# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people stayed at a distance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:20 24:1'>Exo 24:1</a></em>, Yahweh tells the people to "worship from a distance" (s.w.). They shied away from Him (<em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>), whereas His intention was that they came close. But they retreated to "a distance" (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>). And yet God wanted at least some level of relationship with them, and so He still allows and encourages them to worship Him "from a distance", even although that was not His ideal initial intention. He had hoped for more intimacy with them.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Moses drew near- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although it had been God's intention that the priests should "draw near" to Him (<em><a href='B:20 19:22'>Exo 19:22</a></em> s.w.) and that the people "shall come up on the mountain<em>" (</em><em><a href='B:20 19:13'>Exo 19:13</a></em> LXX). Moses alone did this. Whilst he did so as their representative, it is all a tragic reflection of their rejection of intimacy with God. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the thick darkness where God was- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The personal relationship which we have had with Christ will be very evident at the judgment. What we say to the Lord Jesus in His ear in the bedroom in the darkness, will be openly spoken by Christ at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>). God dwells in darkness (<em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:12'>1Ki 8:12</a></em>). Speaking in the bedroom in secret with the knowledge we will be openly rewarded is the language of prayer (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>). Our private relationship with the Lord now, praying to Him in our bedroom, meditating about Him there, will then be spoken out loud. But there is a related statement from the Lord: What we hear from Him in the ear, we must speak openly (<em><a href='B:470 10:26-27'>Mat 10:26-27</a></em>; after the pattern of Isaiah in <em><a href='B:290 22:14'>Isa 22:14</a></em>). Putting these passages together, we get the picture of us speaking to God through Christ, talking in His ear, as one might whisper something very personal into a friend's ear, in the darkness of our bedroom. And then the Lord whispers back in our ear, i.e. His revelation to us (through the word) is very personal and not perceived by others; but we must openly, publicly act upon it. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, This is what you shall tell the children of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A true understanding of the word of God for what it is will be related to realistic response to it. Insofar as we believe that the Bible is inspired, we will feel the passion and power of it the more, and thereby its impact upon us will be the greater. Because of the wonder of having heard God's voice, therefore idolatry of any form will be meaningless for us. They 'saw' that God "talked with you"; they didn't "hear", but they had seen the visible evidence of His voice. No nation had a God like this. We see that it was through the testimony of His word that Yahweh revealed Himself as uniquely real, and no other god was therefore possibly real (see on :23). The inspired Bible which we have today is similar witness to us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall most certainly not make alongside Me gods of silver, or gods of gold for yourselves-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Having seen the awesome theophany of Yahweh, it was utterly inappropriate and even laughable to consider that He cold somehow be placed alongside a piece of gold and worshipped as one of a line of deities upon a shelf. There was no comparison. And yet men worship gold and silver not only as Yahweh's equal, but even more than Him. In this lies the deep blasphemy of all materialism and worship of wealth. And yet this is the spirit of our age. For the Hebrew word for "silver" is that also translated "money".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God told Israel that He wanted altars made of earth; but He knew they would want to make altars of stone like the other nations, and He made allowance for this (<em><a href='B:20 20:24-25'>Exo 20:24-25</a></em>). The Law has several examples of this living on different levels. "You shall let nothing of (the Passover) remain until the morning; and that which remain of it until the morning you shall burn with fire" (<em><a href='B:20 12:10'>Exo 12:10</a></em>) is an evident example. God foresaw their disobedience to His stated principle, and made a concession and provision. Or take the Law’s ruling about tithes: “...neither shall he change it: and if he change it...” (<em><a href='B:30 27:33'>Lev 27:33</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are made from the dust of the earth, which Genesis says was cursed. God doesn’t want beautiful externalities, He wants us to worship Him from the heart, accepting us as we are. The Law of Moses recognizes so often that Israel wouldn’t be fully obedient, hence the next verse goes on to speak of how&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;they still insisted on building not an earth altar but a stone one, then even if they make use of God’s concession to human weakness, they must still abide by His principles.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>However it could be argued that later Israel did make more permanent altars, and God went along with this and allowed acceptable sacrifice to be offered upon them. The commandment to make altars of earth could therefore be one of the many parts of the law of Moses which only applied to Israel in the wilderness. For they were constantly on the move.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 27:8'>Exo 27:8</a></em> commands the building of the bronze covered altar, with hollow boards. It could be that the hollow nature of the altar meant that a pile of earth was made, and the altar structure placed on top of it. But this would make it hard to understand how the ashes of the sacrifices could be collected. Surely the idea of a "grate" as commanded would have been meaningless if effectively the altar was solid earth inside it. So we are left with the conclusion that the 'altar of earth' instruction was not to apply to the tabernacle, but to altars for sacrifice which were used more local to the tents of the people. Or perhaps it was intended to only apply in the wilderness until the tabernacle was built. For clearly later altars were accepted by God, when they were not made of earth. We see in these considerations that the law of Moses was not inflexible, and God is not a literalist. Changed circumstances for His people changed His operational style with them, and His expectations of them.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In every place where I record My name- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is man who is to record or remember / memorialize the things of Yahweh's Name (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 20:7'>Psa 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 45:17'>Psa 45:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 12:4'>Isa 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 26:13'>Isa 26:13</a></em>), making no mention / record of the name of other gods apart from Yahweh (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:13'>Exo 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:2'>Zec 13:2</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:20 20:24'>Exo 20:24</a></em> it is God who records or remembers His Name when He is worshipped acceptably. We see here the mutuality between God and man which is achieved in worship when it is done His way. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will come down to you and I will bless you</em>- <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had just witnessed Yahweh coming down in awesome majesty. Now they were told that He would in essence do this every time His people offered to Him on a humble earthen altar. There is a conscious juxtaposition between His coming down, and the idea of coming down upon an earthen altar.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“You” is you singular in the Hebrew here. Wherever an ordinary Israelite offered sacrifice, God would come to them personally. Yet this is the very language of God coming unto Moses on the top of Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em> “came down”)- as if to imply that the very pinnacle of Moses’ relationship with God, meeting Him on the top of the mount, is just as attainable for each of God’s people who truly sacrifices to Him. Wherever an ordinary Israelite offered sacrifice, “I will come unto thee (‘you’ singular) and bless thee” (<em><a href='B:20 20:23'>Exo 20:23</a></em> AV). This is the very language of God coming unto Moses on the top of Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em> RV)- as if to imply that the very pinnacle of Moses’ relationship with God, meeting Him on the top of the mount, is just as attainable for each of God’s people who truly sacrifices to Him. It is the equivalent of the promised presence of the Lord Jesus wherever two or three gather in His Name (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of cut stones; for if you lift up your tool on it, you have polluted it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 20:25'>Exo 20:25</a></em> says that the use of any tool upon an altar would defile it (also see <em><a href='B:50 27:5'>Deu 27:5</a></em>). This is how strongly God despises chic externality, and wants us to offer to Him as we are, uncut stones. He wants us, as we are, and not covered by cosmetics. In this we see the deep unspirituality of the altars in the temple, as designed by David and Solomon. I have suggested that although Solomon claims all this was commanded by God, in fact that was merely His assumption. Solomon attempted to get around this law by ensuring that the stones were cut away from the temple construction site (<em><a href='B:110 6:7'>1Ki 6:7</a></em>). But this surely was breaking the spirit of the law. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel had lived generations in Egypt, and had taken the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>). The Egyptian altars were all of hewed stones, with images of their gods engraved upon them. Perhaps the insistence that "cut stones" must not be used was in order to strengthen them against the temptation to engrave images upon the sides of the altar, as they had seen in Egypt. We see how God's laws are designed not as a burden, but to ease our overall obedience to His ways.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Neither shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed to it’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the altar of Ezekiel's temple plan had steps leading up to it (<em><a href='B:330 43:17'>Eze 43:17</a></em>), whereas this was forbidden in <em><a href='B:20 20:26'>Exo 20:26</a></em>. The system described there was not a revival of the Mosaic system. The picture of fallen man in Genesis is never far away from God's commandments. He had asked them to make Him an altar from the dust of the earth (:24), alluding to how man was made from dust and that dust was now cursed. They were to be aware of Adam's fall, of his nakedness, and God's covering of it. And when they worshipped, they were to be particularly aware of their fallen state; and remind themselves of their need for a covering of nakedness. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years and in the seventh he shall go out free without paying anything- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Slaves could be bought out of slavery by others or by themselves somehow raising the required amount. Often they went into slavery in order to pay a debt. But six years was the maximum they could serve- that was enough to pay any debt. They could not be then forced to still pay some debt. This total freedom from debt may look forward to the intended "rest" of the Kingdom at the end of the 6 days / 6000 years of Biblical human history. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he is married, then his wife shall go out with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reflects God's desire that husband and wife not separate nor be separated by others, especially for material reasons. The idea here seems to be that the husband could as it were save his wife from slavery; if he was the one in debt who had gone into slavery, or her debt was greater than his; then all the same, his redemption became hers. This too looks forward to the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus, "the servant of Yahweh" <em>par excellence. </em><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This might possibly suggest that the "him" in "She bears <em>him</em>" is the master and not the husband. But this apparently oppressive ruling is to be read in the context of the next verses. The servant could retain his wife and children if he devoted himself to his master's house for the rest of his life. The situation was set up in order to make the servant pay a price for his wife and children. He made a free choice to marry whilst a servant; and he was to make that choice aware of the huge long term price he was going to have to pay for it. That was in order to help him understand the long term commitment required from a man in marrying and having children. It was a resignation of his personal freedom (:5), and the man had to knowingly make that choice. We can deduce that the marriage was completely his choice; if it were forced upon him by the master, then this would be the kind of personal manipulation and robbing of personal freedom which the law of Moses outlaws. And that is the take away lesson from this- all the more relevant in our age of casual relationships, married men refusing to resign personal freedom and fathering of children without taking personal responsibility. See on :5. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if the servant shall plainly say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go out free;’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's crucifixion was likened to His ear (His hearing of the master's word) being nailed to an upright piece of wood (cp. the cross; <em><a href='B:20 21:6'>Exo 21:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a></em> = <em><a href='B:650 10:5-12'>Heb 10:5-12</a></em>). That was the sign of His total dedication to the house of Yahweh, but it was motivated by His love for us, and commitment to entering an eternal relationship with us (see on :4). His relationship with us is described as "I and the children whom God has given me" (<em><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a></em>). This would allude to this situation, where the servant was 'given' a wife and thence children by the master, God (:4). The children were given to Him by God, the master, because He plainly declared His love for us, His wife and children. And that plain declaration was surely on the cross.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then his master shall bring him to the elohim, and shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This speaks of bringing a slave "to God". This could refer to the <em>elohim</em>, the elders. Or it could refer to the door post of the home, and nailing his ear to it. "God" is paralleled with the door post. The servant was saying that he was now permanently attached to the household, symbolized by his ear being physically attached to it. The ear was chosen because this was a symbol of obedience to the master's word. R.E. Clements notes that this alludes to the ancient pagan practice whereby "a household god would have been kept by the threshold of a house to guard it" (R.E. Clements, <em>Exodus</em> (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1972) p. 133). Moses is attacking this idea- by saying that God, Israel's God, is the One there- and not the household gods which those around Israel believed were there.&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:20 12:7'>Exo 12:7</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This custom is alluded to in <em><a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a></em>, and applied to Christ in <em><a href='B:650 10:5-10'>Heb 10:5-10</a></em>. For love of us, the wife whom He was given by God His “master” (:4), Christ chose to stay in the Father’s house for ever. The nailing of the ear to a piece of wood is understood in Hebrews 10 as prophetic of Christ’s nailing to the cross. The ear represented obedient listening to the Master’s word. Christ on the cross was ultimately obedient to God’s word- for our sakes. That we are seen as His wife should inspire us to the utmost faithfulness and support of His cause in this world.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The question is whether this apparently lifelong commitment was undone by the provisions for the release of slaves at the year of Jubilee. The nature of the language used here would suggest that the freedom of the year of Jubilee didn't apply in this case. So we again see how the law of Moses, like any legal code, had internal contradictions, and times when one law must take precedence over another. These features of the law of Moses were in order to elicit thoughtful obedience to it, rather than blind obedience of a perfectly consistent legal code. For the law was to inculcate thoughtful relationships, both with God and man.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Men in debt would typically sell their daughters as servants, but they were often bought with a view to marrying them- either by the purchaser, or by his children. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If she doesn’t please her master, who has married her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The servant who was bought may have been bought blind, never having met her. Or the 'being evil in the eyes' (Heb.) of the master may be because she was found not to be a virgin. He could then sell her to another, but not to a Gentile. His 'deceit' was in that he had purchased a woman ostensibly as a female servant, when it was his plan to marry her.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he marries her to his son, he shall deal with her as a daughter- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although she had been purchased as a servant, she was now effectively to be set free from that by her marriage to his son. She was not to be allowed to slip into the category of 'wife second class'. She was to be treated fully as his daughter in law and not as a servant, to run his errands.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If a man betrothed his slave girl unto his son, he "must" ("shall") treat her as he would his own daughter (:9). But if he didn't, she could go free (<em><a href='B:20 21:9-11'>Exo 21:9-11</a></em>). There were clearly different levels of obedience envisaged. "Her marital rights" seems to refer to sex. The man was to treat this woman still as his wife, even if he took another wife. We note that sex was considered a basic human need, as much as food and clothing. And we can infer from that as we will, guided by God's moral principles elsewhere expressed. But it should guide and help us in our consideration of all the moral and sexual issues we at times encounter in church life. We also note here that to continue having sex with her was required by the law; but as with the commands not to covet and to observe intimate hygiene in order to be "clean", there could be no mechanism to ensure obedience to this. How often the man was to sleep with the first wife was not defined. The law of Moses was God speaking to the hearts and personal consciences of people, rather than being merely a legal code, obedience to which could be judged solely by external behaviour. In this way, God's law was unlike any other legal code.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he doesn’t do these three things for her, she may go free without paying any money-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"These three things" may not refer to the three things of <em><a href='B:20 21:10'>Exo 21:10</a></em>, but rather to the three courses of action in <em><a href='B:20 21:8-10'>Exo 21:8-10</a></em>. She would go out free, her father would not be required to repay any of the money which had been paid for her. Going out free might also imply that she was free to remarry. Clearly second marriage was envisaged and tolerated under the law of Moses.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Surely" foresees situations whereby there was a temptation for the death penalty for murder not to be enforced. In surrounding cultures, a wealthy person could murder their servants with impunity; the fits of rage of the wealthy and powerful were excused. But that was not to be so with God's people. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but not if it is unintentional, but God allows it to happen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is a comforting perspective on manslaughter- it was allowed by God to happen.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then I will appoint you a place where he shall flee- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That place was the altar (:14). Later, when Israel were in the land, cities of refuge were designated for these cases. And they were promised more cities of refuge if they continued in the path of obedience. We see here how God's saving purpose expands and changes form over time. It would also be an example of where many of the commands of the law of Moses were only relevant to the wilderness generation. Although in this case, using the altar as a city of refugee is found in <em><a href='B:110 1:50'>1Ki 1:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 2:28'>1Ki 2:28</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man schemes and comes presumptuously on his neighbour to kill him, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The altar represented Christ (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). He is the place of refuge whither we may flee, we who like the man of :13 have committed sins worthy of death and yet against our deepest will. Whilst we cannot justify all our sins by blaming them on circumstances, within some kind of ‘situational ethic’, it is also true that God recognizes that at times and in some ways we sin without deeply intending to.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Anyone who attacks his father or his mother shall be surely put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Significantly, the mother is treated on the same level as the father. The law of Moses afforded the same human dignity to both genders, and was far ahead of its time in this- for it reflects the huge value which God places upon the human person. As in :17 the law exalts the value of parents, and seeks to inculcate particular honour towards them. Instances of hitting or cursing parents (:17) were most likely to occur in heated domestic squabbles where there was no outside witness. So here again we have an example of God's law legislating about intimate personal matters, rather like the law not to covet. There was no way that this could be legally proven. The law was intended as a personal dialogue between God and the individual Israelite.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The laws of Hammurabi stated that if a man struck his father, his hand was to be cut off. But God's law was far stricter- the punishment was death. For God so deeply wanted respect for parents. I suggest the allusions to the laws of Hammurabi were in order to explain to Israel where the existing laws they had known were wrong, where they were right, and where they were partly right and needed reframing. The greatest difference is that the law of Moses sees sin as being against God, whereas the other legal codes see failure as a sin against society alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To deprive someone of their personal freedom is treated here in the same context as murder (:14). Whilst we may not be tempted to kidnap anyone, there are other ways in which in essence we can deprive another of their personal freedom, treating them as a thing rather than a person. The selling of the kidnapped Israelite (<em><a href='B:50 24:7'>Deu 24:7</a></em>) was likely to a Gentile nation. This was going to distance the person from the sanctuary and the ways of God. To cause another to spiritually stumble is worthy of eternal death, the Lord was to later teach. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Found in his hand" could mean that he had purchased such a kidnapped person. Or maybe he had kidnapped him and was keeping him as a captured person, with a view to selling him. But the idea is that he had taken another person and deprived them of their freedom, inappropriately asserting control over another. And this is a principle which can apply to many situations which may not today be judged as criminal.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus saw as parallel the commands to honour parents and also not to curse them. These two separate commands (from <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:20 21:17'>Exo 21:17</a></em>) He spoke of as only one: "<em>the</em> commandment" (<em><a href='B:480 7:9'>Mar 7:9</a></em>). He therefore saw that not to honour parents was effectively to curse them (<em><a href='B:480 7:10'>Mar 7:10</a></em>). <em>Omitting</em> to honour parents, even if it involved appearing to give one's labour to God's temple, was therefore the same as <em>committing</em> the sin of cursing them. Sins of omission are perhaps our greatest weakness. To deal with a person as if they are an object is judged by God as bad as murder. The value and meaning of the human person is paramount with God, and is reflected in His law.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he doesn’t die, but is confined to bed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea seems to be that the injured party was also guilty because he had been involved in the quarrel. AV "strive together" may imply that the two men were in an actual fight, rather than simply quarreling. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>if he rises again and walks around with his staff, then he who struck him shall be cleared: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for his healing until he is thoroughly healed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is not a light punishment. Rather the injured man was paying the price for having been involved in the fight in the first place; see on :18.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the Lord as the good Samaritan taking care for the man is expressed in the language of <em><a href='B:20 21:19'>Exo 21:19</a></em>, which says that if a man wounds another, "he shall pay... and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed". This somewhat odd allusion (at first sight) surely indicates that the Lord took upon Himself the full blame for our stricken condition, presumably in the sense that as the second Adam He took upon Himself the guilt of Adam. This is why there are so many connections between His death and the effects of Adam's sin (e.g. the crown of thorns, the Garden etc.). The way Christ compared Himself to a Samaritan, half Jew and half Gentile, shows that especially on the cross, this is how He felt. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A slave was to be respected as a person no less than anyone else. A person’s social or economic standing can never excuse abusing them. However we note the lack of a specific death penalty. The law does allow meaning to the fact that a person was a servant, and thereby the property of another. There appears to be the acceptance of corporal punishment even for a slave (<em><a href='B:240 10:13'>Pro 10:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We may well wonder why the whole idea of slavery was permitted under the law of Moses. I see it as the same question as to why polygamy was permitted. It was a concession to their weakness. To square these commands with other principles in the law of Moses, the Rabbis suggest that the servant in view must be a Gentile one. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman’s husband demands and the judges allow- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The situation may be of men fighting between themselves, and a pregnant woman being unintentionally damaged. These may have been the situations which Moses had so far encountered whilst leading the people. Or perhaps Moses had been asked to judge a situation like this at the time of <em><a href='B:20 2:13'>Exo 2:13</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "harm (which) follows" appears to be to the child when it is born. "Follows" implies that the harm is only later revealed, and therefore the reference is to the child and not to the woman. The value of the health and state of a newborn child is thereby taught. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law of Moses. It still stood when He gave His teaching (<em><a href='B:470 5:38'>Mat 5:38</a></em>). Yet He said that instead of insisting upon an eye for an eye in situations like a pregnant woman having a deformed child because of the violence of a man, she should instead try to forgive him (<em><a href='B:20 21:22-24'>Exo 21:22-24</a></em>). He was not changing the Law, as some have wrongly thought. He was saying that the Law was capable of being lived on different levels, and that some aspects of it were a concession to human weakness. Thus the woman with a deformed child could legitimately express her anger by insisting on the physical deformation of the man who had attacked her during pregnancy; but this, the Lord was saying, can give way to a higher level: simply forgive the man.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Burning" or (Heb.) 'branding' would refer to permanent scars, and that is likely also the idea of 'wound' and 'bruise'.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man strikes his servant’s eye, or his maid’s eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may seem fair enough, but then there is juxtaposed against this the command in :27 that this is also true if the tooth of a servant was knocked out. To loose a tooth is far less than to loose an eye. But the sense was that any permanent damage to another, even if they were a slave, was to result in the granting of freedom. Most people were in slavery because they had been sold into it because of debts. The debts were thereby cleared and the master stood at a financial loss because of his fit of temper.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he strikes out his male servant’s tooth, or his female servant’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :26. We note that the law stressed the equality of male and female servants; whereas female servants were considered of far less legal value under the surrounding legal codes<em>. </em>Again we see the huge value attached to the human person by the Divine law, regardless of gender.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the bull shall not be held responsible- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These laws are almost verbatim with the laws of Hammurabi 250-252. The question is, who copied whom? In this section of Exodus 21 there are various allusions to the Hammurabi laws- but with significant differences. I suggest the allusions to the laws of Hammurabi were in order to explain to Israel where the existing laws they had known were wrong, where they were right, and where they were partly right and needed reframing. The greatest difference is that the law of Moses sees sin as being against God, whereas the other legal codes see failure as a sin against society alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if the bull had a habit of goring in the past, and it has been testified to its owner, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because Eli wouldn't exercise discipline, he was somehow seen as committing those very things which he failed to rebuke. The man who wouldn’t discipline his wayward ox was to be treated like as if he had committed the crime the ox did, and therefore must die if the ox killed a man (<em><a href='B:20 21:29'>Exo 21:29</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a ransom is laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid on him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Remember that the Rabbis taught that salvation was impossible for Gentiles: “For the heathen nations there will be no redemption”, so reads the targum on <em><a href='B:20 21:30'>Exo 21:30</a></em>. Like us, the early Jewish converts were influenced by their backgrounds and their limited world views. Until the Lord brought experiences to bear which, when responded to, taught them what is now the obvious meaning of His words- that we each have a duty to take the good news of Him to the whole planet. After His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was <em>sent </em>to preach blessing and forgiveness to Israel (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>). But after His resurrection, He sent His men to preach this message. His witness became expressed through, and therefore limited by, His preachers. When they willfully misunderstood His commission as meaning preaching to Jews from all nations, rather than taking the message to the whole planet literally, His work was in that sense hindered and His intention delayed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we see the huge value attached to the human person by the Divine law, regardless of gender (also in :32). To gore is in Hebrew literally 'to push down'. The leaders of Israel were later condemned for pushing down the weak and vulnerable in the flock of God (<em><a href='B:330 34:21'>Eze 34:21</a></em> s.w.). And so a wider principle emerges- that we are culpable before God if we allow others to be pushed down by our indifference and inattention. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the bull gores a male servant or a female servant, thirty shekels of silver shall be given to their master, and the ox shall be stoned- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The price of a slave was thirty shekels of silver, and this was the price of the Lord Jesus. He is constantly hinted at throughout the Mosaic law, as the consummate "servant of Yahweh". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and doesn’t cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's story about the little boy who falls down the well spoke of how He was out to save Israel, who had fallen down the well for the sake of the inattention of others. The legalistic mind would have gone straight to <em><a href='B:20 21:33'>Exo 21:33</a></em>: the man who dug a well and didn’t cover it was responsible for any deaths arising from it. The Lord's story would imply that the father of the child was the owner of the well. The Lord doesn’t draw the lesson that 'It's your own fault for being disobedient to the Law'. He focuses instead on the need to act <em>urgently</em> to save, without maxing out on the issue of whose <em>fault</em> it was that the tragedy had occurred.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I once heard a middle class woman say to her child (in that irksome White Anglo-Saxon Protestant way): "Look at that bad man lying there in the gutter. He’s been <em>drinking</em>! <em>Silly </em>man, hey!". She didn’t want to imagine how that red, contoured face had once been a sweet baby, a mothers pride and joy; a mischievous little lad at school; a young man with an ambition to marry a young woman and have a family. Yes, on one level it was his fault he was in the gutter. But the heart that bleeds sees the tragedy, the human pain and wastage of it all. The heart that bleeds cant walk on by. It will realize our limited ability to judge the total circumstances in any human encounter, but more than that, it will be hopeful and seeking for Gods glory to be achieved in the most apparently hopeless of cases. God need not have grieved for the grief of Israel. It <em>was</em> their fault. But He did, and He eventually grieved for it to the extent of giving His own son to be done to death. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall be his- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These laws were seeking to inculcate sensitivity to others. We too should live our lives thinking about the possible consequence to others of our actions, both in what we commit and what we omit to do.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If one man’s bull injures another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live bull, and divide its price; and they shall also divide the dead animal- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Arguments amongst herdsmen were infamous. We think of the various conflicts which the patriarchs were involved in. God shows Himself absolutely aware of and sensitive to such very common human situations. Truly man is not alone, but God knows and is aware. And seeks to guide us through them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or if it is known that the bull was in the habit of goring in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall surely pay bull for bull, and the dead animal shall be his own- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here the principle that knowledge brings responsibility. The abiding principle is that of restraint of situations which are likely to lead to damage. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it, or sells it; he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the Mosaic law had no concept of prisons or custodial sentences, even though this was practiced in the surrounding world. We think of Joseph in prison in Egypt. God wanted issues to be decided immediately, forgiven and resolved- and "play on". And this is reflected in the law of Moses. Prison seems not to really reform many people. And that is why we are to immediately reconcile with our brother.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The original text here is difficult. GNB suggests: "If a thief is caught breaking into a house at night and is killed, the one who killed him is not guilty of murder. But if it happens during the day, he is guilty of murder". The idea would then be that if a man kills a thief while he is in the act of breaking in to a home, this is not to be counted as murder. But if some time passes and then the owner as an act of revenge murders the thief, this is seen by God differently. Surely this reflects the fact that God is more lenient to sins committed in hot blood than those more premeditated. Yet on the other hand, sin is sin. His law, as law, can appear to make no distinction between sins of passion and premeditated sins, if the same act is committed in the end. However, this and other examples indicate God’s willingness to concede to human weakness, and recognize sins of passion more leniently than others. And our judgment in ecclesial life should reflect this too. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the sun has risen on him, guilt of bloodshed shall be for him; he shall make restitution-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :2. There was perhaps the possibility of making restitution with money even when guilty of murder. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This presumably speaks of the thief, if he survived; whereas the first part of the verse speaks of the person who killed a thief.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the stolen property is found in his hand alive, whether it is ox, donkey, or sheep, he shall pay double- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The way God restored double to Job at the end has echoes of how a thief had to restore double (<em><a href='B:20 22:2-4'>Exo 22:2-4</a></em>)- as if God in His love for Job wished to show Himself as having been somehow ‘guilty’ for taking away from Job what He had? <em><a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a></em>, in the context of Israel's punishment by the Babylonians, says that their judgment had been double what it ought to have been; and yet Ezra says it was less than the promised proportionate recompense for their sins. Here we have the utter, inconsistent grace of God; almost taking guilt for punishing them (cp. how God likewise takes the blame in <em><a href='B:290 54:6-8'>Isa 54:6-8</a></em>, as if He had forsaken Israel as a sweet innocent young wife). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and lets his animal loose, and it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field, and from the best of his own vineyard- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was to be no excuse in claiming that an animal had done this, and not the owner. The abiding principle is that we are not to manipulate others of diminished responsibility, such as an animal in this case, and claim we did nothing wrong. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If fire breaks out, and catches in thorns so that the stacks of grain, or the standing grain, or the field are consumed; he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Breaks out" implies it gets out of control, burning beyond the intended area within one property, catching thorns on fire and thereby burning up harvested grain in time of harvest. The principle is that we may unintentionally begin something which then ignites a third party, the thorns, and this then causes huge damage. The fire in the standing grain had in fact been kindled by the man who first kindled the fire in his own territory. What we begin can have huge repercussions, because it is spread further through a third party. And we must bear some responsibility, even if the consequences were not envisaged by us initially. Thus a relationship breakdown between two people within their own home may ignite another person, who in turn spreads the breakdown on a massive scale, with large scale damage. And thus many church divisions have come about.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man delivers to his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Zacchaeus paid back four times what he had stolen (<em><a href='B:490 19:8'>Luk 19:8</a></em>). The existence of God’s law shouldn’t inculcate a spirit of minimalism in us, doing the letter of the law and no more. Rather if we perceive the principles behind it, we will do far over and above what the letter of the law requires.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the thief isn’t found, then the master of the house shall come near to God, to find out if he hasn’t put his hand to his neighbour’s goods-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"God" is the <em>elohim</em>, the judges or priests who represented God. In the context of these situations which required a yes or no decision, it could be that the urim and thummim were used. These two stones in the breastplate flashed out binary answers to requests, so truly the case came "to God".&nbsp; We note how the law given in the wilderness envisaged Israel soon living in houses in the promised land.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing, about which one says, ‘This is mine’, the cause of both parties shall come before God. He whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbour-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>‘God’ here refers to the judges or elders; to come before God’s representative is to come before God. Hence GNB "the two people claiming the property shall be taken to the place of worship". LXX "according to every injury alleged... and every alleged loss".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man delivers to his neighbour a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies or is injured, or driven away, no man seeing it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This again is a commandment particularly relevant to the infamous quarrels between herdsmen, which would have been common in the wilderness journey. For Israel left Egypt with much cattle, whom they herded through the desert. We think of the various conflicts which the patriarchs were involved in. God shows Himself absolutely aware of and sensitive to such very common human situations. Truly man is not alone, but God knows and is aware. And seeks to guide us through them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the oath of Yahweh shall be between them both, whether he hasn’t put his hand to his neighbour’s goods; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The initial intention was that Israel would so fear Yahweh that an oath before Him was assumed to be sufficient. But the Lord Jesus saw that there was a strong tendency to swear falsely, and so He urges us not to take such oaths, but to make our "yes" or "no" mean just that. This was in fact demanding an even higher level of truthfulness. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The man who had his neighbour's animal with him was responsible for it if it were stolen, but not if it were killed by wild animals (:13). This might imply that the person was held responsible for finding the thief and getting restitution from him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it is torn in pieces, let him bring it for evidence. He shall not make good that which was torn-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The brothers allowed Joseph to be stolen away (<em><a href='B:10 40:15'>Gen 40:15</a></em>), and then presented his garment as evidence that he had been "torn in pieces" by wild animals (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 37:33'>Gen 37:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:28'>Gen 44:28</a></em>). So again we see that the essence of the Mosaic law was known well before, but was now being codified formally. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man borrows anything of his neighbour’s, and it is injured, or dies, its owner not being with it, he shall surely make restitution- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see the internal consistency of the Biblical record in the concern over the loss of the axe head (<em><a href='B:120 6:5'>2Ki 6:5</a></em>), which was a situation directly envisaged in the law here.&nbsp; See on :15.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If its owner is with it, he shall not make it good. If it is a leased thing, it came for its lease- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The requirement to restore the lost or damaged borrowed item (:14) was only if the owner wasn't present. If the owner were present when it was lost or broken, then he would know that the item had not been stolen. It was the kind of loss which anyone who hires things out must be prepared to bear. The intention of :14 was therefore to cut off any possibility of suspicion that the item had not in fact been genuinely lost, but rather had been stolen. By all means, we too should seek to develop situations whereby the possibility of suspicion is removed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man entices a virgin who isn’t pledged to be married, and lies with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here again we have a law which spoke directly to the personal conscience of the individual Israelite. If a young couple slept with each other and she didn't get pregnant, then it was only up to their conscience as to whether they were obedient to this. We notice that there was no unduly heavy condemnation for consensual premarital sex. That is not at all to justify it, but we should note that the New Testament's heavy condemnation of "fornication", Greek <em>pornos</em>, is not generally referring to this. Rather is the reference often to the casual sex which accompanied idol worship.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The amount of this dowry isn't defined. The father would have to set the amount; but if he had refused to let the man marry his daughter, it would surely have had to be fairly small. See on :16.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not allow a sorceress to live- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The feminine form shows that a particular kind of female sorceress was in view. "To live" is literally "to revive, to live again". If the idea was simply that she must be killed, then the phrase used in :19 would be used. Hence LXX "Ye shall not save the lives of sorcerers". It seems something specific was in view which may not be immediately apparent to us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever has sex with an animal shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Such was God's desire to teach that we are made in His image, and must not act as animals, bringing ourselves down to their level as if we are equal only to them. So the message for us is that we are to respect ourselves as made in God's image, and not act on a purely animal level. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who sacrifices to any god, except to Yahweh only, shall be utterly destroyed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Utterly destroyed" is <em>haram</em>, the word used for devotion to Yahweh. The person who didn't want to devote themselves to Yahweh was to be devoted to Yahweh through execution. So we see the choice which remains before us for all generations- to either totally devote ourselves to Yahweh, or be devoted to Him through the second death of condemnation at the last day.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not wrong an alien, neither shall you oppress him, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were to be motivated in kindness to others by the recollection that they had been redeemed from Egypt; the memory of our redemption through the waters of baptism (cp. the Red Sea)&nbsp;should have the same effect upon us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not take advantage of any widow or fatherless child- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Take advantage" is the word used of how the Egyptians had afflicted the Hebrews (<em><a href='B:20 1:11-12'>Exo 1:11-12</a></em>). Repeatedly, Israel were taught that they were to remember their redemption from affliction; and redeem others from their affliction on that basis, and never to afflict people as Egypt had done to them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you take advantage of them at all, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :22, "take advantage" is the word used of how the Egyptians had afflicted the Hebrews (<em><a href='B:20 1:11-12'>Exo 1:11-12</a></em>). And God had heard the cry of the afflicted Hebrews. It is absolutely natural that the abused seek to abuse. But God is here asking His people to consciously break that natural cycle, and to not abuse others even if we have been abused. Only the experience of grace can motivate us to do this.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and My wrath will grow hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here God's extreme anger against all taking advantage of others (:22,23). And there are many ways in which we can do this; by not paying bills on time, or paying low wages to workers. What we do to others in this way will in some form have to be our experience. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor; neither shall you charge him interest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In some ways, Moses became more demanding in Deuteronomy, whilst at the same time there emphasizing grace and love. Thus under the Law, Israel were not to lend to their poor brother upon usury (<em><a href='B:20 22:25'>Exo 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:37'>Lev 25:37</a></em>); but in Deuteronomy Moses forbids them to do this to <em>any</em> Israelite (<em><a href='B:50 23:19'>Deu 23:19</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israelites weren’t to lend to each other for interest. Yet Jesus tells the rejected man that he should’ve done at least this (<em><a href='B:470 25:7'>Mat 25:7</a></em>)- as if to say that the man should’ve done at least something with what God had given him, even if it wasn’t the ideal, and even if it technically infringed God’s law. Indifference and selfish laziness with God’s gifts is therefore highlighted as being so reprehensible to Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you take your neighbour’s garment as guarantee of a loan, you shall restore it to him before the sun goes down,-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses does not repeat every single commandment in the Law. Rather are there several themes of Moses in Deuteronomy presented. His choice of which ones he does repeat indicates his feelings towards Israel. His sensitivity towards the weakest and poorest of Israel comes out in this. He was reaching the spirit of the Lord Jesus, who said that the weakest of his brethren represented him (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em> Gk.). Thus Moses stresses how they were not to go into the house of a poor man to take back his pledge (<em><a href='B:50 24:10'>Deu 24:10</a></em>); Moses could enter into the sense of shame and embarrassment of the poor man when a richer man enters his home. The Law in <em><a href='B:20 22:26'>Exo 22:26</a></em> did not stipulate that the house of the poor man should not be entered; by making this point in his farewell speech, Moses was showing his sensitivity, his ability now to enter into the feelings of the poorest of God's people. Indeed, the whole passage in Deuteronomy (<em><a href='B:50 24:6-17'>Deu 24:6-17</a></em>) about pledges is quite an expansion upon what the Law actually said in Exodus 22. And this from a man who could have been the king of&nbsp; Egypt, who could have had the world. What marvellous similarity with our Lord!&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was forbidden by the Law to keep a man’s outer garment overnight (<em><a href='B:20 22:26-27'>Exo 22:26-27</a></em>). But the Lord taught whilst the law was still in operation that we should be willing to give it up, and even offer it (<em><a href='B:470 5:40'>Mat 5:40</a></em>). The threatened man could have quoted the Law and kept his clothing. But the Lord bids us go to a higher level, beyond using God’s law to uphold our own rights. And in this He raises a vital if difficult principle: Don’t always enforce what Biblical rights you have against your brother. Don’t rush to your own defence and justification even if Scripture is on your side. Live on the level of true love and non-resistance to evil.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What would he sleep in? It will happen, when he cries to Me, that I will hear, for I am gracious- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel had cried to God in Egypt, and had been heard, by His grace. And they were to respond likewise. They were to give nobody any reason to cry to God because of how they were being oppressed by their brothers. And yet many are those who have cried to God in pain at how their brethren have treated them, through excluding them or judging them. God is extremely sensitive to the suffering of the abused; He could imagine the poor man shivering at night because his warm jacket was being held by his creditor. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 25:38'>Lev 25:38</a></em> reasons that because of Israel's experience of the Red Sea redemption, therefore they were to have a generous spirit to their brother. Because the Egyptians were hard taskmasters, and Israel had been graciously saved from them, <em>therefore</em> they were not to be hard on each other (<em><a href='B:30 25:40'>Lev 25:40</a></em>). If the oppressed (as Israel were oppressed) cry out unto you (as Israel cried out for their affliction), you must hear them, otherwise God will hear them and punish you, as if you are the Egyptian taskmaster (<em><a href='B:20 22:24-27'>Exo 22:24-27</a></em>). Indeed, the whole Law of Moses is shot through with direct and indirect reference to the Red Sea experience. It was as if this was to be the motivator for their obedience and upholding of the culture of kindness which the Law sought to engender (Leviticus 23, 24; <em><a href='B:50 17:7'>Deu 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:19-22'>Deu 24:19-22</a></em>). And our experience of redemption from this world ought to have the same effect. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not blaspheme God, nor curse a ruler of your people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Clearly the <em>elohim</em>, rendered "God", were the rulers of the people. The two are here placed in parallel. Paul understood 'cursing' as threatening a person with Divine judgment and calling them names like 'hypocrite' (<em><a href='B:510 23:3'>Act 23:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:5'>Act 23:5</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not delay to offer from your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. You shall give the firstborn of your sons to Me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The outflow" refers to liquid products. When you perceive an opportunity to do the Lord's service, respond immediately. Say yes straight away. See it as another opportunity for "redeeming the time". This is a major Biblical theme. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God (<em><a href='B:20 22:29'>Exo 22:29</a></em>), lest their intentions weren't translated into practice. The disciples immediately left the ship, simply put their nets down and followed (<em><a href='B:470 4:20'>Mat 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients in the tax office and walked out never to return (<em><a href='B:490 5:17-18'>Luk 5:17-18</a></em> implies). There is a marked theme in the NT of men and women hearing the Gospel and immediately responding by accepting baptism. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall do likewise with your cattle and with your sheep. Seven days it shall be with its mother, then on the eighth day you shall give it to Me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies that there would be local sanctuaries (as <em><a href='B:20 20:24'>Exo 20:24</a></em>); the intention was not that they should travel up to Jerusalem every time an animal gave birth to its firstborn. Animals often died after birth, and it was only by the eighth day that it was apparent whether or not it was deformed. This was to remind them that they were to offer the best to God, and not to offer that which cost them nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by animals in the field. You shall cast it to the dogs-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This command wasn’t only for hygienic reasons. God wished to encourage His people to have a healthy work ethic, not taking short cuts, but eating animals they had raised themselves for that purpose. We live in a society where laziness and trying to live for free has become almost an art form. We cannot ultimately get around the curse, that we shall eat only as a result of the sweat of our own labour. We have to accept our humanity and our fallen condition, looking for the lifting of the curse in God’s future Kingdom.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not spread a false report- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is paralleled in the second half of the verse with being a false witness. Spreading gossip quietly is as bad as standing up in court as a false witness.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here and in :2 we see the tendency to adopt positions based upon the view of the majority which surround us. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We go astray “like sheep” (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>)- we tend to sin because of others’ influence, because we’re not as strongly individualistic and independent as we like to think we are. God has never advocated democracy as a means of governing His people, because of His awareness of our tendency to follow the majority; and "crowd / multitude" can mean just that, the majority.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>neither shall you show partiality to a poor man in his legal case- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :4, this could be a command not to show partiality in the heart, when we are called upon to give an opinion or judgment upon another. We are warned here against bias in any way- feeling pity for a poor man who has done wrong is as bad as bias toward the wealthy (:6). Economic status is of no matter, compared to human behaviour and the human person.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those "going astray" are the spiritually weak (<em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>). We are to be concerned for them, rather than ignoring them because we don't like which stable they came from. These are further examples of how God’s law differs from human laws in that it criminalizes internal attitudes. It was impossible to prove the sin of omitting to help your enemy’s animal, nor enforce the law against it- because it would’ve been invisible to others. Yet the God who sees all stands in judgment upon our innermost thoughts and desires. Note too that sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission; the man who refused to help the animal could’ve returned to his home that day feeling he hadn’t actually committed anything wrong. But his sin of omission would’ve been noticed by God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you see the donkey of him who hates you fallen down under his burden, don’t leave him, you shall surely help him with it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The psychological intensity of our inner battles is recognized throughout Scripture. This Divine law perceived that in such a case, there would be the inner temptation to “forbear” assisting; but no, “you shall surely release it”. The very structure of Biblical Hebrew as a language is often instructive as to how God wishes us to perceive things. There is actually no specific word in Biblical Hebrew for ‘to think’ – instead there is a word meaning ‘to say in one’s heart’. And there are times when the word is wrongly translated simply “say” (e.g. <em><a href='B:90 16:6'>1Sa 16:6</a></em> – NEB correctly renders as “thought”). This provides a window into understanding how the Greek logos means both ‘speech’ and ‘reason’; and sets the backdrop for the repeated teaching of Jesus that God counts human thoughts as if they are the spoken word or acted deed. But my point in this context is that the Hebrew Bible continually focuses our attention upon the internal thought processes – for here is the real ‘Satan’, the real enemy to true spirituality.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "justice", s.w. "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. And thereby they became the judgments or justice of Israel. His judgment / justice is to be ours. But the word also has the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing to show justice to others. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice. <em>&nbsp;</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are warned in :3 against bias in any way- feeling pity for a poor man who has done wrong is as bad as bias toward the wealthy (:6). Economic status is of no matter, compared to human behaviour and the human person.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Keep far from a false charge, and don’t kill the innocent and righteous- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These commandments seem aimed particularly at judges and witnesses in court. But all Israel were to know the basis upon which judgment should be made. Keeping far from a false charge may mean that frivolous, obviously false complaints shouldn't even be entertained. Just as those clearly innocent shouldn't be condemned. The two commandments go together in that wasting time upon that which is obviously untrue, giving thereby credibility to slander, is as bad as condemning the innocent.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I will not justify the wicked-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB takes this as meaning "for I will condemn anyone who does such an evil thing". The Septuagint uses the word translated “imputed” in the NT with regard to sacrifices (symbolic of Christ’s death on the cross) being “reckoned” to a person (<em><a href='B:30 7:18'>Lev 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:27'>Num 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:30'>Num 18:30</a></em>); and of Shimei asking David not to “reckon” his guilt to him, to judge him not according to the obvious facts of the case (<em><a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a></em>). The Old Testament is at pains to stress that Yahweh will <em>not</em> justify the guilty (<em><a href='B:20 23:7'>Exo 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:23'>Isa 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a></em>). This is where the unique significance of Jesus comes in. Because of <em>Him</em>, His death and our faith in it, our being in Him, God can justify the wicked in that they have died with Christ in baptism (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>), they are no longer, they are only “in Christ”, for them “to live is Christ”. They are counted as in Him, and in this way sinners end up justified.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds those who have sight and perverts the words of the righteous-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The righteous" in view may be those giving testimony, or being judged. Their words become perverted if those judging them have ulterior motives for not taking their words on face value.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not oppress an alien, for you know the heart of an alien, since you were aliens in the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Try to see the historical events which occurred to Israel as relevant to you personally. They were "types of us". Note how <em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em> speaks of "<em>our</em> fathers"- even when Paul is writing to Gentiles. He intended them to see in the Jewish fathers a type of themselves. Israel's keeping of the Passover implied that each subsequent Israelite had personally been redeemed that night. All down the years, they were to treat the stranger fairly: "for you know the heart of an alien". The body of believers, the body of Christ, is not only world-wide geographically at this point in time; it stretches back over time as well as distance, to include all those who have truly believed. This is why David found such inspiration from the history of Israel in his own crises (e.g. Psalms 77).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For six years you shall sow your land, and shall gather in its increase-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The assumption at this point was that those hearing these words would soon be established in the promised land. God foreknew they would not, but He goes ahead with His ideal potentials with absolute enthusiasm and legitimate enthusiasm. The parallel here is with six days of work followed by the seventh day of rest. The seventh year was therefore to be a temporary suspension of the curse, the possibility of having a taste of the Kingdom now; just as we today can live "the eternal life", the kind of life which we will eternally live in the Kingdom. The idea of the Sabbath year was also to lead Israel away from the mentality of justification by works. And that was to involve faith in God's provision, rather than trust in our own works.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the animals of the field shall eat. In the same way, you shall deal with your vineyard and with your olive grove- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s true that often, although not always, poverty is partly due to poor decisions and mismanagement, and any aid given is often misused. And it’s true that the materially poor are partly poor (in many cases) exactly because of that. And yet the Bible teaches generosity to “the poor”. There is no attempt in the Bible teaching about “the poor” to subdivide them into the genuinely poor, and those who are poor because of their own fault or laziness, or who are asking for support when they don’t actually need it. A person who comes to you claiming need is “the poor”. Thus Israel were not to farm their land in the seventh year, “that the poor of your people may eat” (<em><a href='B:20 23:11'>Exo 23:11</a></em>). This immediately raised the issue that all manner of people could eat the fruit which grew naturally on the land that year- but there is no legislation to try to limit who had access to it. Those who had food in their barns might eat what grew- but there was no mechanism within the law which controlled that. The point is, in our spiritual poverty we are just the same. We are in that position partly because of our human situation and other factors over which we have no control; but also partly and largely because we choose to be in it. We cry to God for the riches of His forgiveness- and we waste it, by doing the same sin over and again. Our hold on spiritual things is weak, we don’t respond with the grace and appreciation we ought to. We’re spiritually lazy. We’re no better than those who are materially poor through nothing but their own fault. Our generosity to them is a reflection of our recognition of this. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest, that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your handmaid, and the alien may be refreshed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s sensitivity to animals shines through the Law- the fact even animals are living beings and not mere machines should be felt by us too. God’s intention was to inculcate an all round spirit of sensitivity and culture of kindness to others in human life, and that included animals. Our hope of experiencing the "rest" of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:650 4:9'>Heb 4:9</a></em>) means that we are to give "rest" to others in this life.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Be careful to do all things that I have said to you; and don’t invoke the name of other gods, neither let them be heard out of your mouth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We need to let passages like <em><a href='B:560 5:3-5'>Eph 5:3-5</a></em> have their full weight with us. Fornication, covetousness, all uncleanness should not be “named amongst us”, in the same way Israel were not to take even the names of the Gentile idols onto their lips (<em><a href='B:20 23:13'>Exo 23:13</a></em>) – “but rather giving of thanks”, knowing that those who do such things will not be in the Kingdom of God. A thankful attitude, thinking and speaking of those things with which we will eternally have to do, is to replace thinking and talking about all the things which shall not be our eternal sphere of thought in the Kingdom age. And yet our generation faces the temptation like none before it – to privately watch and read of those things, vicariously involved in them, whilst being under the illusion that we’re not actually doing them ourselves. For this is what the entertainment industry is based around.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is man who is to record or remember / memorialize the things of Yahweh's Name (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 20:7'>Psa 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 45:17'>Psa 45:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 12:4'>Isa 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 26:13'>Isa 26:13</a></em>), making no mention / record of the name of other gods apart from Yahweh (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:13'>Exo 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:2'>Zec 13:2</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:20 20:24'>Exo 20:24</a></em> it is God who records or remembers His Name when He is worshipped acceptably. We see here the mutuality between God and man which is achieved in worship when it is done His way. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall observe a feast to Me three times a year- </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>You shall observe 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 it you came out from Egypt), and 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". Attendance at the feasts was not to be mere ritual, appearing before Yahweh for no purpose. The meaning of the feasts 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>And the feast of harvest, the first fruits of your labours, which you sow in the field: and the feast of harvest, at the end of the year, when you gather in your labours out of the field-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Your labours" is put by metonymy for "the crops you grew with your labour". And the best of them were to be given to God. We are to understand this as a resignation of human works; the Sabbath year and weekly Sabbath 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>Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord Yahweh- </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, <em>Exodus</em> (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>You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread, neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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><a href='B:20 34:25'>Exo 34:25</a></em> is parallel with this, and "My feast" is defined there as Passover.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The first of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into 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. <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>Behold, I send an angel before you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To keep you by the way- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel’s guardian Angel was to “keep” them in the way (<em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>), clearly echoing how the Angels kept the way to the tree of life in Eden. The same Hebrew word for “keep” occurs very often in Exodus in the context of Israel being told to keep God’s commands; but their freewill effort was to be confirmed by the Angel keeping them in the way of obedience. They were to “keep” themselves in the way (<em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em> and many others; s.w. “take heed”, “observe” etc.), but the Angel would keep them in it. This mutuality is developed in <em><a href='B:20 23:21'>Exo 23:21</a></em>, where having said the Angel will keep them, Israel are told “Beware of him, and obey his voice”. “Beware” translates the same Hebrew word as “keep”. The Angel would keep them, but they were to keep to the Angel. And they didn't, and so that generation died and were not brought to the Kingdom as was potentially possible. This is an example of how we are intended to have a mutual relationship with the Lord, leading to Him strengthening us in the one way. This word translated “keep” is also translated “spies” in <em><a href='B:70 1:24'>Jdg 1:24</a></em>; the spies were the keepers in the way of Israel, to bring them in to the land. And yet the Angel at the exodus was their ‘keeper’ to bring them into the land. The spies were working in harmony with their Angels; and thus they succeeded.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is an evident allusion to the Angel-cherubim keeping the way to the tree of life. But did all Israel remain “in the way” whilst in the wilderness? Evidently not. Did the Angel fail? No. The Angel was given power and strength in order to potentially enable Israel to remain “in the way”, just as our Angels are given that same power. But Israel refused to work with the Angel; they didn’t make use of the Angel’s efforts to keep them in the way.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command to prepare a way along which to flee to the cities of refuge (<em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em>) is expressed with the very same words used about God through the Angels preparing a way for Israel to flee along, out of Egypt to the promised land (<em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>). This was obviously done purely at God’s initiative. But now, Israel were asked to do the same- to prepare a way for their and others’ salvation. When we reflect upon our own way of escape from this world, it’s clear enough that it was by grace. By God’s sole initiative we came into contact with the Gospel, or were born into such a family at such a time as enabled us to hear it. Our response to that grace must be like Israel’s- to prepare a way for others to flee, when they like us find themselves in a situation that is spiritually against them, although not of their conscious choice. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And to bring you into the place which I have prepared-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:350 12:13'>Hos 12:13</a></em>. “I go to prepare a place for you” (<em><a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a></em>) is based upon the idea of Moses and the Angel bringing Israel “into the place which I have prepared” (<em><a href='B:20 23:30'>Exo 23:30</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The parable of the pounds describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities (<em><a href='B:490 19:17'>Luk 19:17</a></em>). This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <em><a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a></em> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and " five cities" in <em><a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a></em>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e.g. <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em>) and preparation of reward (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em> Heb.; <em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a></em> Heb.) . We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is <em>only</em> eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pay attention to him, and listen to his voice. Don’t provoke him, for he will not pardon your disobedience, for My name is in him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s Name being carried by the Angel explains how Moses later is recorded as talking with Yahweh face to face, even though we are also told that He cannot ever be seen by humans. Moses spoke with the Angel who carried the Yahweh Name, and who was therefore functionally as God to men. The same principle explains how men, and especially Christ, can be spoken of as God because they carried His Name, without this making them God Himself in person.