially such "pure" olive oil to such great amounts as required here? I suggest that this was God's ideal intention, and many of these laws were applicable only in contexts when obedience to them was possible. God's law is not therefore at all a reflection of a God who is a literalist or legalist. For by its nature, the law of Moses shows that He was not like that.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He put the golden altar in the Tent of Meeting before the veil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The incense altar is called "the golden altar" because the incense represents prayer, and gold is the symbol of faith. And prayer "works" by faith. It was before the veil which screened the most holy place, because the smell of the incense would have entered there, even if man cannot. Just as our prayers enter heaven itself.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he burnt incense of sweet spices on it, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant / sweet aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He put up the screen of the door to the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The New Testament therefore speaks of "the second veil" (<em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em>) which screened the most holy place. This was of the same material as the veil which covered the door into the holy place, but was more elaborate, including the cherubim motif whereas the first veil didn't. Perhaps the idea is that it is through the Lord Jesus, represented by the veil, that we enter into the community of believers; He is the door and by Him alone a sheep can enter the fold. But it is likewise also through Him, displaying an even greater glory and beauty, that we shall enter into the presence of God Himself. By entering into Him we in prospect enter into the salvation presence of God personally; we are saved in prospect, we live the eternal life, as John's Gospel stresses. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He set the altar of burnt offering at the door of the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, and offered on it the burnt offering and the meal offering, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may refer specifically to the offerings Moses was to make during the seven days of the rituals for the consecration of Aaron and his sons. The daily burnt offering was from then on to be offered by Aaron.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He set the basin between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and put water therein, with which to wash- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Before we can come to offer acceptable sacrifice and do God’s work, we must firstly wash in baptism. The water may have come from the stream from the smitten rock. This is used in the New Testament to represent the spirit of Christ. It is this which we are washed in by water baptism; we must therefore be born of water-and-spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses, Aaron, and his sons washed their hands and their feet there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord alludes to this in <em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em> and implies it applies to all His people. Baptism is in essence ongoing, as the Lord progressively sanctifies us for His service in practice.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When they went into the Tent of Meeting, and when they came near to the altar, they washed, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The altar of sacrifice would have therefore been walked passed in order to wash in the laver, and then they would have returned to offer at the altar. 'Coming near' the altar is therefore used to refer to offering sacrifice, rather than in any literal sense.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He raised up the court around the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the screen of the gate of the court. So Moses finished the work-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jesus had this in mind when just before His death He said that He had finished the work God had given Him to do (<em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); and He died saying “It is finished” (<em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em>). He felt His work had been to build a dwelling place for God- not in a literal tabernacle, but in the hearts of willing men and women whose weakness and sin He had enabled to be overcome through His sacrifice. See on :2. Moses "reared up" the tabernacle, representing us (<em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>); "So Moses finished the work" God had given him to do. <em><a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a></em> likewise speaks of Moses finishing the work. The Hebrew for "reared up" is also used in the context of resurrection and glorification / exaltation. As our Lord sensed His final, ultimate achievement of the Father's glory in His own character, He could look ahead to our resurrection and glorification. He adopted God's timeless perspective, and died with the vision of our certain glorification in the Kingdom. This fits in with the way Psalms 22, 69 (which evidently portray the thoughts of our dying Lord) conclude with visions of Christ's "seed" being glorified in the Kingdom. There are a number of passages which also speak of the temple (also representative of the ecclesia) being a <em>work </em>which was <em>finished </em>(e.g. <em><a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a></em>). In His moment of agonized triumph as He died, the Lord Jesus saw us as if we were perfect. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What God did at creation, He can do at any time. When Moses “finished the work” of the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em>), there is clear allusion to God ‘finishing the work’ of creation (<em><a href='B:10 2:2'>Gen 2:2</a></em>). The whole phrase “Behold I have given you…” (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) occurs later when the Priests are told what God has given them (<em><a href='B:20 31:6'>Exo 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:10'>Lev 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:8'>Num 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:21'>Num 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was "the cloud" which had covered Sinai (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 24:15-16'>Exo 24:15-16</a></em>). Both holy place and most holy were filled. The glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle when it was erected (<em><a href='B:20 40:34'>Exo 40:34</a></em>), as it would later fill the temple (<em><a href='B:140 7:1'>2Ch 7:1</a></em>). But it was God's intention that His glory should fill all the earth; the same words are used in <em><a href='B:40 14:21'>Num 14:21</a></em>. The apparently intense manifestation of Himself in a specific place was only a foretaste of what He wished to bring about in "all the earth". And yet Judaism misread this as meaning that His glory was there alone in a specific holy place. They failed to perceive that it was merely a localized foretaste of His intention to make this a universal experience, and the tearing down of the veil at the Lord's death was evidence enough of the progression of this plan. When exiled from the sanctuary, David in his Psalms often perceives that God's glory fills and shall fill all the earth (<em><a href='B:230 72:19'>Psa 72:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 2:14'>Hab 2:14</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses wasn’t able to enter into the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud stayed on it, and Yahweh’s glory filled the tabernacle-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implied that Moses wished to enter but couldn't, perhaps preparing him for his later experience of being unable to enter the promised land as he wished. But typically these things look ahead to how Moses and the legal system associated with him created a desire to enter into God's glory, and into the Kingdom- but failed to achieve it. And so they looked ahead to the achievement of the Lord Jesus. Likewise the glory in the later temple precluded the priests from entering it (<em><a href='B:110 8:11'>1Ki 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 5:14'>2Ch 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:2'>2Ch 7:2</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward, throughout all their journeys- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Onward" is Heb. 'to pull up', alluding to the pulling up of tent pegs. The process of moving onward would have been a major, regular upheaval. They would've preferred to stay where they were. And this is a feature of our wilderness journey after our Red Sea baptism; we are always being moved on further, in various ways. And this goes right against the conservatism which is such a major part of the human condition. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but if the cloud wasn’t taken up, then they didn’t travel until the day that it was taken up- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They didn’t know their itinerary ahead of time, each day and night they would’ve wondered whether they’d be called to move on or not. Their lives in this sense had no stability. If the Red Sea crossing represents our baptisms (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>) then this speaks of our lives afterwards being under God’s leadership and guidance, we in that sense cannot map out how we would wish our journey to be. There was no prior warning how long they were to remain in any one place; sometimes they stayed a year in one place, at other times they had to travel even by night. This was all at the commandment or word of the Lord. If the Red Sea deliverance represents our baptism, the wilderness journey is like our journey through life towards the promised land of God’s Kingdom. We are led by an Angel, and the path we take is determined by God. Sometimes we are suddenly and unexpectedly asked to move forward; sometimes quickly, travelling by night, as it were; other periods of our lives can appear static and leading nowhere. But in all these situations we are still being led- if we remain obedient to the word of God. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the cloud of Yahweh was on the tabernacle by day, and there was fire in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Practically this meant that they were shielded from the desert heat in the day time, and kept warm at night. Such was (and is) Yahweh's sensitivity to His people in their wilderness journey towards the Kingdom.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 13:21'>Exo 13:21</a></em> also says that there was a pillar of cloud in the day time and a pillar of fire by night. But at the time of the Exodus, there was a pillar of cloud for the Egyptians and a pillar of fire to give light in the night for the Israelites (<em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a></em>). Could this mean that the meaning of time was collapsed at this time? It was night for the Israelites but daytime for the Egyptians? <em><a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a></em>, amidst many exodus / Red Sea allusions, speaks of how God makes the darkness light before His exiting people. The many Johanine references to the Lord Jesus being a light in the darkness for His followers would then be yet more elaborations of the idea that the Lord Jesus is the antitype of the Angel that led Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:500 8:12'>Joh 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:35'>Joh 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 9:21'>Num 9:21</a></em> says that the pillar of cloud was with the Israelites at <em>night</em>, and sometimes it was taken up in the night and they therefore had to move on. Does this mean that there were times when the meaning of time was collapsed during their journey, and the night was made as the day (perhaps <em><a href='B:230 139:12'>Psa 139:12</a></em> alludes to this experience)? When Yahweh came down on Sinai, He was enveloped in a <em>cloud</em> of <em>fire</em>- suggesting that there was no day and night for Him (<em><a href='B:20 24:15-17'>Exo 24:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh called to Moses and spoke to him out of the Tent of Meeting, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals this submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because you believed me not... you shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his books. It could of course be argued that these are the words of a Divinely inspired editor. But consider this alternative.&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em> appears to follow straight on from the previous narrative in Exodus. It could be that all of Leviticus is an account of the words of Yahweh to the Levites during the eight days of consecration after the tabernacle was built. For the whole book specifically addresses the Levites, and how they were to conduct priestly work.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel and tell them, ‘When anyone of you offers an offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Of you" means that the invitation to offer freewill offerings which now follows was limited to the community of Israel. But within them, "anyone" could offer- including women, who were typically excluded from such religious opportunities in the surrounding cults.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>You shall offer your offering of the livestock, from the herd and from the flock-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were not to keep some animals specially for sacrifice; they were to take the sacrificial animals out of the herd, just as the Lord Jesus was One taken out of the herd of humanity. We are to be living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>), not reserving just part of our lives for God. The Lord Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and He was taken out of the common herd of humanity, not preserved specially for His work. We also learn from this that they were not to hunt wild animals in order to offer them. They may well have become blemished in the process of being hunted and slain.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). The thoughtful Israelite would have perceived that all the animas offered were not totally without blemish- for none was, upon minute examination. The requirement for a male sacrifice was not because God considered the female gender inferior; rather was it because He was asking that they offer their most valuable animal to Him, and not their least valuable. And male animals were more valuable than female.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Without blemish" was how Noah was (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>), and how God wished Abraham and all his seed to be (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). We all fail to be perfect; blemishes remain. So perhaps the idea was that the animal represented how the offerer wished to be; but it was only an animal, not a man. And therefore the thought would have arisen that it must surely look forward to some perfect, unblemished human who was the representative of all men. And that was the need which was met in the death of the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He shall offer it at the door of the Tent of Meeting, that he may be accepted before Yahweh- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The offerer personally was to bring it. It was not to be brought by someone else, for sacrifice was to involve personal engagement and not be performed as mere tokenistic ritual through a third party. And that is an abiding principle. The offerer firstly had to enter through the gate into the court, before approaching the altar. The height of the gate meant that most would had to bow their heads. Humility was the first requirement, and this is what made sacrifice acceptable.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Putting the hand on the animal’s head was to show that the animal represented the offerer. He showed thereby that he deserved to die, and wished to give his total life to God just as the animal would be totally offered to God. We see here God’s principle of accepting us on the basis of the representative sacrifice of Christ; the equivalent of our putting our hand on the head of the sacrifice is the act of baptism into Christ and abiding “in Christ”, He being our representative and we being His. The Hebrew means more to the effect of leaning on the head, as if a very intense act of identification was being made.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall slaughter the bull before Yahweh. Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To sprinkle blood upon something didn't necessarily mean the object was forgiven. For an inanimate altar didn't need forgiving. The blood of the covenant was sprinkled (s.w.) upon the people as a sign of their involvement with the covenant process of salvation, rather than as a statement of their forgiveness (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). Likewise with the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb (<em><a href='B:140 35:11'>2Ch 35:11</a></em>). This was an act of identification rather than forgiveness of sin. The function of the altar was valid before God, or efficacious, because of its association with the blood of Christ; for the blood of the animals slain upon it couldn't bring salvation of itself, but only through God's way of looking at that blood is looking ahead to that of His Son (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). And so the altar was associated with the blood which represented His blood.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into pieces-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Every part of our lives, including our most inward parts, are to be offered to God. The process of splitting the offering into its parts speaks of our self-examination, defining each part of our lives and offering them to God consciously.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order on the fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In all the many commands about sacrifices, we must remember that God was not in need of them. If He were hungry, He would not tell <em>us</em> (<em><a href='B:230 50:12'>Psa 50:12</a></em>). The legislation and concepts were therefore purely for our benefit, and that of His people at the time. We therefore need to discern the teaching.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The wood was to be placed in order on the fire (<em><a href='B:30 1:7'>Lev 1:7</a></em>), suggesting the use of several bits of wood to be laid in order, with the parts also laid in order upon them. This was as if each part of the Lord's life (and ours) had its own cross. We think of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the stake of wood, effectively done by the priests who arranged His crucifixion.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but its inward parts and its legs he shall wash with water. The priest shall burn the whole on the altar, for a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is huge emphasis upon the “inward parts” in the regulations about sacrifices. Our inward parts and thoughts of the heart are laid open before God and should be offered to Him, not just the externalities which men see (<em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>). The same word is used of Sarah's laughing "within herself" (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ was so perfect because His innermost thoughts were offered to God. And it is our thoughts when nobody else is watching which are of the essence to God; "to be spiritually minded", as the New Testament expresses it. This is why Yahweh could not go up in "the midst" of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a></em>), because they didn't have Him in their midst. Thus to marry unbelievers would be a snare "in the midst of you" (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>), right in the inner mind which is what God seeks above all. David in the Psalms speaks of the "inward parts" of the human mind, which are critical in God's judgment of a person as wicked or righteous (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a></em>, where "inward thought" is s.w. "inward parts"). It is those inward parts which were to be washed (<em><a href='B:30 1:13'>Lev 1:13</a></em>), just as our innermost heart can be washed by the Spirit which is given at baptism. For this is the gift of the Spirit in the new covenant, whereby God's law is placed within our inward parts (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26-27'>Eze 36:26-27</a></em>) by the God who can form the spirit of man in man's inward parts, the God who can work directly upon the human heart (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his offering is from the flock, from the sheep, or from the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer a male without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall kill it on the north side of the altar before Yahweh. Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Golgotha was on the north side of Jerusalem, and all these sacrifices look ahead to the Lord's death there. The laver was on the west side of the altar, the place of ashes on the east (<em><a href='B:30 1:16'>Lev 1:16</a></em>), and the approach to the altar from the south would have been up a slope to avoid approaching the altar by steps and uncovering nakedness. The north side would have been the only appropriate place for this. So there is an impressive corroboration of the records here, with this command to kill the animals on the north side of the altar.<em></em></p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall cut it into its pieces, with its head and its fat. The priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The offerer "shall cut it into his pieces" (Heb.)- the pieces of the animal were the pieces of the offerer, so the ambiguous genitive suggests. The offerer was represented by the sacrifice. The parts were washed in the water (of the word) before the final crucifying of flesh. But the sacrifice also represented that of the Lord Jesus, as well as of the offerer; for He on the cross was the representative of all God's people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but the inward parts and the legs he shall wash with water. The priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is picked up by Paul in Romans 7 where he says that he delights in God's law after the inward man, or innards. He sees himself as cut open and offered to God. All this provokes powerful self-examination. Does the zeal of God's house consume every part of the offering of our lives as we lay ourselves before Him at the Passover meal? Does it eat us up? Do our faces and words and way of speaking reflect the crucifixion of every part of our lives? Or does our triviality, our inability to spiritually concentrate our minds, our lack of sustained enthusiasm for the Lord's work reflect the fact that we are not like that animal as it lay dead and still in its parts on that altar, that we are not in the spirit of Christ. Our attitudes to money, holidays, relationships, standard of living, commitment to study of the word, zeal for preaching, all raise question marks in our minds. It is easy to take immediate refuge in the fact that salvation is through the grace of the Lord's sacrifice, not works. But before we go on to those sentiments, let us accept that we do all have an urgent need for improvement.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his offering to Yahweh is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall offer his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those who couldn't afford larger animals could offer birds. But these regulations may also apply to those rituals which required a bird to be offered for all (<em><a href='B:30 15:14'>Lev 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:29'>Lev 15:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:10'>Num 6:10</a></em>). Even within the bird offerings there was a gradation. Turtledoves were larger than pigeons and more valuable, but they are only in Israel at certain times of the year (<em><a href='B:260 2:12'>Son 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:7'>Jer 8:7</a></em>); whereas pigeons are in Israel all year round, were easier to catch and were therefore cheaper. The various possible levels within God's law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall bring it to the altar, and wring off its head, and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 1:15'>Lev 1:15</a></em> A.V. mg. stipulates that if the offering was a bird, "pinch off the head with the nail" - as if a nail used in the process, perhaps for nailing the parts to the wood (cp. the nailing of the Lord Jesus to the cross).