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angel is&nbsp;described as not forgiving their sins, but in <em><a href='B:20 32:30-32'>Exo 32:30-32</a></em> Moses goes up to the 'LORD' (Angel) in the mount&nbsp; and asks for forgiveness for the people's sin with the golden calf- see on <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>. Moses knew God well enough to know that He is open to dialogue. The 'Lord' in the mount must have been an Angel because Moses saw his back parts- and there is no way this is possible of God Himself in person, "whom no man hath seen ,nor can see" (<em><a href='B:610 6:16'>1Ti 6:16</a></em>). "No man has seen God at any time" (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>). This 'Lord' on the mount gave Moses the Law- and elsewhere we are told that the Law was ministered by Angels. The Angel on the mount then says He has sent "Mine Angel before thee" (to Canaan), <em><a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a></em>. So we have one Angel sending another here. And it seems one Angel was prepared to forgive, the other wasn’t. What implications does this have for us, if we are to be made like unto the Angels (<em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>)? See on <em><a href='B:60 24:17'>Jos 24:17</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if you indeed listen to his voice, and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and an adversary to your adversaries-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- see on <em><a href='B:340 9:14'>Dan 9:14</a></em>. The opposite to not being forgiven (:21) is unity with God, so that our enemies are His. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For My angel shall go before you, and bring you in to the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite-&nbsp; </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This happened invisibly, with the Angel working through circumstances to weaken those tribes. But the Israelites failed to believe this verse, feeling that those tribes were far too strong for them (<em><a href='B:40 13:30-33'>Num 13:30-33</a></em>). Only six of the seven nations of Canaan are mentioned (although LXX includes "the Girgashites"). Perhaps these six were to be destroyed first; then the Girgashites and then finally all the other tribes who lived in the territory promised to Abraham (:31). The inheritance was therefore to be given to Israel in stages, as they could handle it. But sadly they didn't want this, and refused to even take all the territory of these six nations.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And I will cut them off-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had seen this done to Egypt (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 9:15'>Exo 9:15</a></em>), and they were intended to understand this as a foretaste of their overcoming of all obstacles between them and inheritance of the Kingdom. We receive similar foretastes and encouragement in this life.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor follow their practices, but you shall utterly overthrow them and demolish their pillars- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pillars were erected by the Canaanites in memoriam of various things which their gods had supposedly done for them, and were then worshipped in hope that the gods would come through for them again. So to worship them would mean accepting the entire thought, history and culture of Canaan. That Israel did so reflected their lack of faithfulness to their own fathers. Moses wrote Genesis to bring this history and true culture before them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall serve Yahweh your God, and He will bless your bread and your water, and I will take sickness away from your midst- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These were the blessings specifically to be experienced by Israel in the wilderness, before they actually entered Canaan (:27,28). Hence the reference to bread (manna) and water. There was not one feeble person amongst them when they left Egypt (<em><a href='B:230 105:37'>Psa 105:37</a></em>), and this was to continue.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No one will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will fulfil the number of your days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that there would be neither barren cattle nor barren land; because these were the blessings specifically to be experienced by Israel in the wilderness, before they actually entered Canaan (:27,28). In their resting places they would have sown and raised crops, at least to provide fodder for their animals. But these was not to be the case; for they rebelled, and wasted their years in the wilderness, as Psalms 90 laments. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will send My terror before you, and will confuse all the people to whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob likens his guardian Angel to "the God before whom my fathers walked" (<em><a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a></em>), who is called "the fear of &nbsp;Isaac" (<em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em>) when Jacob describes the personal presence of God in his life. So the "fear of God" is associated with an Angel; God sent His fear, an Angel, before Israel into Canaan, as promised explicitly in Exodus 23. As Rahab testified, the Canaanites had turned their backs in fear upon Israel; but they failed to believe it, and instead turned <em>their</em> backs in fear and wanted to return to Egypt. All the potential barriers between us and the Kingdom have been overcome- but we are to believe that.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will send the hornet before you, which will drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sending of hornets ahead of Israel parallels the sending of the Angel ahead of them (:23). The reference may be to literal hornets devastating and weakening the Canaanites; or it could refer instead to Egyptian tribes or the Philistines, some of whom had hornets on their armour, attacking and weakening the Canaanite tribes just before the Israelites arrived. This situation was providentially arranged by the Angel who went before Israel. The obstacles to our possessing the Kingdom seem huge and strong, but in fact they have been significantly weakened by God’s providence. Invisible to us, the Angels likewise are potentially preparing our way to enter the Kingdom.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fear amongst the Canaanites prior to Israel's approach and the weakness of those nations was due to "the hornet" being sent before Israel (<em><a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a></em>); it would seem that this is a reference to the Angels softening up the Canaanite tribes, perhaps through inciting the Egyptians to raid them and ruin the economy. And specifically, the two kings of the Amorites attacking the other Canaanites. "The hornet" could also refer to the Phoenician raiders, who had hornets as totems; they too weakened Canaan before the Israelites arrived, and would have been manipulated to do so by an Angel. In <em><a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a></em> God says He will "send My fear before you, and will destroy all the people to whom you shall come". Jacob likens his guardian Angel to "the God before whom my fathers walked" (<em><a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a></em>), who is called "the fear of&nbsp;Isaac" (<em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em>) when Jacob describes the personal presence of God in his life. So the "fear of God" is associated with an Angel; God sent His fear, an Angel, before Israel into Canaan, as promised explicitly in Exodus 23. "The hornet" could have referred to literal hornets, used by God to destroy the nations of Canaan. For they were indeed a problem in the land; "Zorah" in Judah means "place of hornets". But I prefer the idea that the Angel manipulated Gentile nations to soften up the Canaanites before Israel's arrival. The same figure is found in <em><a href='B:290 7:18'>Isa 7:18</a></em>, where God whistled for the "fly that is in Egypt and the bee that is in Assyria". We note that this was all built in to God's wider plan; for had Israel entered Canaan 40 years before they did, they would've found the Canaanites that much stronger than they were after "the hornet" had weakened them for 40 years. It's as if God recalculated the program according to the great weakness of Israel. They didn't enter when they could have done, and so He used the period of their wilderness wanderings to make their entrance to the land that much easier than it would otherwise have been.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate, and the animals of the field multiply against you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The God who is so far away from this earth foresees the situations we will face in life, and like a true Father, arranges things so that they will not be too great for us to overcome. His sensitivity to us is amazing. The truth is that God would have given them the land immediately had they wanted it; He intended giving it to them by stages because of the weakness of their faith (see on :23). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and inherit the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is as in GNB "until there are enough of you to take possession of the land". This implies that Israel were very small in number, and the land too great for them. This would confirm our suggestion on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em> that the numbers who left Egypt were far smaller than commonly thought.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will set your border from the Red Sea even to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as all the animals and everything in the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em>), so the nations of that<em> eretz</em> were delivered into the hands of Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a></em>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden (perhaps the same <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham) and Noah in the new, cleansed <em>eretz</em>, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<em><a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a></em>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<em><a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a></em>). Some like Jephthah (s.w. <em><a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a></em>), Ehud (<em><a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a></em>), Deborah (<em><a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a></em>), Gideon (<em><a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a></em>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the <em>eretz</em> (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a></em>).<em>&nbsp;</em>As discussed on :23, God's plan was to give them the Kingdom progressively. But they spurned it.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people are made parallel with their gods; hence the warning that to marry the people meant covenant with their gods. The tragedy was that Israel were not thus identified with their God. The temptation to make a covenant with the supposed gods of the land was because it was thought this would guarantee fertility; whereas God promised fertility if Israel were loyal to their covenant with Him (:23). But they liked to think they could just guarantee themselves a good harvest by also making covenant with the fertility gods of the land. So we could identify the prime attraction of idolatry as being the promise of material success and stability which it carried with it. And that likewise is the essence of all our modern forms of idolatry.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We can make others sin (<em><a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 16:19'>1Ki 16:19</a></em>). There is an urgent imperative here, to really watch our behaviour; e.g. to not drink alcohol in the presence of a brother whose conscience is weak. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Twice in 1 Timothy, Paul speaks about a snare; the snare of the devil (<em><a href='B:610 3:7'>1Ti 3:7</a></em>), and the snare of wanting wealth (<em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>). The desire for wealth in whatever form is the very epitome of the devil, our inherent sin which we must struggle against. The idea of a snare is that it results in a sudden and unexpected destruction. The unexpectedness of the destruction should set us thinking: surely the implication is that those who are materialistic don't realize that in fact this is their besetting sin, and therefore their rejection in the end because of it will be so tragically unexpected. It's rather like pride; if you're proud and you don't know it, then you really are proud. And if we're materialistic and don't know it, we likewise really have a problem. The idea of riches being a snare connects with copious OT references to idols as Israel's perpetual snare (<em><a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:16'>Deu 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:36'>Psa 106:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 5:1'>Hos 5:1</a></em>). Paul's point is surely that the desire of wealth is the equivalent of OT idolatry. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to Moses, Come up to Yahweh, you, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship from a distance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, "afar off". The original plan had been as in <em><a href='B:20 19:13'>Exo 19:13</a></em> LXX: "When the voices and trumpets and cloud depart from off the mountain, they shall come up on the mountain<em>".</em> But this didn't happen- see on <em><a href='B:20 19:14'>Exo 19:14</a></em>. They were not sufficiently sanctified; see on <em><a href='B:20 19:10'>Exo 19:10</a></em>. The people "perceived" Yahweh's holiness and their sinfulness and continued idolatry. And they shied away from Him (<em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>), whereas His intention was that they came close. But they retreated to "a distance" (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>). These words are so sad. It was a rejection of intimacy with God. And yet God wanted at least some level of relationship with them, and so He still allows and encourages them to worship Him "from a distance", even although that was not His ideal initial intention. He had hoped for more intimacy with them.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I will that they also... be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me" (<em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>) alludes to the 70 elders sharing some of Moses' experience in the Mount; it is as if Christ is saying that his disciples really can enter into his relationship with God, we can be where he was spiritually in his mortal life. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses alone shall come near to Yahweh, but they shall not come near, neither shall the people go up with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :1. "Where I am, thither you cannot come" (<em><a href='B:500 7:34'>Joh 7:34</a></em>) sounds like Moses ascending the Mount, leaving Israel behind him. Yet "Where I am" refers to Christ's unity with God; the heights of his relationship with God connect with the physical ascension of Moses into the mount to hear God's words. Moses' ascents of the mountain were seen as representing an ascension to Heaven; but he had not ascended up to the "heavenly things" of which Christ spoke. Consider the spiritual loneliness of rising to heights no other man has reached, as far as Heaven is above earth. John the Baptist recognized this (<em><a href='B:500 3:31'>Joh 3:31</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh, and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which Yahweh has spoken will we do- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice. <em>&nbsp;</em><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar under the mountain, and twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was obviously literate, having been trained with the best wisdom and education of Egypt. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were so many similarities between Elijah and Moses; Dale Allison points out:<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Confronted Ahab (<em><a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a></em>) = Confronted Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 5:1'>Exo 5:1</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Fled into the wilderness fearing for his life (<em><a href='B:110 19:3'>1Ki 19:3</a></em>) = Fled into the wilderness fearing for his life (<em><a href='B:20 2:15'>Exo 2:15</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Miraculously fed “...bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening...” (<em><a href='B:110 17:6'>1Ki 17:6</a></em>) = Miraculously fed “...meat to eat in the evening, and bread to the full in the morning...” (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:12'>Exo 16:12</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gathered all Israel to Mount Carmel (<em><a href='B:110 18:19'>1Ki 18:19</a></em>)=Gathered all Israel to Mount Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:17'>Exo 19:17</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Combated the prophets of Baal (<em><a href='B:110 18:20-40'>1Ki 18:20-40</a></em>) = Combated the magicians of Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 7:8-13'>Exo 7:8-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 7:20-22'>Exo 7:20-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:1-7'>Exo 8:1-7</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Successful in his intercession for Israel to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (<em><a href='B:110 18:36-39'>1Ki 18:36-39</a></em>) = Successful in his intercession for Israel to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (<em><a href='B:20 32:11-14'>Exo 32:11-14</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elijah took twelve stones at Carmel “...according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob...” (<em><a href='B:110 18:30-32'>1Ki 18:30-32</a></em>) = Moses had twelve pillars set up at Sinai “...corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel...” (<em><a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord accepted Elijah’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (<em><a href='B:110 18:36-39'>1Ki 18:36-39</a></em>) = The Lord accepted Moses and Aaron’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (<em><a href='B:30 9:22-24'>Lev 9:22-24</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>By Elijah’s authority 3000 idolatrous prophets were slain (<em><a href='B:110 18:40'>1Ki 18:40</a></em>) = By Moses’ authority 3000 idolaters were slain (<em><a href='B:20 32:25-29'>Exo 32:25-29</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>After killing the prophets of Baal Elijah climbed Carmel to pray. (<em><a href='B:110 18:42'>1Ki 18:42</a></em>) = After killing the idolaters Moses climbed Sinai to pray (<em><a href='B:20 32:30'>Exo 32:30</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Went without food for forty days and forty nights (<em><a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a></em>) = Went without food for forty days and forty nights (<em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:9'>Deu 9:9</a></em>) <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elijah was in “the cave” on Horeb (=Sinai) when the Lord “passed by” (<em><a href='B:110 19:9-11'>1Ki 19:9-11</a></em>) = Moses was hidden “in the cleft of the rock” when the Lord passed by Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 33:21-23'>Exo 33:21-23</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elijah saw storm, wind, an earthquake and fire upon Horeb (=Sinai). (<em><a href='B:110 19:11-12'>1Ki 19:11-12</a></em>) = Moses saw storm, wind, an earthquake and fire upon Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:16-20'>Exo 19:16-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:11'>Deu 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22-27'>Deu 5:22-27</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Prayed that he might die (<em><a href='B:110 19:1-4'>1Ki 19:1-4</a></em>) = Prayed that he might die. (<em><a href='B:40 11:10-15'>Num 11:10-15</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord brought down fire from heaven upon his enemies (<em><a href='B:120 1:9-12'>2Ki 1:9-12</a></em>) = The Lord brought down fire from heaven upon those who rebelled against him (Numbers 16; cf. <em><a href='B:30 10:1-3'>Lev 10:1-3</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elijah parted the waters of the Jordan by striking the waters with his cloak and passed over on dry ground. (<em><a href='B:120 2:8'>2Ki 2:8</a></em>) = Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea by stretching out his staff and passed over on dry ground (<em><a href='B:20 14:16'>Exo 14:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:21-22'>Exo 14:21-22</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had (2 Kings 2) = His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had the Red Sea (Joshua 3)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Was taken away in the Transjordan (<em><a href='B:120 2:9-11'>2Ki 2:9-11</a></em>) = Died in the Transjordan (<em><a href='B:50 34:5'>Deu 34:5</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Mysteriously translated (2 Kings 9-18) = Died mysteriously and buried in a valley, but his burial place was unknown. (<em><a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The point of these similarities was that the Angel wanted Elijah to be like Moses; to pray for the peoples’ salvation, to return to the people and lead them and teach them. Moses had begged for God’s mercy for His people; but Elijah was so full of self-justification that he prayed against Israel. And so with us, we are potentially led into situations where we are to discern the similarities between us and Bible characters; we are set up with opportunities to respond in a way that reflects how we have learnt the lessons from them. The way the Lord Jesus perceived this in His wilderness temptations is a great example. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of cattle to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joshua appears to have been only one of a group of Moses' "young men" , who moved around the camp running his errands (<em><a href='B:20 24:5'>Exo 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:27-28'>Num 11:27-28</a></em>); as a similar group did for Nehemiah and Paul years later. The young men of the New Testament were also characterized by their love of the word (<em><a href='B:690 2:14'>1Jn 2:14</a></em>). Moses would have had a special fondness for this generation who were to enter the land. A large part of the Law was concerned with Israel's behaviour after they had settled in the land; these would only have been relevant to that younger generation. It is fitting that both Moses and Caleb (and Joshua?) maintained their youthful vigour right up to their death (<em><a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:11'>Jos 14:11</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some covenants of the time were confirmed by the two parties drinking, daubing or touching the blood of the other party. God has no blood, but the sprinkling of blood was as it were His maximum way of telling them that His life, His "blood", was poured out for them and to them. And this was looking forward to the pouring out of the blood of His Son on the cross; not that Jesus was God Himself, but He represented God- and His life, His blood, His essence, His love, poured out toward His people to assure them that the covenant promise of salvation would indeed come true. There is therefore the intended ambiguity of <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>, "the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood". The idea seems to be that God was manifested in the blood of His Son.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people, and they said, All that Yahweh has spoken will we do, and be obedient- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses could read- for he had been raised with the best of the Egyptian education system (<em><a href='B:510 7:22'>Act 7:22</a></em>). This kind of internal corroboration within the Biblical record is to me the strongest argument for the Bible's Divine inspiration. The blood represented God's side of the confirmation; their side was to vow obedience and loyalty to their covenant with Him. And this is likewise our response to the blood of the new covenant, which was God's way of showing His loyalty to us to the ultimate extent.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Look, this is the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has made with you concerning all these words- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Even the old covenant, which was in a sense “eternal”, was made with Israel “upon all these conditions” (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em> RVmg.). It was eternal, potentially, because it had conditions. But the conditionality of it isn’t always brought to the fore when, e.g., we read of the Sabbath as being an eternal ordinance. The way conditions are not stated within the actual prophecy is similar to how blanket statements are made in Scripture, and yet there are exceptions to them. The Lord sought to kill Moses in <em><a href='B:20 4:24'>Exo 4:24</a></em>. If He had done so, all His previous statements about delivering Israel by the hand of Moses would not have come true. God only didn’t kill Moses because Zipporah intervened. She did this purely of her own freewill and according to the depth of her spiritual vision. Thus the earlier prophecies about delivering Israel by the hand of Moses actually had at least one major, though unspoken, condition: If Moses himself remained faithful. “But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue” (<em><a href='B:20 11:7'>Exo 11:7</a></em>) was in fact conditional on Israel remaining indoors. But that condition isn’t then stated.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses bound the people into covenant relationship with the words: “Behold the blood of the covenant” (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). These very words were used by the Lord in introducing the emblems of the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:480 14:24'>Mar 14:24</a></em>). This is how important it is. We are showing that we are the covenant, special Israel of God amidst a Gentile world. Indeed, “the blood of the covenant” in later Judaism came to refer to the blood of circumcision (cp. <em><a href='B:10 17:10'>Gen 17:10</a></em>) and it could be that the Lord was seeking to draw a comparison between circumcision and the breaking of bread. For this is how His words would have sounded in the ears of His initial hearers. This is how vital and defining it is to partake of it. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It wasn’t that the blood&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;the covenant, but the death of the slain animal represented the confirmation and certainty of the covenant. Christ’s death confirmed the new covenant which was made in the promises to Abraham (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:15-19'>Gal 3:15-19</a></em>). Believers take the cup of the new covenant in the breaking of bread service (<em><a href='B:530 11:25'>1Co 11:25</a></em>), as a token of the absolute certainty of God’s basic promises to we who have had those same covenant promises made to us through baptism (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). We will eternally inherit the earth- and the blood of Christ confirmed that to us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps :1,2 were originally between :8 and :9 but became dislodged.<em>&nbsp;</em>It seems to me that God's intention was that His people Israel were to develop their nation into the world-wide Kingdom of God on earth- a calling they miserably failed to achieve in the past, even though the prophets speak of the wonderful way it will come true in the future. Their territory would have literally been "to the ends of the earth"- and perhaps that's why there's the ambiguity in the Hebrew word <em>eretz</em>, which can mean both 'the land / earth' of Israel, and the whole planet earth. Further, the 70 Jewish elders appointed in <em><a href='B:20 24:9-11'>Exo 24:9-11</a></em> were what the New Testament letter to the Hebrews calls a reflection of the things of Heaven on earth- for there were 70 Gentile nations within the <em>eretz</em> / land promised to Abraham (tabulated in Genesis 10), and I suggest that these 70 elders were intended to ultimately rule over them. This would explain the enigmatic <em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em>, which speaks of the boundaries / differentiation of the Gentile nations being set according to "the sons of Israel", or (LXX) "the Angels of God". Putting the evidence together, it would seem that there were 70 Gentile nations in the <em>eretz</em> / land, represented in Heaven by 70 Angels, who in turn were represented on earth by the 70 elders of Israel. It was God's intention that His people should rule over the nations- and yet they as it were marred the reflection of what was in Heaven, the pattern of things in Heaven became ignored. And yet the day is yet to come when men will eagerly take hold of the skirts of a Jew and go with him to worship the true God. From all this I see yet again all the potentials God has made possible for us in our age... and how, despite the fact He may foreknow that we'll waste them, He still sets up those potential possibilities for us. We are too are chosen to be king-priests over this world (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em>), we too have a representative Angel in Heaven beholding God's face... yes, <em>you</em>, and me. We have an Angel there. It's for us to go ahead and reflect the pattern of Heaven here on earth.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They saw the God of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This surely refers to His manifestation in the Angel which specifically represented Israel, Michael (<em><a href='B:340 12:1-2'>Dan 12:1-2</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Under His feet was like a paved work of sapphire stone, like the skies for clearness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention that Jesus stood before Pilate “in a place that is called the Pavement” (<em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>) reminds us of <em><a href='B:20 24:10'>Exo 24:10</a></em>, where Yahweh was enthroned in glory on another ‘pavement’ when the old covenant was made with Israel. The New Covenant was inaugurated with something similar. “In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (<em><a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a></em>) would have been easily perceived as an allusion to the way that Yahweh Himself as it were dwelt between the cherubim on the mercy seat (<em><a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a></em>). And yet the Lord Jesus in His death was the “(place of) propitiation” (<em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>), the blood-sprinkled&nbsp; mercy seat. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He didn’t lay His hand on the nobles of the children of Israel. They saw God, and ate and drank- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To eat and drink with the Lord is a sign He accepts us and does not wish to destroy us. This is the comfort of doing so at the breaking of bread meeting. The implication is that He didn't slay the elders, even though their were somehow unclean and deserved it. All the same, God fellowshipped with them in the covenant meal (cp. the breaking of bread under the new covenant). So the covenant began with grace being shown. Or the idea could be that although they "saw God", they didn't die- as was commonly supposed. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Bible images salvation as a feast with God at His table. The salvation of Israel from Egypt forms the source material for many later allusions to our salvation in Christ- and it was celebrated by Israel being invited up to Mount Sinai to eat and drink with God (<em><a href='B:20 24:9-11'>Exo 24:9-11</a></em>); and it was regularly commemorated in the Passover meal. The future Kingdom of God was spoken of as a meal on a mountain, “a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, for all peoples” (<em><a href='B:290 25:6-8'>Isa 25:6-8</a></em>). Then, death itself will be on the menu and God will swallow it up. It is pictured as an eternal feast which will last eternally.&nbsp; People from all nations of the earth are to be God’s guests. No one is to be excluded. The records of the feeding miracles are presented in terms of this Messianic banquet. We are reminded of how at the Last Supper, Jesus shared bread and wine with those who seriously misunderstood Him, of whom He had to ask “Do you now believe…?”, and knowing full and painfully well that one of the twelve was to betray Him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Come up to me on the mountain, and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone with the law and the commands that I have written, that you may teach them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Law was “a law... which I (Yahweh) have written” (<em><a href='B:20 24:12'>Exo 24:12</a></em>). Yet the Lord Jesus speaks of <em>Moses</em> writing the precepts of the Law (<em><a href='B:480 10:5'>Mar 10:5</a></em>). “The book of the law of Moses” is parallel with “the book of the law of Yahweh” (<em><a href='B:160 8:1'>Neh 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 17:9'>2Ch 17:9</a></em>); it was “the book of the law of Yahweh given by Moses” (<em><a href='B:140 34:14'>2Ch 34:14</a></em>). God was so strongly manifest in Moses. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses rose up with Joshua, his servant, and Moses went up onto God’s Mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to the elders, Wait here for us, until we come again to you. Behold, Aaron and Hur are with you. Whoever is involved in a dispute can go to them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As those miserable men argued over the clothes at the foot of the cross, so when Israel stood before the glory of Yahweh at Sinai, they still suffered “disputes" amongst themselves (<em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV cp. <em><a href='B:650 12:29'>Heb 12:29</a></em>). So pressing and important do human pettinesses appear, despite the awesomeness of that bigger picture to which we stand related.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 24:17'>Exo 24:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>). <em><a href='B:20 13:21'>Exo 13:21</a></em> 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)? <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The glory of Yahweh settled on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. The seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The six days&nbsp; followed by the seventh recalls creation. The idea was in those six days of contemplation of Yahweh's glory, Moses and Israel were to be suitably humbled so that Moses might enter into the things of the rest of God, the Kingdom. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The appearance of the glory of Yahweh was like devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :15. Our God remains a consuming fire of judgment to this day (<em><a href='B:650 12:29'>Heb 12:29</a></em>). But the idea was that Israel were intended to understand that despite this, a man like Moses could fellowship with this God. And so could they. And despite living in full view of God's judgment and His glory for 40 days, they worshipped the golden calf. This is evidence for all time that visible evidence doesn't guarantee true faith, let alone obedience (<em><a href='B:650 11:1-2'>Heb 11:1-2</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses entered into the midst of the cloud, and went up on the mountain; and Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the more impressive when we understand that the cloud was a cloud of fire (:17; <em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>). Israel ought to have got the message that mere man could indeed fellowship with such a holy and awesome God. Yet instead they shied away from it, to the pathetic worship of gods of wood and stone. Moses neither ate nor drank during those forty days (<em><a href='B:50 9:11'>Deu 9:11</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commands to build the tabernacle are repeated 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>Speak to the children of Israel, that they take an offering for Me. From everyone whose heart makes him willing you shall take My offering- </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>This is the offering which you shall take from them: gold, silver, brass-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All these valuable things had mostly been taken from or given to Israel by the Egyptians. They were to now voluntarily give them back to God. For all is of Him. What we take from this world we are to give to God, and He will dwell amongst us thereby (:8). And in the wilderness, all these valuable things were of little real value; they were just a human guarantee against future needs. But God had promised to bring them to Canaan, where all would be lavishly provided for them by His grace. And that is about the view we should have of present wealth.&nbsp;&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'>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, acacia wood- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The acacia wood was just the common bush wood found in the desert. See on :4. 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>oil for the light, spices 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>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 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>Let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commands concerning the tabernacle were given to Moses by the Angel- do phrases like "Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them" (<em><a href='B:20 25:8'>Exo 25:8</a></em>) have primary reference to the Angel speaking the words? In the same way, does <em><a href='B:230 99:1'>Psa 99:1</a></em> refer also to the physical presence of an Angel between the cherubim? "The LORD reigns... He sits between the cherubim (through His Angel); let the earth (land of Israel) be moved". Similarly "Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel (the Angel- so Isaiah 63 describes the wilderness Angel), You that leads Joseph like a flock (the Angel lead them through the wilderness); You who dwells between the cherubims, shine forth" (<em><a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a></em>). And again in <em><a href='B:230 20:1-2'>Psa 20:1-2</a></em> "The God of Jacob (i.e. the Angel whom Jacob recognized had been so much in his life) defend you; send you help from the sanctuary", as if it was in the sanctuary (Holy Place) that the Angel was located. See on <em><a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to all that I show you, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all of its furniture, even so you shall make it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:500 5:19-20'>Joh 5:19-20</a></em> we read that the Son does (<em>poieo</em>) what He sees the Father doing, and the Father shows Him (<em>deiknumi</em>) all <em>(panta</em>) that He does. “All these works… I have not done them of mine own mind” (<em><a href='B:40 16:28'>Num 16:28</a></em>). This is referring to <em><a href='B:20 25:9'>Exo 25:9</a></em> LXX, where Moses makes <em>(poieo</em>) the Tabernacle according to all (<em>panta</em>) that God shows him (<em>deiknuo</em>). The reference of <em><a href='B:500 5:19-20'>Joh 5:19-20</a></em> is therefore to the Lord Jesus working with His Father in the building up of us the tabernacle… and all things God planned for us were revealed to the Son even in His mortality, prefigured by this revelation to Moses. What great wealth of understanding was there within His mind, within those brain cells… and how tragic that the head and body that bore them was betrayed and ignored and spat upon and tortured by men…<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall make an ark of acacia wood. Its length shall be two and a half cubits, its breadth a cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half its height- </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'>"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'><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>). 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall overlay it with pure gold. You shall overlay it inside and outside, and you shall make a gold moulding 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>You shall cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in its four feet. Two rings shall be on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it- </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 :27. <em></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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay 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>You shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry 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>The poles shall be in the rings of the ark. They shall not be taken from it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to emphasize that the ark was always to be ready to move on; see on :12. Even when Israel were settled in their land and the temple was built, the staves were always to remain in the rings of the ark to symbolize this (<em><a href='B:110 8:7'>1Ki 8:7</a></em>). In our more settled existence, even if we live in the house we were born in for all our days, we should have this spirit of being ready to be moved on in our spiritual journey.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put the testimony which I shall give you into the ark- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The tables of the covenant were only given to Moses at the end of the 40 days. Hence "which I shall give you", for Moses at this point was on Sinai hearing these commands for the first time, and was only to be given the testimony at the end of it. Again we note the internal corroboration within the Biblical record.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two and a half cubits shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the cover 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make two cherubim of hammered gold. You shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The cherubim had wings (:28) 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>Make one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other end. You shall make the cherubim on its two ends of one piece with the mercy seat- </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 shall spread out their wings upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings, with their faces toward one another. The faces of the cherubim shall be 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>You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I will give you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies that the slab of gold which was the "mercy seat" was separate from the ark, and covered it like a lid. The blood of atonement was sprinkled each year upon the top of the ark, the place known as “the mercy seat” or ‘atonement cover’. This blood represented the blood of Christ. The Angel cherubim shadowed the blood on the cover, representing how the Angels watched over Christ in His sacrifice and especially upon the cross. Hence His temptation to call Angels to deliver Him from it (<em><a href='B:470 26:53'>Mat 26:53</a></em>). Peter alludes to this in saying that the Angels intently look down upon the things of the blood of Christ (<em><a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a></em>). Pagan religions typically had a throne in their temples, on which their God sat. The throne of the true God was apparently empty- there was a “mercy seat”, but no god or idol sat upon it. But He was enthroned there. Faith is about believing in the God who cannot be seen (<em><a href='B:650 11:1-2'>Heb 11:1-2</a></em>), and whose saving mercy to us is confirmed in the blood of His Son.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There I will meet with you, and I will tell you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the testimony, all that I command you for the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:100 23:1-3'>2Sa 23:1-3</a></em>. “In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (<em><a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a></em>) would have been easily perceived as an allusion to the way that Yahweh Himself as it were dwelt between the cherubim on the mercy seat (<em><a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a></em>). And yet the Lord Jesus in His death was the “(place of) propitiation” (<em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>), the blood-sprinkled&nbsp; mercy seat. In His Son on the cross, God met with man and communed with us (<em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>), commanding us the life we ought to lead through all the unspoken, unarticulated imperatives which there are within the blood of His Son. There in the person of Jesus nailed to the tree do we find the focus of God’s glory and self-revelation, and to this place we may come to seek redemption. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God meets with us over the blood of Christ, and from there His voice is heard. "Tell you" translates the usual Hebrew word <em>dabar </em>used for "word". Hence <em><a href='B:650 12:18-29'>Heb 12:18-29</a></em> likens the blood of Christ to a huge voice; we cannot imagine Him there on the cross and be passive, we hear, as it were, God’s voice for us. This is why we must regularly remember Christ on the cross, replaying the scene continually before our eyes. For there we hear God’s voice and we have our meeting with Him. The breaking of bread service is a practical help to this end.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God met with Israel over the ark in the most holy place (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:4'>Num 17:4</a></em>). But they were never allowed there. And so He also "met" (s.w.) with Israel at the door of the tabernacle, and spoke with them there (<em><a href='B:20 29:42-43'>Exo 29:42-43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:36'>Exo 30:36</a></em>). As if God like a king came forth to meet with His people and speak with them. But the word for "meet" is used in <em><a href='B:370 3:3'>Amo 3:3</a></em>, where God laments that Israel had not "met" with Him and therefore they could not walk further together. The idea of the "meeting" was that God's word might be revealed, so that the people could walk with Him in His ways. It was an awesome invitation, to be able to meet with the God who only otherwise met with His people in the glory of the most holy place, over the ark. He as it were came out of that most holy place and met with them at the door of the tabernacle. But they weren't interested. Just as so many today.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Seeing Israel generally never entered the Most Holy, this could be read as a prophecy ("I <em>will</em> meet with you") of the day when the veil would be torn down and the way into the holiest opened to all Israel- which happened at the Lord's death. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make a table of acacia wood. Two cubits shall be its length, and a cubit its breadth, and one and a half cubits its height-</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>You shall overlay it with pure gold, and make 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>You shall make a rim of a handbreadth around it. You shall make a golden moulding on its rim 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>You shall make four rings of gold for it, and put the rings in the four corners that are on its four feet-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ark also 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The rings shall be close to the rim, for 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. That is the point; see on :12. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be carried with them- </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 :12.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make its dishes, its spoons, its ladles, and its bowls to pour out offerings with. You shall make them 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 (<em><a href='B:20 25:29'>Exo 25:29</a></em>); 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 <em>faith</em> in the power and existence of Yahweh.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set bread of the presence on the table before me always- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"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>You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. Of hammered work shall the lampstand be made, even its base, its shaft, its cups, its buds, and its flowers, shall be 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 :23.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There shall be 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and in the lampstand four cups made like almond blossoms, its buds and its flowers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The <em>menorah</em> 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 the lampstand- </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>), but it is presented here as a tree with branches, buds and blossoms (:33). 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 shall be of one piece with it, all of it one beaten work of pure gold- </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" 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>You shall make its lamps seven, and they shall light its lamps to give light to the space in front of it- </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. 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>Its snuffers and its snuff dishes shall be of pure gold- </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>It shall be made of a talent of pure gold, with all these accessories-</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.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>See that you make them after their pattern, which has been shown to you on the mountain-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul's comment is that this "pattern" was itself a pattern of heavenly things. The tabernacle was a reflection in essence of the heavenly sanctuary (<em><a href='B:650 9:23-24'>Heb 9:23-24</a></em>), with the priests doing the work of the Angels; hence both are called <em>elohim</em>. At least that was how Israel were bidden understand it. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains; of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with cherubim. By the work of the skilful workman you shall make 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 shall be twenty-eight cubits, and the breadth of each curtain four cubits: all the curtains shall have 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>Five curtains shall be coupled together one to another; and the other five curtains shall be 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>You shall make loops of blue on the edge of the one curtain from the edge in the coupling; and likewise you shall make in the edge of the curtain that is outmost in the second coupling-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :3. "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>You shall make fifty loops in the one curtain, and you shall make fifty loops in the edge of the curtain that is in the second coupling. The loops shall be 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 :4. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make fifty clasps of gold, and couple the curtains one to another with the clasps: and the tabernacle shall be one- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is great emphasis in Exodus 26 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>You shall make curtains of goats’ hair for a covering over the tabernacle. You shall make 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 shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of each curtain four cubits: the eleven curtains shall have 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 :12.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall couple five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves, and shall double over the sixth curtain in the forefront of the tent- </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>You shall make fifty loops on the edge of the one curtain that is outmost in the coupling, and fifty loops on the edge of the curtain which is 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>You shall make fifty clasps of brass, and put the clasps into the loops, and couple the tent together, that it may be one-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :10, the language looks forward to the unity of the body of believers. "That it may be one" is clearly alluded to by the Lord Jesus when He prayed "that they may 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>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The overhanging part that remains of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remains, shall hang over the back of the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :8. 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>The cubit on the one side, and the cubit on the other side, of that which remains in the length of the curtains of the tent, shall hang over the sides of the tabernacle on this side and on that side, to cover it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The outer tent of goats' hair was 30 cubits broad (<em><a href='B:20 26:8'>Exo 26:8</a></em>), whilst the internal linen 'tent' was 28 cubits. There was therefore one cubit overhang on each side. "The cubit" here therefore means "one cubit".&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make 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'>They were dyed red to represent how the blood of Christ is the covering for God’s people. Presumably they had picked up the sea cow hides from the shores of the Red Sea. What we pick up along life's way is to be devoted to the things of God. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make 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 shall be the length of a board, and one and a half cubits 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 :15), 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 :17.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There shall be two tenons in each board, joined to one another: thus you shall make for all the boards of the tabernacle- </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 :16.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make 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 :20. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make 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, 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 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>).&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 you shall make 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 :23 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>You shall make two boards for the corners of the tabernacle in the far part- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :22, these corner posts were half a cubit broad. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall be double beneath, and in the same way they shall be whole to its top to one ring: thus shall it be for them both; they shall be for the two corners- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew 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 shall be eight boards, and their sockets of silver, sixteen sockets; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board- </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 :22,23. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make 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 (:15), 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>


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 side of the tabernacle, for the far 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>The middle bar in the midst of the boards shall pass through from end to end- </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>You shall overlay the boards with gold, and make their rings of gold for places for the bars: and you shall overlay 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>You shall set up the tabernacle according to the way that it was shown to you on the mountain-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder whether Moses was given a vision of how the tabernacle would look when constructed.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cherubim. The work of the skilful workman shall it be made-</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><p style='margin-left:1em'>The veil represents Christ in His humanity (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>). His character was complexly woven and beautiful, with the white linen or righteousness (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>) running as a thread through His entire character. Weaving complex strands and patterns therefore speaks of how God worked to develop the character of Christ, and He likewise weaves in our lives too, if we are open to His working.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall hang it on four pillars of acacia overlaid with gold; their hooks shall be of gold, on four sockets of silver- </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 :15, "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>You shall hang up the veil under the clasps, and shall bring the ark of the testimony in there within the veil: and the veil shall separate the holy place from the most holy for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The veil screened off the Most Holy Place, where the very presence of God was. When Christ died, this veil was torn down (<em><a href='B:470 26:51'>Mat 26:51</a></em>), from top to bottom- indicating it was done by God and not men. Through His death, anyone who believes in Him can do continually what the High Priest could do only once per year- come right into the very presence of God Himself. But the High Priest entered in order to serve God, and to attain salvation for sinners. This, then, is to be our work. We are all to function not only as priests (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>), but in a sense, as the High Priest. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony in the most holy place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This again indicates that the mercy seat was not part of the ark, but was a detachable lid. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set the table outside the veil, and the lampstand over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south; and you shall put the table on the north side- </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>You shall make a screen for the door of the Tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work of the 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. <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 fom 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>You shall make for the screen five pillars of acacia, and overlay them with gold: their hooks shall be of gold; and you shall cast five sockets of brass for them-</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>You shall make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be foursquare: and its height shall be 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><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although the altar was very low, only three cubits (45 cm.) high (<em><a href='B:20 27:1'>Exo 27:1</a></em>), Aaron "came down" from it (<em><a href='B:30 9:22'>Lev 9:22</a></em>). This may be understood in the same way as people "went up" and "came down" from the temple. Sacrifice was a 'height'. However the more obvious sense is that the altar was placed upon a mound of earth or rocks. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make its horns on its four corners; its horns shall be of one piece with it; and you shall overlay 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>You shall make its pots to take away its ashes, its shovels, its basins, its flesh hooks, and its fire pans: all its vessels you shall make 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>You shall make a grating for it of network of brass: and on the net you shall make four bronze rings in its four corners- </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>You shall put it under the ledge around the altar beneath, that the net may reach halfway up the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Put it" is LXX "put them", referring to the rings. Or GNB "Put the grating under the rim of the altar, so that it reaches halfway up the altar". If the grate was only halfway up the altar, this could mean that the altar was placed over a heap of earth which was "halfway up the altar"; see on :8.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make poles for the altar, poles of acacia wood, and overlay 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>Its poles shall be put into the rings, and the poles shall be on the two sides of the altar, when carrying it- </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. 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>You shall make it with hollow planks. They shall make it as it has been shown you on the mountain-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The earlier insistence had been that Israel only worship upon an altar or earth or unhewn stones (<em><a href='B:20 20:24'>Exo 20:24</a></em>). It could be that the hollow nature of the altar meant that a pile of earth was made, and the altar structure placed on top of it. But this would make it hard to understand how the ashes of the sacrifices could be collected. Surely the idea of a grate would have been meaningless if effectively the altar was solid earth inside it. So we are left with the conclusion that the 'altar of earth' instruction was not to apply to the tabernacle, but to altars for sacrifice which were used more local to the tents of the people. Or perhaps it was intended to only apply in the wilderness until the tabernacle was built. For clearly later altars were accepted by God, when they were not made of earth. We see in these considerations that the law of Moses was not inflexible, and God is not a literalist. Changed circumstances for His people changed His operational style with them, and His expectations of them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make the court of the tabernacle: for the south side southward there shall be hangings for the court of fine twined linen one hundred cubits long for one side- </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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and its pillars shall be twenty, and their sockets twenty, of brass; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets shall be 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>Likewise for the north side in length there shall be hangings one hundred cubits long, and its 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 breadth of the court on the west side shall be hangings of fifty cubits; their pillars ten, and their sockets ten- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "with ten posts and ten bases".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The breadth of the court on the east side eastward shall be 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 of the gate shall be fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Verses 14 and 15 are 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>For the other side shall be 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>For the gate of the court shall be a screen of twenty cubits, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work of the embroiderer; their pillars four, and their sockets four- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 veil symbolized the flesh of the Lord; and yet in it was woven scarlet, a symbol of His blood and sacrifice (<em><a href='B:20 27:16'>Exo 27:16</a></em>), 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the pillars of the court around shall be filleted with silver; their hooks of silver, and their sockets of brass- </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 length of the court shall be one hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty everywhere, and the height five cubits, of fine twined linen, and their sockets of brass-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The relatively low height meant that the tent containing the holy place and most holy place was visible to the ordinary people even from outside the tabernacle. It also meant that to enter into the tabernacle, a man would have to bow his head. Humility was to be for all time the required prerequisite for beginning any approach to God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the instruments of the tabernacle in all its service, and all its pins, and all the pins of the court, shall be 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>You shall command the children of Israel, that they bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"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 for 40 years? I suggest as on :8 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><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lampstand is used as a symbol of the ecclesia in the visions of Revelation 2, 3. The purpose of the ecclesia is to enable the oil of the Spirit to be burnt, to turn it into light. We are to keep our own personal light burning continually, day and night. Jesus had this in mind when He likened us to women waiting for the bridegroom to come at night, whose oil lamps should not be allowed to go out (<em><a href='B:470 25:8'>Mat 25:8</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the Tent of Meeting, outside the veil which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall keep it in order from evening to morning before Yahweh: it shall be a statute forever throughout their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel</em>- <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The tent of meeting" is the tent where God met with His people over the blood of atonement upon the ark of the covenant. But that "meeting" was effectively not with the people, as only the priests entered into the holy place, and the high priest alone, only once / year, into the ultimate place where God met with His people- the Most Holy place. But the candlestick was to be kept burning in order to point the way into the Most Holy. All this suggested that there was something lacking in the entire system. God was prepared and even willing to meet with His people over the blood of atonement on the day of atonement. That meeting was therefore predicated upon their repentance and forgiveness. But it would have left the people aware that a fuller meeting with God was somehow promised. And this would come to full term when the Lord's death tore down the veil, and the way into the holiest was opened for all, not just the priests nor the High Priest.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Aaron and his sons have not yet been chosen and dedicated to the priestly work. So this may have been edited in, under Divine inspiration, from <em><a href='B:30 24:1-4'>Lev 24:1-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 8:1-2'>Num 8:1-2</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bring Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, near to you from among the children of Israel, that he may minister to Me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God intended Israel to be "a Kingdom of priests" (<em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em>). “All the people of Israel” were the builders of the spiritual house of God, i.e. His people (<em><a href='B:510 4:10-11'>Act 4:10-11</a></em>). It was God's intention that there should be no specialist priests. It was everyone's job, to teach their neighbour and family God's word. But His plans were ammended as their general failure became apparent, and the Levites were chosen. But His ideal intention remained. Thus when Israel were rejected, they were told that they as a nation could no longer be God’s priest (<em><a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a></em>). By baptism, we become spiritual Israel; and this idea is relevant to us too. Peter picks up these words in Exodus and applies them to every one of us, for the new covenant returns to this original intention of the old covenant: "You also are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>, quoting <em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em> LXX). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 speak to all who are wise-hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to sanctify him, that he may minister to Me in the priest’s office- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "in which apparel he shall minister to me as priest". 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..." (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>These are the garments which they shall make: a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash; and they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, and his sons, that he may minister to Me in the priest’s office- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses may well have struggled with this decision. For Aaron was consistently spiritually inferior to himself. Yet his family, and not that of Moses, was to be chosen for this special honour. It was all part of the humbling process which resulted in Moses reaching acme of humility in the declaration that he was made the meekest man on earth (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall take the gold, and the blue, and the purple, and the scarlet, and the fine linen- </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 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>They shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work of the skilful workman-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ephod was a kind of waistcoat, onto which the breastplate was attached. 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>It shall have two shoulder straps joined to the two ends of it, that it may be 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. See on :13.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The skilfully woven belt band which is on it, that is to be put on him, shall be like its work and of the same piece; of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen-</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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take two onyx stones, and engrave on them 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>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-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob had tried to re-arrange the order of his sons according to his judgment of them, but his judgment was somewhat human. God takes no notice of it here. Note that we are to wear the breastplate of righteousness (<em><a href='B:560 6:14'>Eph 6:14</a></em>); all that is true of Christ is in some sense true of those who are in Him. We too are to seek to bear others' burdens of sin, enter the Most Holy and seek to reconcile others to God. The way into the holiest has now been opened- for us to enter, for the sake of others. The many applications of the OT High Priestly language to ordinary believers would've been so difficult for our early Christian Jewish brethren to accept. We are right now sitting in heavenly places (cp. the Most Holy) with Christ, who sits there at God's right hand (<em><a href='B:560 2:6'>Eph 2:6</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, you shall engrave the two stones, according to the names of the children of Israel: you shall make them to be enclosed in settings of gold- </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>You shall put the two stones on the shoulder straps of the ephod, to be stones of memorial for the children of Israel; and Aaron shall bear their names before Yahweh on his two shoulders for a memorial-</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 (:29) as He stands for us in God’s presence. The preciousness of the stones reflects our high value in God’s sight. The idea of "stones of memorial" 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make settings of gold-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "circlets". The golden chains (:14) were to go into them. There is a constant theme of interconnection in all the commands given about the tabernacle. See on :7. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and two chains of pure gold; you shall make them like cords of braided work: and you shall put the braided chains on the settings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "and thou shalt make two fringes of pure gold, variegated with flowers wreathen work; and thou shalt put the wreathen fringes on the circlets, fastening them on their shoulder-pieces in front".&nbsp;Again we note the constant theme of interconnection in all the commands given about the tabernacle. See on :7. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make a breastplate of judgment, the work of the skilful workman; like the work of the ephod you shall make it; of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, you shall make it- </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 (:30) was God's word or oracle to His people. For "linen" see on :6<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 shall be square and folded double; a span shall be its length of it, and a span its breadth- </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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set in it settings of stones, four rows of stones: a row of ruby, topaz, and beryl shall be 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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "a sardius, a topaz, and emerald". See on :9 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 :9 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 :9 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 shall be enclosed in gold in their settings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "chrysolite, and a beryl, and an onyx stone". See on :9 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 shall be according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names; like the engravings of a signet, each one according to his name, they shall be 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>You shall make 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 :15. 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>You shall make on the breastplate two rings of gold, and shall put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :22, 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>You shall 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The other two ends of the two braided chains you shall put on the two settings, and put them on the shoulder straps of the ephod in its forepart- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :23,24, 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>You shall make two rings of gold, and you shall put them on the two ends of the breastplate, on its edge, which is 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></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make two rings of gold, and shall put them on the two shoulder straps of the ephod underneath, in its forepart, 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 shall bind the breastplate by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it may be on the skilfully woven band of the ephod, and that the breastplate may not swing out from the ephod- </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>Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment on his heart, when he goes in to the holy place, for a memorial before Yahweh continually- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names of God's people are in the heart of the Lord Jesus, our great High Priest (<em><a href='B:20 28:29'>Exo 28:29</a></em>); just as God's words are to be upon the hearts of His people (<em><a href='B:50 6:6'>Deu 6:6</a></em>). We are not dealt with automatically, as it were, or as part of a theological transaction. We are in His heart, He has us on His heart, deep in His feelings. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for 'intercede' means also 'to meet'; every prayer is a meeting with God (<em><a href='B:220 21:15'>Job 21:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 47:3'>Isa 47:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 64:5'>Isa 64:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:16'>Jer 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:11'>Jer 15:11</a></em>). Phinehas "executed judgment" or, as some translations, 'prayed / interceded' for Israel (<em><a href='B:230 106:30'>Psa 106:30</a></em>). Judgment and prayer are linked. The "breastplate of judgment" enabled the High Priest to bear the names of all Israel before God in mediation- and their judgment was carried by him, as it is by Jesus, in the process of mediating for them (<em><a href='B:20 28:29-30'>Exo 28:29-30</a></em>). Romans is full of legal language, of interceding, pleading, finding a favourable verdict etc., and refers this to the judgment and also to the cross. But Romans 8 uses these very ideas in relation to prayer, for in coming before the throne of grace now on account of the Lord's sacrifice, we come in essence before judgment. Coming before the throne of God in prayer (<em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 17:1-2'>Psa 17:1-2</a></em>) is the language of the judgment seat. If we become before His throne and are accepted, it follows that this is a foretaste of the outcome of the judgment for us, were we to be judged at that time. Our boldness before the Father in prayer will be the same attitude we have to Him at the judgment throne (<em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:17'>1Jn 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em> all use the same Greek word). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be on Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before Yahweh; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel on his heart before Yahweh continually- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "The Manifestation and the Truth". These stones appear to have flashed out binary yes / no responses or judgments in response to issues brought before God; they were the means of the manifestation of His truth. This is how they were used on the occasions we will later read of them. This is perhaps why "Breastplate" is LXX "oracle", as if the judgment flashed out from the urim and thummim associated with the breastplate was God's word or oracle to His people.&nbsp;The urim and thummim are where the precious stones of the breastplate were (:29)- on the heart of the high priest. The answer of God concerning His people was on the heart of the Lord Jesus. The outcome of His judgment of us is so deeply in His heart. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make the robe of the ephod 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>It shall have a hole for the head in its midst: it shall have a binding of woven work around its hole, as it were the hole of a coat of mail, that it not be torn- </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;&nbsp; </em><em></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'>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>On its hem you shall make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, around its hem; and bells of gold between and around them- </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; see on :36. <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>a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, around the hem of the robe- </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 :32, 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>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></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>You shall make a plate of pure gold, and engrave on it, 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; see on :33. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put it on a lace of blue, and it shall be on the sash; on the front of the sash it shall be- </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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall make holy in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always on his forehead, that they may be accepted before Yahweh-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Accepted" has the idea of delighted in, great pleasure. Those whose names are carried by the High Priest thereby and therefore become God's great pleasure and delight. His delight in us, seeing us as unblemished, is a great Bible theme. The transaction seems in a sense unfair- that because of the work of one man, many could come into that status. But this is the challenge of faith.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall weave the coat in chequer work of fine linen, and you shall make a turban of fine linen, and you shall make a sash, the work of the embroiderer- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>You shall make coats for Aaron’s sons, and you shall make sashes for them and you shall make headbands for them, for glory and for beauty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Sashes" is AV "girdles". 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 put them on Aaron your brother, and on his sons with him, and shall anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister to Me in the priest’s office- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord died that He might "sanctify" us to God. This is the word used by the LXX to describe the consecration of the priests to service of the body of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 28:41'>Exo 28:41</a></em>). If we reject the call to priesthood today, we reject the point of the Lord's saving suffering for us. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness; from the waist even to the thighs they shall reach- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall be on Aaron, and on his sons, when they go in to the Tent of Meeting, or when they come near to the altar to minister in the holy place; that they don’t bear iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute forever to him and to his descendants after him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Bear iniquity" is therefore an idiom for being personally guilty. Yet the idiom is used about the Lord Jesus Christ in His bearing of our iniquity on the cross (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). The Lord Jesus was our sin bearer and yet personally guiltless. This is the paradox which even He struggled with, leading to His feeling of having been forsaken by God (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>). This means that although Christ never sinned, He knows the feelings of sinners, because His identity with us was so deep and complete.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the thing that you shall do to them to make them holy, to minister to Me in the priest’s office: take one young bull and two rams without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus, on account of which we are sanctified or made holy in God's service (<em><a href='B:500 17:19'>Joh 17:19</a></em>). His death makes us all as priests; our lives should be of work and concern for the salvation of others. The Lord's sacrifice sanctifies us to do this. 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>unleavened bread, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil: you shall make them of fine wheat flour-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This suggests that the bull and rams of :1 were associated with peace offerings. But the usual sequence is of sin offering, burnt offering (representing dedication to Yahweh's service after the experience of forgiveness) and then peace offering, celebrating peace with God. The three animals may have represented those sacrifices, indeed :14 is clear that the bull was a sin offering; and the three types of unleavened bread products were used as part of the peace offering. The experience of forgiveness, and the promise of dedication elicited from us by this, is utterly critical in order for us to do any priestly work for others. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put them into one basket, and bring them in the basket, with the bull and the two rams- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "offer them in the basket". The bringing in the basket looked ahead to the sons of Aaron being brought to God (:8).&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'>This clearly looks ahead to baptism. It is one outcome of baptism that we are sanctified in order to do priestly work. Our life afterwards is therefore to be lived in the spirit of priesthood.&nbsp; Again we note that the Mosaic rituals allude to those of Egypt, although are different: "In Egypt, the priests were compelled to wash themselves from head to foot in cold water twice every day, and twice every night" (Herodotus). This amount of washing wasn't required. For the water of itself was insignificant; it was made powerful by the blood of the sacrifice, just as baptism is.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take the garments, and put on Aaron the coat, the robe of the ephod, the ephod, and the breastplate, and clothe him with the skilfully woven band of the ephod- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron was not to clothe himself, but to be clothed by Moses. This may have been to remind Aaron that this was not of his doing, he was merely being used by God, manifest through Moses. But it would also have been to humble Moses, who might have been tempted to assume that he ought to be this new high priest figure. For Aaron had consistently been spiritually inferior to Moses. But it was part of Moses' humbling process to make him array his brother as the High Priest, and to realize that not his own sons, but those of his brother, were to be the priests. And so he ended up the humblest man (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you shall set the turban on his head, and put the holy crown on the turban- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commands relating to the rebuilt temple of Ezekiel 40-48 are expanded upon in Zechariah 3. There we read that Joshua the high priest was to be dressed first with the headpiece and then with the rest of the priestly garments (<em><a href='B:450 3:5'>Zec 3:5</a></em>). This is the reverse order to the Mosaic commands in <em><a href='B:20 29:5-7'>Exo 29:5-7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:30 8:7-9'>Lev 8:7-9</a></em> - implying that this was to be a new kind of high priest. Likewise the two onyx stones and the twelve gemstones of the Mosaic breastplate are replaced by a singular stone for the restored high priest (<em><a href='B:450 3:9'>Zec 3:9</a></em>). Clearly this "law of Moses" was not of itself intended to be eternal. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then you shall take the anointing oil, and pour it on his head, and anoint him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Septuagint word used for ‘anointing’ here occurs in the New Testament only 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>, where we read 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, and specifically as the priests. <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 :5. The bringing of the dedicatory offerings in the basket looked ahead to the sons of Aaron being brought to God (:3). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall clothe them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind headbands on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute; and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was promised to the family of Aaron that the priesthood would be theirs for a perpetual statute. And yet the family of Eli, a descendant of Aaron (<em><a href='B:110 2:27'>1Ki 2:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 24:3'>1Ch 24:3</a></em>), were told that they were to be cut off as they had abused the priesthood. The promise of Exodus was therefore conditional, although the conditions weren’t laid down. Indeed, just because of this fact, the Levites often assumed that they were acceptable just by reason of who they were.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring the bull before the Tent of Meeting; and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on the head of the bull- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a sin offering (:14<em>).</em> The priests identified with the slain animal by placing their hands upon its head; they saw it as their representative (not their substitute). The foundation for all service of God is a recognition of sin and a belief in sin's forgiveness; and our service will then be performed in a humble spirit of gratitude. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall kill the bull before Yahweh, at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The tent of meeting" is the tent where God met with His people over the blood of atonement upon the ark of the covenant. But that "meeting" was effectively not with the people, as only the priests entered into the holy place, and the high priest alone, only once / year, into the ultimate place where God met with His people- the Most Holy place. But the candlestick was to be kept burning in order to point the way into the Most Holy. All this suggested that there was something lacking in the entire system. God was prepared and even willing to meet with His people over the blood of atonement on the day of atonement. That meeting was therefore predicated upon their repentance and forgiveness. But it would have left the people aware that a fuller meeting with God was somehow promised. And this would come to full term when the Lord's death tore down the veil, and the way into the holiest was opened for all, not just the priests nor the High Priest.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take of the blood of the bull, and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger; and you shall pour out all the blood 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.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take all the fat that covers the innards, the cover of the liver, the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, and burn them on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pagan sacrifices included the fat, but not all the other "innards". 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><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, within the frames of understanding and perception within which they then lived. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the flesh of the bull, and its skin, and its dung, you shall burn with fire outside of the camp: it is a sin offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 13:11-13'>Heb 13:11-13</a></em> alludes to this, making the point that not only the blood represented the blood of the Lord Jesus, but even the flesh of the bull, burnt outside the camp, looked ahead to the Lord suffering death outside the walls of Jerusalem. We are invited to see the cross therefore as the final destruction of flesh in the life of the Lord Jesus. The mention of its skin and dung shows too the total level of identification with human sin and dirt, achieved so wonderfully by the Lord in His death on the cross.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall also take the one ram; and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on the head of the ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Laying the hands on the head was an act of identity, taking the animal as their representative rather than their substitute. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall kill the ram, and you shall take its blood, and sprinkle it around on the altar- </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>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall cut the ram into its pieces, and wash its innards, and its legs, and put them with its pieces, and with its head-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :13. Sacrifice of an entire animal (:18) was not practiced in Egypt. They thought their gods were only interested in the externally attractive parts, or the fat which burned with a bright flame. But Yahweh wants every part of the animal, as He wishes every part of our lives.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall burn the whole ram on the altar: it is a burnt offering to Yahweh; it is a pleasant aroma, an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To offer the "whole ram" would have been unusual in the religious culture of the day. Only the best parts of animals were offered, especially those which appeared the most attractive to human eyes. But "whole burnt offerings" were very much on Yahweh's agenda- to symbolize how He wants the whole person, every innermost part of human life, even if it appears irrelevant and unclean in human eyes. For "pleasant aroma", see on :41. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take the other ram; and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on the head of the ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This dedication ceremony was really a peace offering, as the sacrifice was also eaten by the priests; although there is the addition here of the ritual of sprinkling the blood. All who enter upon priestly service (which is all of us, under the new covenant) are to go through the process of sin offering (:14), dedication to God in response to the forgiveness received, and then the experience of peace with God, symbolized by the peace offering. It is from this basis that we can go on to serve others; and those who have not passed through this will not be effective ministers to others.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then you shall kill the ram, and take some of its blood, and put it on the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and on the tip of the right ear of his sons, and on the thumb of their right hand, and on the big toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood around on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their hearing, walking and acting with the hand was to be influenced by their experience of association with the blood of the sin offering. And this is to be the effect of the blood of the Lord Jesus upon us. Our whole worldview, perceptions, actions and direction in life can never be the same again. He died for us, and we have been forgiven, and thereby sanctified for priestly service. His death can never be a mere doctrine, a theological teaching, resulting in a hobby level commitment to occasional religious meetings; but if really experienced, then every part of life and outlook is radically affected.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take of the blood that is on the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it on Aaron, and on his garments, and on his sons, and on the garments of his sons with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the mixture of the anointing oil and blood of the sacrifice. Perhaps this was to make a connection with the blood of the future anointed one, the 'Christ', the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And he shall be made holy, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons’ garments with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>‘To make holy’ or to ‘sanctify’ is something the Lord Jesus often spoke in discussing the meaning of His death. He makes many allusions to the language of the High Priest in His prayer of John 17, e.g. “for their sakes I sanctify Myself so that they also may be sanctified” (<em><a href='B:500 17:19'>Joh 17:19</a></em>). We are all called to be part of a new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>); Christ’s death sanctified us, prepared us for service in God’s house. Spiritually serving others is therefore not something just for a specialist minority, but for <em>all</em> who are in Christ, ‘the anointed one’, anointed just as the priests were anointed to serve (:21). The unblemished animals which were sacrificed in order to sanctify the priests therefore represent the sacrifice of Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also you shall take some of the ram’s fat, the fat tail, the fat that covers the innards, the cover of the liver, the two kidneys, the fat that is on them, and the right thigh (for it is a ram of consecration)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is as in LXX "the fact (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.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one loaf of bread, one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer out of the basket of unleavened bread that is before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This confirms that this part of the dedication was a peace offering, which the offerer ate in fellowship with God. We see something of this reflected in the way the breaking of bread service is a celebration of our peace with God through the work of His Son. All who enter upon priestly service (which is all of us, under the new covenant) are to first go through the process of sin offering (:14), dedication to God in response to the forgiveness received, and then the experience of peace with God, symbolized by the peace offering. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put all of this in Aaron’s hands, and in his sons’ hands, and shall wave them for a wave offering before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Preaching work isn’t glamorous. It is a living out of the cross. Paul felt he had been “separated unto the (preaching of the) gospel of God” (<em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>); and he uses a word which the LXX uses for the separation of part of a sacrifice to be consumed (<em><a href='B:20 29:24'>Exo 29:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 29:26'>Exo 29:26</a></em>). The Greek word for "witness" is <em>martus</em>, from whence 'martyr'. To witness to Christ is to live the life of the martyr; to preach Him is to live out His cross in daily life.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take them from their hands, and burn them on the altar on the burnt offering, for a pleasant aroma before Yahweh: it is an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The bread of the peace offering was usually eaten, but this dedication ceremony was a peace offering with some modifications. There was perhaps here a reflection of how they were unworthy of fellowship with God, and wanted to devote even that to Him. This is indeed how we are to feel as we embark upon any priestly service.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take the breast of Aaron’s ram of consecration, and wave it for a wave offering before Yahweh; and it shall be your portion- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The portion to be waved was placed on the priests hands (:25), and then 'waved' or 'swung' towards the altar and then back- not from right to left. The idea was that the offerings were first given to God, recognizing they should be consumed on the altar to God; but then given back to the priest by God. So they ate them having first recognized that their food was really God's, all was of Him, and He had given it back to them to eat. This should be our spirit in partaking of any food, as we are the new priesthood. Our prayers of thanks for daily food should include this feature. All things are God's and anything we 'offer' to Him is only giving Him what He has given to us (<em><a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:16'>1Ch 29:16</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall sanctify the breast of the wave offering, and the thigh of the wave offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Heaved up" may suggest that the meat was literally lifted up in the hands (:25) to God, as well as "waved" (see on :26). This would have been another way of saying that the food of the priests was really God's, and they recognized that by literally lifting it up toward Him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and it shall be for Aaron and his sons as their portion forever from the children of Israel; for it is a wave offering; and it shall be a wave offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifices of their peace offerings, even their wave offering to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The priests had no land inheritance, and so they were to depend upon the food from the peace offerings made by the other Israelites. But this meant that their material survival&nbsp; depended upon the spiritual state of the Israelites; whether they were at peace with God. If the Levites taught them well, and they responded, then they would make these offerings. But the whole system became dysfunctional. The people weren't taught properly, they became idolaters, the priests weren't supported and gave themselves to farming and other business interests in order to support themselves. They didn't therefore study God's word and teach it as intended. And so the whole spiritual fabric of Israel broke down. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them, and to be consecrated in them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although there was a special priesthood, it was clearly God's intention that all Israel should be like priests; they were to be a "<em>Kingdom</em> of priests" (<em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em>). Israel were all “saints”, and yet saints and priests are paralleled in passages like <em><a href='B:230 132:16'>Psa 132:16</a></em>. Israel in the wilderness had clothes which didn’t wear out- just as the Priestly clothes didn’t, and were handed down from generation to generation (so <em><a href='B:20 29:29'>Exo 29:29</a></em> implies). This was to encourage them to see themselves as all being priests.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Seven days shall the son who is priest in his place put them on, when he comes into the Tent of Meeting to minister in the holy place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This seems to be saying that a new High Priest must go through this dedication ritual, which was to last seven days (:35). The implication is that the priestly clothing was to last for every generation of priesthood; see on :29.