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he shall take away its crop with its filth, and throw it beside the altar on the east side, in the place of the ashes-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX describes the removal of the feathers, and apparently taking away "the crop with its filth" apparently sounds "as when made ready for cooking". The idea was that this was a meal being prepared, for the idea was that the offerer was eating with God. And despite the humble nature of the meal, God was eating with this offerer. For the altar was effectively the table of Yahweh. The east side was nearest to the exit to the court, so this was the logical place for any refuse to be placed. We marvel at the consistent internal corroboration of the Biblical record.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall tear it by its wings, but shall not divide it apart-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The tearing of the wings was equivalent to the dividing into parts of the larger sacrifices (<em><a href='B:30 1:6'>Lev 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 1:12'>Lev 1:12</a></em>). Only the small size of the bird precluded dividing it.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh’- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘When anyone offers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Anyone", literally "any soul / person", is a term carefully chosen. For women as well as men were encouraged to offer- in contrast to the generally male based system of offerings in the surrounding religions. There is also no age limit- anyone and everyone was encouraged to offer, even a grain offering if they could not manage an animal.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An offering of a grain offering to Yahweh, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil on it, and put frankincense on it-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Frankincense was a type of incense which would have given a pleasing smell to the burning flour. This represented how pleased God was with the offering even of a handful of flour (:2). Small sacrifices please Him immensely. And they are what comprise daily life. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall take his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, with all its frankincense; and the priest shall burn its memorial on the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul writes often that he "makes mention" or 'remembers' his brethren in regular prayer (<em><a href='B:520 1:9'>Rom 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:16'>Eph 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:2'>1Th 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:4'>Phm 1:4</a></em>). The Greek <em>mneia</em> is the word used in the LXX for the "memorial" of the incense or the meal offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:2'>Lev 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 2:16'>Lev 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:15'>Lev 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:7'>Lev 24:7</a></em>), or the constant fire on the altar (<em><a href='B:30 6:12-13'>Lev 6:12-13</a></em>). That fire, that flour, that incense, had to be carefully and consciously prepared; it had to be the result of man's labour. And likewise, Paul seems to be saying, he first of all thought through the cases which he then presented to the Father.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That which is left of the grain offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. It is a most holy thing of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language of "most holy" is juxtaposed against the fact that this was referring to a simple grain offering, a 'little something' offered by literally anyone within Israel (see on :1). But such tiny offerings were "most holy" to God; we think of the Lord's attitude to the widow offering her two small coins.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you offer an offering of a grain offering baked in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God was pleased to accept just flour; but there was the opportunity to bake a cake from the flour and bring that to the altar. For the idea was that the altar was the table of Yahweh, and they were eating with Him. And you don't eat flour together at a meal table, you eat cakes. The various possible levels within God's law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love. See on :14.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If your offering is a grain offering baked in a pan, it shall be of unleavened fine flour, mixed with oil-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul writes of the church in Corinth that God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mixed" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God's Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall cut it in pieces, and pour oil on it. It is a grain offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Every part of our lives, including our most inward parts, are to be offered to God. The process of splitting the offering into its parts speaks of our self-examination, defining each part of our lives and offering them to God consciously. This was taught in the dividing up of the offerings into pieces (see on <em><a href='B:30 1:17'>Lev 1:17</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If your offering is a grain offering of the pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual stress upon the usage of oil (<em>shehmen</em>) may look ahead to the <em>meshiach</em>, the Christ, the anointed one. All aspects of the offerings looked ahead to the Lord Jesus Christ. "The pan" is LXX "the hearth".&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring the grain offering that is made of these things to Yahweh: and it shall be presented to the priest, and he shall bring it to the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how it was the priest who was to place the sacrifices upon the altar. <em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em> surely alludes to this; we are "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (cp. <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take from the grain offering its memorial, and shall burn it on the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That which is left of the grain offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. It is a thing most holy of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "most holy" nature of the humble grain offering is stressed (:3). The grain offering was just a little flour, a 'little something' offered by literally anyone within Israel (see on :1). But such tiny offerings were "most holy" to God; He has a particular interest in those 'little somethings' we offer to Him, and they are very holy to Him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No grain offering, which you shall offer to Yahweh, shall be made with yeast; for you shall burn no yeast, nor any honey, as an offering made by fire to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Even though leaven was prohibited in offerings (<em><a href='B:30 2:11'>Lev 2:11</a></em>), God was willing to accept a peace offering with leaven in it (<em><a href='B:30 7:13'>Lev 7:13</a></em>). Yeast represented sin (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>). Honey and yeast would’ve made the grain pleasing to men; but the lesson was that what pleases people isn’t what is necessarily pleasing to God. He wants a person as they are, from the heart, and wanted to teach that He wants us as we are without any element of fermentation (which yeast and honey produced). God wanted salt and not honey on His food; for the altar is presented as the table of Yahweh at which a man ate with his God. Honey was widely used in pagan sacrifices, and God wished to cut off all possibility of serving idols in the name of Yahweh worship. And yet this is what Israel did, despite His best efforts in this legislation to help them maintain a total separation between such kinds of worship.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As an offering of firstfruits you shall offer them to Yahweh: but they shall not ascend for a pleasant aroma on the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "them" refers to leaven and honey, which could be offered as firstfruit offerings (<em><a href='B:30 23:17'>Lev 23:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 31:5'>2Ch 31:5</a></em>). But they were not to be burnt, but given to the priests. As noted on :11, leaven and honey are associated with fermentation and therefore moral corruption. We may discern here that less than perfect offerings are still welcomed and encouraged by God; such is His desire for engagement with man, and His wish to accept the imperfect offering we bring.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; neither shall you allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The altar was understood as the table of Yahweh, where He ate together with the offerer. To eat bread and salt was a sign of fellowship and acceptance in covenant, and the presence of salt in the sacrifices was therefore insisted upon (<em><a href='B:30 2:13'>Lev 2:13</a></em>). A "covenant of salt" was an eternal covenant (<em><a href='B:40 18:19'>Num 18:19</a></em>). The reminder therefore was that our relationship with God is eternal, not a passing phase in our lives, nor just a mere religious crutch to help us get through this life. For truly, God is man's friend and accepts us at His table. The salt represents gracious speech (<em><a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a></em>) and peace with one another (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>); without these things, no matter how great our sacrifice, it cannot be accepted by God. Hence Jesus taught that we should not offer our sacrifices to God until we have done what we can to get at peace with our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>). Salt was a symbol of covenant relationship with God; yet in the NT this salt stands for love, peace and kind speaking the one to the other (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a></em>). This is the result of true membership in covenant relationship; a true and abiding love for all others in covenant.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you offer a grain offering of first fruits to Yahweh, you shall offer for the grain offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, bruised grain of the fresh ear- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Grain in the ear" is <em>Abib</em>, the month of Passover which was at the time of grain harvest. But "grain in the ear" is literally green ears; just before harvest, some of the immature grain could be offered as a freewill offering. This was an opportunity for higher level of devotion from those eager to show personal gratitude for redemption from Egypt in addition to the Passover. As discussed on :4, here was another opportunity to serve God on the highest level.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put oil on it, and lay frankincense on it: it is a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The incense gave the offering a sweet smell, portraying God's acceptance of it and how pleasing are such 'little things' of freewill sacrifice. The offering of the frankincense was therefore to teach the offerer this. And we must ever remember that God Himself was not in need of such sacrifices of incense. If He were hungry, He would not tell <em>us</em> (<em><a href='B:230 50:12'>Psa 50:12</a></em>). The legislation and concepts were therefore purely for our benefit, and that of His people at the time. We therefore need to discern the teaching.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall burn as its memorial portion part of its crushed grain, and part of its oil, along with all its frankincense: it is an offering made by fire to Yahweh’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "memorial portion" of the offerings was to serve as a reminder to God, as it were, of the covenants which He "remembered"<em>.</em> He of course doesn't forget His covenant but ever remembers it (<em><a href='B:230 105:8'>Psa 105:8</a></em> etc.), yet He is presented in human terms as having His memory rekindled, as it were, by human prayer, faith, situations and sacrifices so that He "remembers the covenant" (<em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:24'>Exo 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:5'>Exo 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:42'>Lev 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:45'>Lev 26:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a></em> and often). The regular sacrifices were such a "memorial" or 'reminder'- both to God and to His people. The place of prayer, regular sacrifice of giving, breaking of bread at the "memorial meeting" etc., are all equivalents for us under the new covenant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offerings; if he offers it from the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall lay his hand on the head of his offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An act of personal identity, looking forward to our acts of identity with the representative sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. Baptism, breaking bread and especially having His spirit and living His kind of life are all the equivalent in our times.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And kill it at the door of the Tent of Meeting: and Aaron’s sons, the priests shall sprinkle the blood around on the altar-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To sprinkle blood upon something didn't necessarily mean the object was forgiven. For an inanimate altar didn't need forgiving. The blood of the covenant was sprinkled (s.w.) upon the people as a sign of their involvement with the covenant process of salvation, rather than as a statement of their forgiveness (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). Likewise with the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb (<em><a href='B:140 35:11'>2Ch 35:11</a></em>). This was an act of identification rather than forgiveness of sin. The function of the altar was valid before God, or efficacious, because of its association with the blood of Christ; for the blood of the animals slain upon it couldn't bring salvation of itself, but only through God's way of looking at that blood is looking ahead to that of His Son (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). And so the altar was associated with the blood which represented His blood.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall offer of the sacrifice of peace offerings an offering made by fire to Yahweh; the fat that covers the inner parts, and all the fat that is on the inward parts-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is huge emphasis upon the “inward parts” in the regulations about sacrifices. Our inward parts and thoughts of the heart are laid open before God and should be offered to Him, not just the externalities which men see (<em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>). The same word is used of Sarah's laughing "within herself" (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ was so perfect because His innermost thoughts were offered to God. And it is our thoughts when nobody else is watching which are of the essence to God; "to be spiritually minded", as the New Testament expresses it. This is why Yahweh could not go up in "the midst" of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a></em>), because they didn't have Him in their midst. Thus to marry unbelievers would be a snare "in the midst of you" (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>), right in the inner mind which is what God seeks above all. David in the Psalms speaks of the "inward parts" of the human mind, which are critical in God's judgment of a person as wicked or righteous (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a></em>, where "inward thought" is s.w. "inward parts"). It is those inward parts which were to be washed (<em><a href='B:30 1:13'>Lev 1:13</a></em>), just as our innermost heart can be washed by the Spirit which is given at baptism. For this is the gift of the Spirit in the new covenant, whereby God's law is placed within our inward parts (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26-27'>Eze 36:26-27</a></em>) by the God who can form the spirit of man in man's inward parts, the God who can work directly upon the human heart (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Take away" is the word usually used for declining, refusing etc. The idea may be that these internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. See on :3.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar on the burnt offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference is to how the daily burnt offering was never to be overlooked<em>,</em> this was to be offered first, and then the voluntary peace offerings on top of that. Regular basic daily disciplines are so important in spiritual life. Any extra activity must not be allowed to take away from them.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to Yahweh is from the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he offers a lamb for his offering, then he shall offer it before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although peace offerings were completely voluntary, they were not to think that therefore they could not respect God’s holiness and give Him that which was second best (:6) or offer it where they liked. Many of the sacrifices we make to God are likewise not compulsory, but the spirit of giving God the best which permeates the Law of Moses should remain with us. We may be able to deduce that peace offerings could be offered in other places, and there appear to be examples of that in later scripture; but if a lamb was offered, it must be "before Yahweh", seeing that the lamb particularly looked ahead to the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus "before Yahweh".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he shall lay his hand on the head of his offering, and kill it before the Tent of Meeting: and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To lay the hand upon is a phrase which means more than merely touching the head, but implies leaning upon or pushing upon. It is rendered "lean his hand (upon a wall)" (<em><a href='B:370 5:19'>Amo 5:19</a></em>). It was an act of very conscious identity. The same phrase is used of how God's hand upholds those who spiritually fall (<em><a href='B:230 37:24'>Psa 37:24</a></em>). So we see the mutuality of relationship between God and man. We strongly place our hand upon the offering of the Lord Jesus, and God places His hand upon us. Paul may have this idea in view when he speaks of how he grabs hold of Jesus and is grabbed hold of by Jesus (<em>Php_3:12</em>); just as the Lord seized hold of Peter drowning in the lake, as Peter grabbed hold of Him. That incident surely was a mini parable of our redemption.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall offer from the sacrifice of peace offerings an offering made by fire to Yahweh; its fat, the entire tail fat, he shall take away close to the backbone; and the fat that covers the inwards, and all the fat that is on the inwards- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is as in LXX "the fat (even) the fat tail" (as <em><a href='B:30 3:9'>Lev 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:3'>Lev 7:3</a></em>). There were species of sheep with a large fatty tail, which was considered in their culture to be a great delicacy. We see here how the law of Moses was limited in application to an immediate context, and was simply not intended to be a global law for all time. But the take away lesson is that we are to give to God whatever is for us, in our culture and worldview, the best and most desirous.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Take away" is the word usually used for declining, refusing etc. The idea may be that these internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. David came to understand that all the Mosaic emphasis upon the "kidneys" was because they represented the inner heart or mind. He often uses the word to describe his innermost thoughts (<em><a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 16:7'>Psa 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:21'>Psa 73:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:13'>Psa 139:13</a></em>). Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:300 11:20'>Jer 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:12'>Jer 20:12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "kidneys" is a form of the word for "jewel"; for the innermost core thoughts of a person are so precious to God.&nbsp; Likewise the Hebrew for "liver" is literally 'that which he heaviest / most valuable'. For the innermost thoughts are the weighty things to God. We see here the supreme importance of being spiritually minded. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall burn it on the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The metaphor invites us to see the altar as God’s table, at which He as it were ate the sacrifices. At the breaking of bread service, we come to the table of the Lord (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>); the offering we bring is ourselves. And yet God has placed on the altar, on the table before us, the sacrifice of His Son, and invites us to eat with Him there. Eating with someone was understood as a sign of religious fellowship. At the breaking of bread, we are therefore celebrating our living fellowship with God Himself.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The peace offering was the "food (also translated "bread") of the offering made... unto the Lord" (<em><a href='B:30 3:11'>Lev 3:11</a></em>). The peace offering was therefore God's food, or bread. Yet the offerer was invited to eat the bread of God. This implied that when the offerer sat down to eat the food, as it were, God was sitting with him, also eating of it. This was symbolized in human terms by the fact that the priest, as God's representative, ate part of the peace offering, while the offerer ate the other part. Presumably they sat down together to do this. The closeness of God which this implies is almost beyond our comprehension. We are invited to see the exquisite beauty of true fellowship with God. The idea of eating the bread of God, the sacrifice which represents His son, and thereby having fellowship with Him, should send our minds forward to John 6. "The bread of God is He which comes down from heaven", i.e. our Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:33'>Joh 6:33</a></em>). Not for nothing do some Rabbis speak of 'eating Messiah' as an expression of the fellowship they hope to have with Him at His coming.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his offering is a goat, then he shall offer it before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God is eager for fellowship with man, and wanted by all means to eat with man through the peace offerings. It seems there were various kinds of animals which could be used, in accordance with the possibilities of the offer<em>er. </em>The goat appears to be the lowest rank. The various possible levels within God's law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he shall lay his hand on its head, and kill it before the Tent of Meeting; and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David rejoiced in God's mercy to him, perhaps in the context of his sin with Bathsheba. He asks: "What shall I render unto the Lord for all his (spiritual) benefits toward me?" . He decides that he will offer a peace offering: "I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving (the peace offering; <em><a href='B:30 7:12'>Lev 7:12</a></em>)... I will take the cup of salvation... I will pay my vows... in the presence of all his people... in the courts of the Lord's house". As we sit "before the Lord" at the memorial meeting, beholding the cross of Christ and the blood of Calvary, we should be intensely aware of God's great benefits towards us: our salvation assured, sin forgiven, peace with God. Our response should be to renew our vows joyfully, in the ecclesia, God's house, in the presence of His people, as we eat the peace offering, the sacrifice of thanksgiving. As the peace offering was to be offered publicly, "before the tabernacle of the congregation" (<em><a href='B:30 3:13'>Lev 3:13</a></em>), so in the sight of each other we too renew our vows and express our peace with God. And if we are all at peace with God, we should therefore be at peace with each other.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall offer from it as his offering, an offering made by fire to Yahweh; the fat that covers the inward parts, and all the fat that is on the inward parts,</em><em>-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The inward man of <em><a href='B:520 7:22'>Rom 7:22</a></em> is what is so important; yet the LXX in <em><a href='B:30 3:14-16'>Lev 3:14-16</a></em> uses the same word to describe the fat surrounding the intestines, which God appeared to so value in the sacrifices. It was not that He wanted that fat in itself; but rather He saw that fat as representing a man's essential spirituality, that which is developed close to the heart, unseen by others, but revealed after death.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :10; the legislation is identical.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall burn them on the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma; all the fat is Yahweh’s- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The offerer put his hand on its head, thereby associating himself with it. In a sense, the animal therefore represented the offerer. But it had to be "without blemish" (<em><a href='B:30 3:1'>Lev 3:1</a></em>), and to produce a "sweet savour" when burnt (<em><a href='B:30 3:16'>Lev 3:16</a></em>). But how are we to offer ourselves as an unblemished sacrifice? We are surely each aware of our desperate sinfulness. The answer is in the fact that the language of the peace offering sacrifice is applied to Jesus. "He is our peace" (<em><a href='B:560 2:14'>Eph 2:14</a></em>), our peace offering by metonymy (in the same way as Christ was made "sin" for us, i.e. a sin offering). He is the unblemished animal (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>), and if we are in Christ, we too will be counted as being without spot and blemish (<em><a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a></em>). We ought to know whether we are in Christ. If we are, we will be seen by God as just as pure as He is.<em></em></p>


text:
<em>It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood’- </em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fat was understood as the best part of the animal, although today for health reasons we tend to consider the meat to be of more interest than the fat. They were to give to God that which they perceived to be the most valuable and not keep it for themselves, within the frames of understanding and perception within which they then lived. They were not to indulge themselves on what seemed best to them, but to offer it to God. And that principle applies to us. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God spoke to Moses, who then spoke to the Israelites (:2). He is presented as mediator between God and man, looking ahead to the greater prophet like him, Messiah, the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone sins unintentionally, in any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and does any one of them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the legislation about the cities of refuge likewise reflected God's special concern about unintentional sin. He recognizes that there are different kinds of sin. And in this we see His sensitivity, for the other legal codes at the time saw everything in black and white terms of obedience or disobedience to legal statutes. The word for "unintentionally" is s.w. 'deceived' (<em><a href='B:220 12:16'>Job 12:16</a></em>). It could be that God also recognizes that some are deceived into sin, and therefore treats those who lead into sin more severely than those who are led into sin. Likewise the New Testament condemns false teachers, but seems to be more acceptive of the falsely taught, the misguided.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he has sinned, a young bull without blemish to Yahweh for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sins of ignorance still needed to be atoned for. Sin is a felt offence against God, whether or not we were aware of it at the time. If we accidentally step on someone’s foot and they don’t tell us about it until tomorrow, it doesn’t mean that we didn’t hurt them at the time. The sins we committed before baptism, in ignorance, were still felt by God and need atonement- which is available freely through being “in Christ”. David asked to be forgiven for the sins he committed which he didn’t know about (<em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>). We should pray the same. But this means we are asking for forgiveness for sin which we haven’t specifically repented of. We should likewise forgive others for their sins which although <em>we</em> so clearly feel them, they themselves don’t realize they have committed them. We can, if we wish, insist that we shall only forgive those who repent to us of their sins. But the problem with that approach is that <em>as </em>we forgive others, the basis we choose upon which to relate to them, so we will be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>). If we trust we are forgiven for sins we aren’t conscious of, even though they are very clear to God and felt by Him, then we ought to forgive others for their sins even when they don’t perceive (at this point in their spiritual journey) that they have sinned.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall bring the bull to the door of the Tent of Meeting before Yahweh; and he shall lay his hand on the head of the bull, and kill the bull before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To lay the hand upon is a phrase which means more than merely touching the head, but implies leaning upon or pushing upon. It is rendered "lean his hand (upon a wall)" (<em><a href='B:370 5:19'>Amo 5:19</a></em>). It was an act of very conscious identity. The same phrase is used of how God's hand upholds those who spiritually fall (<em><a href='B:230 37:24'>Psa 37:24</a></em>). So we see the mutuality of relationship between God and man. We strongly place our hand upon the offering of the Lord Jesus, and God places His hand upon us. Paul may have this idea in view when he speaks of how he grabs hold of Jesus and is grabbed hold of by Jesus (<em>Php_3:12</em>); just as the Lord seized hold of Peter drowning in the lake, as Peter grabbed hold of Him. That incident surely was a mini parable of our redemption.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The anointed priest shall take some of the blood of the bull, and bring it to the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed one’, and so Jewish minds would have associated ‘Jesus Christ’ with the priest who saves (‘Jesus’ means ‘Yahweh’s salvation’).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before Yahweh, before the veil of the sanctuary- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The blood of the sin offering was to be sprinkled “before the LORD, before the veil" (<em><a href='B:30 4:6'>Lev 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:17'>Lev 4:17</a></em>). Yet the veil was a symbol of the flesh of the Lord Jesus at the time of His dying. At the time of the sprinkling of blood when the sin offering was made, the veil (the flesh of the Lord Jesus) was identifiable with Yahweh Himself. The blood of the offerings was poured out “before Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 4:15'>Lev 4:15</a></em> etc.), pointing forward to how God Himself, from so physically far away, “came down" so that the blood shedding of His Son was done as it were in His presence. And who is to say that the theophany that afternoon, of earthquake and thick darkness, was not the personal presence of Yahweh, hovering above crucifixion hill? Over the mercy seat (a symbol of the Lord Jesus in Hebrews), between the cherubim where the blood was sprinkled, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee" (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>). There we see the essence of God, and there in the cross we hear the essential word and message of God made flesh.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices around the altar is mentioned several times, but only for the sin offering do we read that the priest was to sprinkle it with his finger. This perhaps pointed forward to how there was to be a very personal connection between the priest and the atonement made for others, just as there was between the Lord Jesus and the atonement He made for us. The blood would presumably have made the priest unclean and unable to further officiate, again looking forward to the ending of the priestly function through the blood of the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before Yahweh, which is in the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sweetness of the incense speaks of how pleasing is prayer to God; for incense represents prayer later in the Bible. But that acceptability and pleasure is dependent upon confession of sin, and the sacrifice of the blood of the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And he shall pour out all of the rest of the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the Tent of Meeting-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We think of the blood of Christ trickling down the stake to the ground.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall take all the fat of the bull of the sin offering off of it: the fat that covers the inward parts, and all the fat that is on the inward parts- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is huge emphasis upon the “inward parts” in the regulations about sacrifices. Our inward parts and thoughts of the heart are laid open before God and should be offered to Him, not just the externalities which men see (<em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>). The same word is used of Sarah's laughing "within herself" (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ was so perfect because His innermost thoughts were offered to God. And it is our thoughts when nobody else is watching which are of the essence to God; "to be spiritually minded", as the New Testament expresses it. This is why Yahweh could not go up in "the midst" of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a></em>), because they didn't have Him in their midst. Thus to marry unbelievers would be a snare "in the midst of you" (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>), right in the inner mind which is what God seeks above all. David in the Psalms speaks of the "inward parts" of the human mind, which are critical in God's judgment of a person as wicked or righteous (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a></em>, where "inward thought" is s.w. "inward parts"). It is those inward parts which were to be washed (<em><a href='B:30 1:13'>Lev 1:13</a></em>), just as our innermost heart can be washed by the Spirit which is given at baptism. For this is the gift of the Spirit in the new covenant, whereby God's law is placed within our inward parts (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26-27'>Eze 36:26-27</a></em>) by the God who can form the spirit of man in man's inward parts, the God who can work directly upon the human heart (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Take away" is the word usually used for declining, refusing etc. The idea may be that these internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. David came to understand that all the Mosaic emphasis upon the "kidneys" was because they represented the inner heart or mind. He often uses the word to describe his innermost thoughts (<em><a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 16:7'>Psa 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:21'>Psa 73:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:13'>Psa 139:13</a></em>). Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:300 11:20'>Jer 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:12'>Jer 20:12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "kidneys" is a form of the word for "jewel"; for the innermost core thoughts of a person are so precious to God.&nbsp; Likewise the Hebrew for "liver" is literally 'that which he heaviest / most valuable'. For the innermost thoughts are the weighty things to God. We see here the supreme importance of being spiritually minded.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>as it is taken off of the bull of the sacrifice of peace offerings. The priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The emphasized similarity with the peace offering was because the idea of the sin offering was to restore peace with God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The bull’s skin, all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, its inward parts, and its dung-&nbsp; </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is, "the whole bull" (:12). In the same way as we cannot choose to live in isolation from the Father and Son, so we cannot separate ourselves from others who bear the same Name. The Scribe well understood all this: "There is one God... and to love him... and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:480 12:32-33'>Mar 12:32-33</a></em>). Those whole offerings represented the whole body of Israel (<em><a href='B:30 4:7-15'>Lev 4:7-15</a></em>). The Scribe understood that those offerings taught that all Israel were unified together on account of their bearing the same Name of Yahweh. We must love others who bear that Name "as ourselves", so intense is the unity between us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even the whole bull shall he carry forth outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire. Where the ashes are poured out it shall be burned- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorosa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (<em><a href='B:30 4:12'>Lev 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:21'>Lev 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:11'>Lev 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (<em><a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:3-4'>Num 5:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:35-36'>Num 15:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:13'>Num 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:19'>Num 31:19</a></em>), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the whole congregation of Israel sins, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and are guilty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "and they should do one thing forbidden of any of the commands of the Lord". James may have this in mind when he says that obeying all the law but breaking just one commandment will lead to condemnation (<em><a href='B:660 2:10'>Jas 2:10</a></em>). His argument becomes all the more powerful if he is alluding here, for the point is then made that this holds true even if that one commandment is broken in ignorance. Clearly the only way to justification with God is through faith in the Lord Jesus.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>when the sin in which they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer a young bull for a sin offering, and bring it before the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The closest historical example of this is when Josiah discovered the book of the law, and realized that Israel were guilty of disobedience in ignorance. But he did far more than follow the ritual prescribed here. See on <em><a href='B:30 6:5'>Lev 6:5</a></em>. Again we see how the Mosaic law was not a chain, a wearisome and limiting leash upon man, but rather a springboard to using personal initiative to respond to the principles taught- often to a far greater extent than mere obedience to the letter of the law. We see this in the way Boaz interpreted the Levirate law, and also the laws about allowing gleaning.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before Yahweh; and the bull shall be killed before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Before the priests who represented God. God Himself is in Heaven, but His representatives on earth are functionally Him to other people. We must therefore watch our behaviour and who we are, because we who have been baptized into His Name are His representatives on earth.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The anointed priest shall bring of the blood of the bull to the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sins of ignorance were the only offerings where the offering was to be brought to the tent of meeting, to be taken beyond the altar of burnt offering. It emphasized the gravity of what had been done; that God was especially interested in how man responds once he becomes aware of his failures. And that is an abiding principle.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before Yahweh, before the veil-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This describes the priest as sprinkling the blood "before the LORD, even before the veil". This implies that the veil and the "LORD" were associated, as if the Angel, the 'LORD', was just behind the veil, i.e. in the Most Holy. See on <em><a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a></em>. The rending of the veil at the Lord's death therefore as it were displayed God Himself to men.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before Yahweh, that is in the Tent of Meeting; and the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The altar in view is that of incense (as in :7). The ritual of the offering was very similar to that for the high priest if he personally realized he had sinned. Perhaps there is to be deduced the idea that the high priest was representative of all Israel. They were in him, and he was in them. This looks ahead to the representative nature of the Lord's sacrifice and relationship with His people; as a representative and not a substitute.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All its fat he shall take from it, and burn it on the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If the sacrifice was to be treated as the high priest's sin offering (:20), we can assume this included the kidneys etc.; see on :9.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again and again the point is made- atonement and forgiveness was still required even for sins of ignorance. The hurt to God had still been caused. Repentance was still needed. Otherwise there would be a disinterest in learning God's ways, a preference to remain in ignorance. Whereas once we grasp that sins of ignorance are still culpable sins, we will rather be motivated to learn all we can of God's ways. If we love God, we will want to please Him, we will want to know what He wishes from us, we will desire to learn His ways.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall carry forth the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull. It is the sin offering for the assembly- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He needed help to carry an entire bull, hence LXX "they shall carry forth the calf whole without the camp".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a ruler sins, and unwittingly does any one of all the things which Yahweh his God has commanded not to be done, and is guilty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we note that guilt is still reckoned even for past sins of ignorance. See on :20.&nbsp;We don't read "<em>If</em> a ruler sins...", but "when". This ought to have warned Israel against desiring a human king; they were being reminded that all human leadership has feet of clay, and leaders sin.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>if his sin, in which he has sinned, is made known to him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The double emphasis that he "has sinned" must be noted; ignorance doesn't work some kind of automatic atonement for sin. See on :20. "Is made known to him" could suggest he has his sin pointed out to him. We think of the situation with king Uzziah in <em><a href='B:140 26:18'>2Ch 26:18</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without blemish- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before Yahweh. It is a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "lay his hand", see on :4. The scenario presented here is quite counter instinctive, especially in the societies of those days. You didn't point out sin to a leader (:23), and he typically would be proud and angry rather than humbly penitent.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. He shall pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>On one level, God surely foreknew that the scenario here described, whereby leaders of Israel humbly accepted rebuke and followed this ritual, was just not going to happen. And yet the whole legislation was given because this was God's hope. We think of all the detailed legislation of Ezekiel 40-48 for the exiles, in order that they might restore the temple. But it was not obeyed. This is one of the most tragic dimensions of God- setting up so much potential which is wasted. Perhaps David alludes to this legislation when he laments that there was no sacrifice prescribed for a king who had sinned as he had; for his sins were not those of ignorance but of presumption.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin, and he will be forgiven- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record of the sin offering in <em><a href='B:30 4:10'>Lev 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:26'>Lev 4:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:31'>Lev 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:35'>Lev 4:35</a></em> stresses an impressive four times that the animal was to be prepared and offered in a similar way to the peace offerings, (e.g.) "as the fat is taken away from the peace offering”. This serves to emphasize the link between the two sacrifices; the peace offering was in gratitude and rejoicing for the peace of sins forgiven. For this reason it was totally voluntary.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If anyone of the common people sins unwittingly, in doing any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and is guilty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "and they should do one thing forbidden of any of the commands of the Lord". See on :13. "The common&nbsp; people" is literally 'the people of the land /<em> eretz</em>', a phrase which usually refers to the non-Israelite peoples within the land promised to Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 23:7'>Gen 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 42:6'>Gen 42:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:28'>Num 13:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:24'>Jos 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:43'>1Ki 8:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:53'>1Ki 8:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 5:25'>1Ch 5:25</a></em> etc.). This would be the likely understanding of the phrase here (and in <em><a href='B:30 20:2'>Lev 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:4'>Lev 20:4</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>if his sin, which he has sinned, is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ruler was to offer a male, but the common person was to offer a female. It may simply be because female animals cost less, and the ruler was to realize that he had greater responsibility in his failure and needed to show this in the kind of sacrifice he made.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The person had to personally kill the animal, not delegate it to a priest or someone else. It would’ve been an unpleasant experience, but designed to teach the seriousness of sin. ‘This animal has done nothing wrong; it’s <em>me</em> who ought to be dying for my sin’ would’ve been the thought of all sensitive, spiritually minded people who did this. And this is our thought as we survey the cross with the son of God dying upon it for our sins.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because the altar represented the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>), it has been wrongly argued that these rituals speak of the cleansing of the nature of the Lord Jesus by His own death. This runs far too close to making the Lord Jesus a sinner who needed reconciliation with God; whereas His perfect character made Him for ever "one" with His Father, both before and after His death. Rather I suggest the blood of the sin offering was placed on the altar (and other items) in order to demonstrate how they achieved any forgiveness of sin. They only functioned in practice through their identification with the blood of Christ, represented by that of the bull slain as a sin offering. It as impossible that the blood of a bull could take away sin; it only functioned in this way insofar as God foresaw the blood of His Son (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). The horns of the altar were perceived as the place of salvation for sinners (<em><a href='B:110 1:51'>1Ki 1:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 2:28'>1Ki 2:28</a></em>). But this was only finally to be true through the power of the blood of Christ. This idea was taught by the daubing of sin offering blood on the horns of the altar- as an act of identification of the altar with the blood, rather than to somehow make the metal of an unclean altar now clean. The whole system was dedicated to God, and accepted by Him, only through its association with the future blood of the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All its fat he shall take away, like the fat is taken away from off of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "female" see on :28. This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Many of the offerers would never have killed an animal. The experience would have been traumatic for some of them, and a powerful lesson in the effect of sin, even if committed unwittingly.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The base of the altar" points ahead to the significance of the blood at the foot of the cross of the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All its fat he shall take away, like the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin that he has sinned, and he will be forgiven’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sin of crucifying the Lord Jesus is very generously presented as a sin of ignorance by the Lord's saying that “they know not what they do”, confirmed by Peter's appeal to repent although “Through ignorance you did it” (<em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em>). Repentance was therefore encouraged on the basis of having had sin made known to them. And the offering for that sin had already been made, in the Lord's death. Their sin of (apparent) ignorance was therefore in fact the forgiveness for their sin- if they actualized it by recognition and repentance.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘If anyone sins, in that he hears the a legal call to testify, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he doesn’t speak, then he shall bear his iniquity-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sins of omission, of turning a blind eye, are just as culpable as sins of commission. If we are witnesses, we will bear witness; we will naturally. We have to; and note how <em><a href='B:30 5:1'>Lev 5:1</a></em> taught that it was a sin not to bear witness / testify when one had been a witness. This may well be consciously alluded to in the language of witness which we have in <em><a href='B:490 24:48'>Luk 24:48</a></em>. We each have the witness of the Lord's resurrection in ourselves (<em><a href='B:690 5:10'>1Jn 5:10</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or if anyone touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean animal, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and it is hidden from him, and he is unclean, then he shall be guilty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Haggai comments that it was easier to be made unclean than to be made clean; touching holy things didn’t impart holiness to a person, whereas touching unclean things made people unclean (<em><a href='B:440 2:11-14'>Hag 2:11-14</a></em>). It’s easy to be made unspiritual by association with unspiritual things, the things which are dead, which have no spiritual life in them, which are going nowhere- hence Paul alludes to this by saying “Touch not the unclean thing” in the context of appealing for believers to quit worldly associations (<em><a href='B:540 6:17'>2Co 6:17</a></em>). However, on the other hand, this is no proof for the wrong idea of ‘guilt by association’. The Lord Jesus touched lepers in order to heal them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or if he touches the uncleanness of man, whatever his uncleanness is with which he is unclean, and it is hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sins of ignorance still needed to be atoned for. Sin is a felt offence against God, whether or not we were aware of it at the time. If we accidentally step on someone’s foot and they don’t tell us about it until tomorrow, it doesn’t mean that we didn’t hurt them at the time. The sins we committed before baptism, in ignorance, were still felt by God and need atonement- which is available freely through being “in Christ”. David asked to be forgiven for the sins he committed which he didn’t know about (<em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>). We should pray the same. But this means we are asking for forgiveness for sin which we haven’t specifically repented of. We should likewise forgive others for their sins which although <em>we</em> so clearly feel them, they themselves don’t realize they have committed them. We can, if we wish, insist that we shall only forgive those who repent to us of their sins. But the problem with that approach is that <em>as </em>we forgive others, the basis we choose upon which to relate to them, so we will be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>). If we trust we are forgiven for sins we aren’t conscious of, even though they are very clear to God and felt by Him, then we ought to forgive others for their sins even when they don’t perceive (at this point in their spiritual journey) that they have sinned.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or if anyone swears rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatever it is that a man might utter rashly with an oath, and it is hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty of one of these-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX speaks in harsher terms of the man who swears rashly: "That unrighteous soul, which determines with his lips to do evil or to do good...". The idea would be that even a desire to do good was rendered unrighteous through the huge sin of swearing rashly. It would seem that Jephthah's rash vow falls in this category. He need not have performed it, had he been aware of the legislation here. Or perhaps he intentionally chose not to perform it. Maybe he rose up to a higher level than the following the letter of the law here; or maybe like Saul wishing to slay his son Jonathan, there was a death wish against his daughter. These questions are intentionally left open in the inspired text, as there is some designed benefit from our reflection upon them.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be, when he is guilty of one of these, he shall confess that in which he has sinned- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The normal Hebrew word translated "praise" is also translated "confess" in the context of confessing sin (<em><a href='B:30 5:5'>Lev 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21'>Lev 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:40'>Lev 26:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:7'>Num 5:7</a></em>). Contrition of heart because of appreciating our own failures is therefore one way of praising Yahweh's Name. So often does the word "praise" occur in the context of praising the <em>Name</em> of Yahweh, or the praising of "the God of Israel", i.e. Yahweh. Praise is related to the realization that sin has been forgiven. Hezekiah's praise on realizing God's mercy to him was expressed in a desire to walk in quiet fellowship with God for the rest of his life. There is no suggestion that praise was some kind of ecstatic exuberance of emotion<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"His sin... he has sinned... his sin" labours the fact that sins of ignorance are really sin. And must be dealt with. It emphasized the gravity of what had been done; that God was especially interested in how man responds once he becomes aware of his failures. And that is an abiding principle.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he can’t afford a lamb, then he shall bring his trespass offering for that in which he has sinned, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, to Yahweh; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "His trespass which he hath committed" labours the point that sin of ignorance really is still sin. The usual order of the description of the offerings is sin offering, then burnt offering (speaking of dedication promised after the receipt of forgiveness) and then the peace offering, celebrating peace with God through forgiveness and commitment to the dedicated life, spoken of in the burnt offering.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one which is for the sin offering, and wring off its head from its neck, but shall not sever it completely- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A.V. mg. stipulates that if the offering was a bird, "pinch off the head with the nail" - as if a nail used in the process, perhaps for nailing the parts to the wood (cp. the nailing of the Lord Jesus to the cross).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering on the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The base of the altar" points ahead to the significance of the blood at the foot of the cross of the Lord Jesus. See on <em><a href='B:30 4:30'>Lev 4:30</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin which he has sinned, and he shall be forgiven- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sin offering always preceded the burnt offering, which represented dedication to God. Before we can acceptably dedicate ourselves to God in any enterprise or aspect of our lives, we must first be right with God, cleansed from our sins; for good works alone cannot compensate for the sin we have committed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he can’t afford two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that in which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Even within the bird offerings there was a gradation. Turtledoves were larger than pigeons and more valuable, but they are only in Israel at certain times of the year (<em><a href='B:260 2:12'>Son 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:7'>Jer 8:7</a></em>); whereas pigeons are in Israel all year round, were easier to catch and were therefore cheaper. The various possible levels within God's law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. It is a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "memorial portion" of the offerings was to serve as a reminder to God, as it were, of the covenants which He "remembered"<em>.</em> He of course doesn't forget His covenant but ever remembers it (<em><a href='B:230 105:8'>Psa 105:8</a></em> etc.), yet He is presented in human terms as having His memory rekindled, as it were, by human prayer, faith, situations and sacrifices so that He "remembers the covenant" (<em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:24'>Exo 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:5'>Exo 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:42'>Lev 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:45'>Lev 26:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a></em> and often). The regular sacrifices were such a "memorial" or 'reminder'- both to God and to His people. The place of prayer, regular sacrifice of giving, breaking of bread at the "memorial meeting" etc., are all equivalents for us under the new covenant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin that he has sinned in any of these things, and he will be forgiven; and the rest shall be the priest’s, as the grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God thirsts for relationship with us, and doesn’t want human poverty to mean that we can’t get atonement. In Bible times, religion was the hobby of the wealthy; yet God wants relationship with all. Although it was a principle that shedding of blood was required for forgiveness of sins (<em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>), God was prepared to allow a non-blood sacrifice if this was all a person had to offer. Aware of this, <em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em> says that “<em>almost</em> all things” under the Law were cleansed by the shedding of blood- but not literally all, because the writer knew that there was this possibility of offering flour offerings instead of the required animal. The fact God is prepared to make concessions to human weakness shouldn’t lead us to any spirit of minimalism in how we consider sin or the standards of God’s holiness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>, Leviticus is largely teachings specifically addressed to the Levites, so the unwitting sin with "holy things" (:15) refers specifically to the Levites making unintentional errors.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If anyone commits a trespass, and sins unwittingly, in the holy things of Yahweh; then he shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish from the flock, according to your estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall make restitution for that which he has done wrong in the holy thing, and shall add a fifth part to it, and give it to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and he will be forgiven- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Done wrong" is "for the harm that he has done". I find this wonderful; a sin of ignorance, an unintentional mishandling of Divine things, causes "harm"- to the sensitive soul of God Himself. A French proverb says that to understand all (as God does) is to forgive all; but it also means to be hurt by all so much the more. Just as little children assume their parents are insensitive and mere rocks of strength and provision, so we can fail to appreciate our Heavenly Father's sensitivity. Love, promises, covenant relationship, feeling for others, revealing yourself to the object of your love- this is all part of what it means for this sensitive God to enter covenant relationship with us. See on <em><a href='B:30 19:12'>Lev 19:12</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If anyone sins, and does any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done; though he didn’t know it, yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus Christ knew from Isaiah 53 that He was to bear Israel's sins, that the judgments for their sins were to fall upon Him. Israel ‘bore their iniquities’ by being condemned for them (<em><a href='B:40 14:34-35'>Num 14:34-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:17'>Lev 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:17'>Lev 20:17</a></em>); to be a sin bearer was therefore to be one condemned. To die in punishment for your sin was to bear you sin. There is a difference between sin, and sin being laid upon a person. <em><a href='B:40 12:11'>Num 12:11</a></em> brings this out: “Lay not the sin upon us… wherein we have sinned”. The idea of sin being laid upon a person therefore refers to condemnation for sin. Our sin being laid upon Jesus therefore means that He was treated <em>as if</em> He were a condemned sinner. He briefly endured within Him the torment of soul which the condemned will feel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall bring a ram without blemish from of the flock, according to your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were not to grow some crops, or raise some animals, just for God, and others for themselves. They were not to make this difference. They were to give Him e.g. lambs "out of their flock"; not enforcing a difference between that which is for God and that which is for ourselves. In other words, they were not to make a difference between spiritual and personal life; it is us, our daily lives and situations, which God wishes to be part of.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Concerning the thing in which he sinned and didn’t know it, and he will be forgiven- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the legislation about the cities of refuge likewise reflected God's special concern about unintentional sin. He recognizes that there are different kinds of sin. And in this we see His sensitivity, for the other legal codes at the time saw everything in black and white terms of obedience or disobedience to legal statutes. The word for "didn't know it" or "unintentionally" is s.w. 'deceived' (<em><a href='B:220 12:16'>Job 12:16</a></em>). It could be that God also recognizes that some are deceived into sin, and therefore treats those who lead into sin more severely than those who are led into sin. Likewise the New Testament condemns false teachers, but seems to be more acceptive of the falsely taught, the misguided.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It is a trespass offering. He is certainly guilty before Yahweh’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Certainly guilty" continues the great emphasis upon the fact that atonement and forgiveness was still required even for sins of ignorance. The hurt to God had still been caused. Repentance was still needed. Otherwise there would be a disinterest in learning God's ways, a preference to remain in ignorance. Whereas once we grasp that sins of ignorance are still culpable sins, we will rather be motivated to learn all we can of God's ways. If we love God, we will want to please Him, we will want to know what He wishes from us, we will desire to learn His ways.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We will read now about theft and fraud (:2-7), and then the text goes straight on to speak of burnt offerings (:8,9). Perhaps the connection in thought is that these words have specifically in view the temptation to steal from others and then offer the stolen goods as an offering to Yahweh- which is exactly the problem addressed in <em><a href='B:290 61:8'>Isa 61:8</a></em>. So it clearly was a problem in Israel. See on :7. The principle is that we are not to offer to Yahweh that which cost us nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>) and that is the abiding take away lesson.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>’If anyone sins, and commits a trespass against Yahweh, and deals falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit, or of bargain, or of robbery, or has oppressed his neighbour-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The oppression in view is things like not paying him his hire every day (<em><a href='B:50 24:14-15'>Deu 24:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:13'>Lev 19:13</a></em>). "Oppress" is the same word translated "deceive"; to not oppress others through deceiving them would elicit the heaviest judgment from God, when the person realized the deception and cried to God because of it (<em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>). Deceiving / oppressing a neighbour was a sin against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:30 6:2'>Lev 6:2</a></em> s.w.), because He has a special interest in the poor. And His law reflects that. We should likewise have such a special interest, rather than ever seeking to analyze why people are poor. Fraud and oppression were Israel's experience in Egypt. Constantly, the law of Moses urges them to remember their spiritual biography, and this awareness is intended to elicit grace to others, never treating them as Israel were treated in Egypt. Our lives before baptism were lived as it were in Egypt (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), and so the principle applies to us too.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or has found that which was lost, and dealt falsely therein, and swearing to a lie; in any of all these things that a man does, sinning therein- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Found that which was lost" is the phrase quoted by the Lord Jesus in His parables of the lost sheep and coin (<em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>). He had engaged with these same words which we are reading. Finding the lost was to be a source of open joy, rather than being used secretly for personal advantage and benefit. And so it is with all pastoral work in finding the lost.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he has gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was committed to him, or the lost thing which he found-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Robbery was effectively what the exaggeration, mind games, manipulation, white lies and deceitful dealing of :2 was reckoned as. These things creep in so easily into any business dealings between people; and God sees them as robbery.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or any thing about which he has sworn falsely; he shall restore it even in full, and shall add a fifth part more to it. To him to whom it belongs he shall give it, in the day of his being found guilty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Broken relationships were to be restored as quickly as possible "in the day", so the restoration was to be made immediately. In all human failure, reconciliation involves some level of restoration, be it verbal or material. Zacchaeus alludes to this when he says that he would restore fourfold that which he had stolen by deceit. This was far more than the "fifth part" required by the law (<em><a href='B:490 19:8'>Luk 19:8</a></em>). Again we see how the Mosaic law was not a chain, a wearisome and limiting leash upon man, as if he were a dog ever miserably constrained from what he would like to do; but rather a springboard to using personal initiative to respond to the principles taught- often to a far greater extent than mere obedience to the letter of the law. We see this in the way Boaz interpreted the Levirate law, and also the laws about allowing gleaning. See <em><a href='B:30 4:14'>Lev 4:14</a></em> for another example.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish from the flock- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is a reminder that we are reading commandments addressed to the Levites. Many stolen things were in forms other than money, so they had to estimate what was a fifth amount of the value of the stolen sheep, or whatever.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh, and he will be forgiven concerning whatever he has done to become guilty’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"To become guilty" could equally be translated "in the presentation of a sin offering". And this would connect with the suggestion on :1, that we may be here dealing specifically with a case of a person stealing from others in order to make the sin offering required for some earlier sin.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :1 for the connection between the following laws of the burnt offering, and the preceding commandments about fraud.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the burnt offering: the burnt offering shall be on the hearth on the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that there was not to be a moment, night or day, when the principle of sacrifice was not being demonstrated. And this should feature in our lives. But the lamb specifically looked ahead to the Lord Jesus. There is a sense in which His sacrifice for us is eternally ongoing.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall put on his linen garment, and he shall put on his linen breeches upon his body; and he shall remove the ashes from where the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the garment of <em><a href='B:20 28:4'>Exo 28:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:39'>Exo 28:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:42'>Exo 28:42</a></em> (see notes there). The entire body of believers are described as being figuratively clothed in linen at the Lord's return, in that it represents the imputed righteousness of the saints / believers (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>). The allusion to the 'clothing upon' of the nakedness of flesh at the Lord's return is clear; the same figure is found in <em><a href='B:540 5:4'>2Co 5:4</a></em>. But the implication is that we shall then be as ordained priests- we shall go forth into eternity to do the work of priesthood, helping others to come to Yahweh. Our experiences now, especially our frustrations in being unable to do or achieve this work, are all in order to prepare us for such an eternity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