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take the ram of consecration, and boil its flesh in a holy place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The holy place in view was the court (<em><a href='B:30 6:16'>Lev 6:16</a></em>), in front of the tent of meeting (<em><a href='B:30 8:31'>Lev 8:31</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that is in the basket, at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the element of the peace offering which was the final part of the dedication ritual. An individual must be at peace with God through forgiveness if he or she is going to be able to minister to others. Remember that we are all called to priestly service. Yahweh "met" with man over the ark of the covenant in the most holy place, but the entrance to the holy place was also effectively the place of meeting with God. They were to eat with Him there, although He was visibly absent. But He was there, eating with them in fellowship; just as we experience at the breaking of bread meeting. &nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall eat those things with which atonement was made, to consecrate and sanctify them, but a stranger shall not eat of it, because they are holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Eating the things with which the atonement was made points forward to the breaking of bread service. We can see in this echoes of the consecration of the priests; and we should realize each time we do it that we have been sanctified in order to proactively serve in God’s house.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If anything of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remains to the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire: it shall not be eaten, because it is holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Peace offerings could be eaten on the next day (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:5-6'>Lev 19:5-6</a></em>). But although the dedication of the priests was a peace offering, there were differences. The similarity is with the legislation about the Passover lamb (<em><a href='B:20 12:10'>Exo 12:10</a></em>), perhaps to direct them to understand that they were eating the symbols of their redemption, as we do at the breaking of bread. The Passover lamb represented the Lord Jesus, and His flesh didn't see corruption (<em><a href='B:230 16:10'>Psa 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:27'>Act 2:27</a></em>), hence the lamb was not to be allowed any possibility of corruption.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall do so to Aaron, and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded you. You shall consecrate them seven days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This period was perhaps to recall creation. They were to realize they were part of a new creation, and were now to go forth as Adam to tend what God had created.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every day you shall offer the bull of sin offering for atonement; and you shall cleanse the altar, when you make atonement for it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Atonement <em>for</em> it" can as well be "atonement <em>upon </em>it". The preposition <em>al</em> is of very wide meaning, but generally means "upon", "over" or "above". <em>Al </em>an altar is usually rendered "upon the altar", multiple times (e.g. :20). The idea of 'cleansing' surely requires the use of water and not blood. The same word is used of "purified / cleansed with water" (<em><a href='B:40 31:23'>Num 31:23</a></em>). They were to offer a sin offering for Aaron and his sons, every day of the seven days. After each sacrifice, they were to clean the altar, upon which atonement had been made. There is no idea here that inanimate objects are somehow sinful. The altar itself, like the Lord Jesus, was not sinful. It was a means to the end of atonement. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And you shall anoint it, to sanctify it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The anointing was by sprinkling oil upon it seven times (<em><a href='B:30 8:11'>Lev 8:11</a></em>). This pointed forward to the Lord Jesus, the Christ, the anointed one, through whom all the sacrifices were made ultimately meaningful. Without Him in the future, the whole system wouldn't have worked. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and the altar shall be most holy: whatever touches the altar shall be holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :36, "atonement <em>for</em> it" can as well be "atonement <em>upon </em>it". The preposition <em>al</em> is of very wide meaning, but generally means "upon", "over" or "above". <em>Al </em>an altar is usually rendered "upon the altar", multiple times (e.g. :20). The atonement required was for real and actual sinfulness, that of the priests and the people; not for the altar of itself. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now this is that which you shall offer on the altar: two lambs a year old day by day continually- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual sacrifice of lambs was to remind them that the Passover deliverance through the lamb was effectively ongoing. The Passover lamb was likewise to be a year old (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>). We too are to live constantly under the impression of the Lord's sacrifice and redemption of us. Israel were asked to use a lamb of the first year to record various times when they should be thankful for God's redemption of them in the events which comprise life (<em><a href='B:30 9:3'>Lev 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 12:6'>Lev 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:12'>Lev 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:18-19'>Lev 23:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:12'>Num 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:15'>Num 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:17'>Num 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:21'>Num 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:3'>Num 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:9'>Num 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:11'>Num 28:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:19'>Num 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:2'>Num 29:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:8'>Num 29:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:13'>Num 29:13</a></em>). This was to continually recall to them the events of their great redemption through the Red Sea. And the essence of our redemption, our baptism and salvation through the blood of the lamb, must likewise be brought ever before us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally <em>"</em>between the two evenings", as at Passover night (<em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>); see on :38.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and with the one lamb a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil, and the fourth part of a hin of wine for a drink offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bread and wine were effectively offered with the lamb. The Lord's choice of symbols for the breaking of bread surely had this in mind. They are but the side offerings, as it were, compared to the lamb. To take bread and wine would beg the question: 'And where is the slain lamb?'. And the answer to that at the breaking of bread is 'Here in our midst'. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The law of Moses was not an iron law which had to be obeyed in every context. Clearly this law about oil and wine being offered with the daily sacrifices would have been practically impossible to keep during the forty years wandering. Every day, half a hin (1:8 liters, 3:8 pints, around half a gallon) of olive oil and the same of wine would have been required. And this was just for the daily offerings; there were many days when more sacrifices were offered. It was by grace that God would have overlooked this. I suggest that it is to this which <em><a href='B:370 5:25'>Amo 5:25</a></em> refers, challenging Israel to remember that God had accepted them in the wilderness by grace alone, as they were unable to keep His ideal requirements: "Did you bring Me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness?”. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The other lamb you shall offer at evening, and shall do to it according to the meal offering of the morning, and according to its drink offering, for a pleasant aroma, an offering made by fire 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>It shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the Tent of Meeting before Yahweh, where I will meet with you, to speak there to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although we are a great multitude of redeemed, yet the communication of the Father and Son to us are still amazingly unique, even though we all hear and read the same actual words, and reflect upon the same facts. Right back at the beginning of God’s relationship with Israel He had made the point that “I will meet you (plural) to speak there unto thee (you singular)” (<em><a href='B:20 29:42'>Exo 29:42</a></em> AV).&nbsp;Yahweh "met" with His people over the ark in the most holy place, but He as it were stepped out from there to the door of the holy place, and met with His people there too. He spoke with them, as it were, over the sacrificed lamb; just as the cross of the Lord Jesus is likened in Hebrews 12 to a voice speaking to us, insistently and constantly, louder than the voice which shook Sinai.&nbsp; &nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There I will meet with the children of Israel; and the place shall be sanctified by My glory- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God met with Israel over the ark in the most holy place (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:4'>Num 17:4</a></em>). But they were never allowed there. And so He also "met" (s.w.) with Israel at the door of the tabernacle, and spoke with them there (<em><a href='B:20 29:42-43'>Exo 29:42-43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:36'>Exo 30:36</a></em>). But the word for "meet" is used in <em><a href='B:370 3:3'>Amo 3:3</a></em>, where God laments that Israel had not "met" with Him and therefore they could not walk further together. The idea of the "meeting" was that God's word might be revealed, so that the people could walk with Him in His ways. It was an awesome invitation, to be able to meet with the God who only otherwise met with His people in the glory of the most holy place, over the ark. He as it were came out of that most holy place and met with them at the door of the tabernacle. But they weren't interested. Just as so many today.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We could however argue that this verse had a specific one time fulfilment in <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em>, when the fire came down and consumed the sacrifices when the tabernacle was established: “the glory of the Lord became manifest before the whole people" (Heb.).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting and the altar: Aaron also and his sons I will sanctify, to minister to Me in the priest’s office- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although they were to do the rituals required to sanctify themselves, it was God who ultimately sanctified them. For man cannot cleanse himself, all he can do is allow God to do this, and recognize the principles by which God will do so- through the shedding of blood (<em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The tabernacle of God" being God's people; He being our God;&nbsp;God living and walking with us (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em>) is evidently alluding to <em><a href='B:30 26:11-12'>Lev 26:11-12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:20 29:45-46'>Exo 29:45-46</a></em> concerning the ultimate blessings of the covenant after Israel's final repentance.&nbsp;The shadowy fulfilment they have had in the past through God's manifestation in an Angel doesn't mean that these promises can and must only be fulfilled by some form of God manifestation.&nbsp;Surely <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em> is saying that at the second coming, the principle of God manifestation will change- in that God will personally be with His people.&nbsp;Because we have so far lived under the paradigm of God manifestation, let's not think that it's not possible for God to personally be with us.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em> understands this as coming true when Christ returns to earth, seeing that God’s intention for this to happen with Israel didn’t materialize. And yet, having prophesied that He <em>will be</em> their God, He says that He is right now their God (:46). This could mean that even if God’s people choose not to have Him as their God, yet He keeps His side of the covenant; He is their God. In this we see God’s hopefulness for us, His earnest desire to have a relationship with His people.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall know that I am Yahweh their God, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them: I am Yahweh their God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Often we read this two fold intention of God- to bring His people <em>out </em>from the world (Egypt), and then to do something positive with them. Our separation from the world isn’t therefore negative; for ‘holiness’ means both separation <em>from</em> and separation <em>unto</em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make an altar to burn incense on. You shall make it of acacia wood</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "acacia", see on :5. 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. 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>Its length shall be a cubit, and its breadth a cubit. It shall be square, and its height shall be two cubits. Its horns shall be of one piece with it</em><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>You shall overlay it with pure gold, its top, its sides around it, and its horns; and you shall make a gold moulding around it</em><em>- </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>You shall make two golden rings for it under its moulding; on its two ribs, on its two sides you shall make them; and they shall be for places for poles with which to bear it</em><em>- </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. 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>You shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold</em><em>- </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'>"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>You shall put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with you</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The incense, representing 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>), would have come through to the most holy place, where Yahweh dwelt between the cherubim. This symbolized how prayer enters into heaven itself, into the very presence of God. Passing through the veil suggests the role of the Lord Jesus in our prayers (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The principles God will use in the final judgment are manifested now, and have been reflected in His previous judgments of men. In our very personal lives, there are foretastes of that future judgment. When we receive forgiveness, this gives a knowledge of the future salvation (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). Indeed, whenever man meets with God, whenever His ways have contact with those of men (which so often happens in the life of the believer) there is a judgment experience; His holiness, His demands, the imperatives which lay within His very being, reveal quite naturally our failures. The Hebrew word used to describe God’s ‘meeting’ with men is also used in the senses of ‘summoning’ or gathering to a trial (<em><a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a></em>). And positively, the <em>degree to which </em>we have responded to Him will be revealed by our meeting with Him. Men fell down before Him when they realized who He was (<em><a href='B:490 8:28'>Luk 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:47'>Luk 8:47</a></em>), just as they will at judgment day (<em><a href='B:520 14:11'>Rom 14:11</a></em>; <em>Php_2:10</em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:10'>Rev 4:10</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron shall burn incense of sweet spices on it every morning. When he tends the lamps, he shall burn it</em><em>-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lambs were to be offered morning and evening (<em><a href='B:20 29:39'>Exo 29:39</a></em>), and along with them, incense was to be offered and the lamps tended. The incense spoke of prayer being offered to God, and the lamp of His Spirit still burning- all because of the offering of the Passover lamb which the daily lamb offerings alluded to (see on <em><a href='B:20 29:38-39'>Exo 29:38-39</a></em>). Although our lamps need tending, the fire of the Spirit is to burn within us constantly. The Lord's parable about all the faithful 'tending their lamps' at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 25:7'>Mat 25:7</a></em>) suggests that we are all priests, even High Priests (for the command to tend the lamps is given here to Aaron specifically).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Aaron lights the lamps at evening, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before Yahweh throughout your generations</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual burning of incense, night and day, was a reminder that prayer (cp. incense, <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>) was a way of life, not only specific statements. David's references to making constant prayer (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 88:1'>Psa 88:1</a></em>) may allude to the constant rising up of the incense. We cannot be literally praying all the time, but our basic spirit of life can rise up as a prayer to God constantly. Our lives are, in a sense, our prayer.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer no strange incense on it, nor burnt offering, nor meal offering; and you shall pour no drink offering on it</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Law seems to have foreseen the difference between real and apparent prayer by warning that the true incense was to be burnt (representing prayer), but not any other kind of incense, or incense comprised of other kinds of ingredients. .<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once in the year: with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once in the year he shall make atonement for it throughout your generations. It is most holy to Yahweh</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Atonement <em>for</em> it" can as well be "atonement <em>upon </em>it". The preposition <em>al</em> is of very wide meaning, but generally means "upon", "over" or "above". <em>Al </em>an altar is usually rendered "upon the altar", multiple times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 29:20'>Exo 29:20</a></em>). The idea is not that the altar was somehow sinful. Rather was there the need to regularly demonstrate the connection between the blood and prayer; for that blood of itself was meaningful to God only because it spoke to Him of the future blood of His Son (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Mosaic Law required a half shekel temple tax, but He reduced it- such was His desire to work with them and have them as His people (<em><a href='B:20 30:11-16'>Exo 30:11-16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:160 10:32-33'>Neh 10:32-33</a></em>). But still they feared, still they didn’t fully believe, still they saw the establishment of God’s Kingdom as only their concern insofar as it coincided with their self-interest; and so the promised establishment of the Messianic Kingdom just didn’t come. We note from <em><a href='B:470 17:24'>Mat 17:24</a></em> how this tax was abused into an annual tax to be paid to the temple, regardless of whether a census was taken or not. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you take a census of the children of Israel, according to those who are numbered among them, then each man shall give a ransom for himself to Yahweh, when you number them; that there be no plague among them when you number them</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Having bowed the head in humility in order to get through the low gate into the court, sacrifice at the altar was the first thing the Israelite who approached God had to grasp. And so here too, the simple lesson is taught that to be numbered amongst God's people, one has to give. The prosperity Gospel could not be more wrong; we are here to give, not to receive. It was God who ransomed Israel from Egypt, but the people were to as it were give a ransom for themselves in response to that. Always, the grace of their salvation was to be the motivation for their generous living. Their giving was to be a remembrance of their deliverance (:16). The threat of plague was also allusive to the plagues upon Egypt; if they did not act as the ransomed&nbsp; redeemed, then they would be judged as Egypt.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall give this, everyone who passes over to those who are numbered: half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs); half a shekel for an offering to Yahweh</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of being numbered by passing over implies they were a flock of sheep (<em><a href='B:300 33:13'>Jer 33:13</a></em>). 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><p style='margin-left:1em'>A half shekel was not a large amount of money, it was the money one might throw to a beggar (<em><a href='B:90 2:36'>1Sa 2:36</a></em> s.w.). The point was that they were to accept the principle of giving in response to God's gift of redemption to them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everyone who passes over to those who are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering to Yahweh</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of passing over, from the group that had not yet been numbered to the group which had been, recalls the Passover 'passing over'; both of the Red Sea, and the Angel passing over the houses of Israel. And I explained on :12 that the motivation for this gift was that they had been redeemed from Egypt; so the allusion was appropriate. "Offering" in <em><a href='B:20 30:13-15'>Exo 30:13-15</a></em> is s.w. "heave offering". It could be that the small coin was to be symbolically given to God and then taken back. This is why both rich and poor were to 'give' the same amount (:15). It was an acceptance that there must be giving on some level, in response to God's gift. This is why the financial ability of the donors wasn't taken into account; and the coin was in any case very small value (see on :13).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the offering of Yahweh, to make atonement for your souls</em><em>- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Personal wealth was and is irrelevant when it comes to our spiritual position before God. The atonement for their souls came not from a monetary gift, but from the blood which looked ahead to that of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). But it had to be responded to, and one way of doing so was through making this donation. See on :14.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take the atonement money from the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before Yahweh, to make atonement for your souls</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :12, the redemption money was in memory of their own redemption from Egypt; in this sense it was a remembrance or "memorial". The immediate usage of the silver is given in <em><a href='B:20 38:27-28'>Exo 38:27-28</a></em> - 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>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>&nbsp;</em><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying</em><em>- </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. We see here the vital step which baptism is. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall also make a basin of brass, and its base of brass, in which to wash. You shall put it between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it</em><em>- </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 (:20). 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>Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in it</em><em>-</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>. Again, as noted on :18, the implication is that all His people are priests, consecrated to priestly service by the act of baptism and the associated cleansing and regeneration.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they not die; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to Yahweh</em><em>-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All God's people are priests, in a sense (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>); the washing of baptism is an absolute necessity before we can be God's priestly people. To pass through this 'baptism' was in order to make an offering. And that is the next step after baptism- to devote our lives as living sacrifices, as both the offering and the priest (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they not die; and it shall be a statute forever to them, even to him and to his descendants throughout their generations</em><em>-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :19. There are many allusions to the language of priesthood in the New Testament, both as major statements and also in passing. The idea of baptism as a washing suggests that we afterwards enter into priestly service; we’re not declared by baptism to be merely members of a denomination, hobby level theologians who now agree to a set of doctrines. We instead, in a very real sense, are cleansed and consecrated into the service of God, ministering to His people, doing His work.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"He that is washed needs only to wash his feet" (<em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em>) was surely suggesting that all baptized believers ("washed") were like the priests, who firstly washed their bodies and then their hands and feet, before entering on service (<em><a href='B:20 30:21'>Exo 30:21</a></em>). Even the elderly brothers and sisters in Crete who were to be guided by specially appointed elders were to be encouraged to behave "as those who are engaged in sacred service" (<em><a href='B:630 2:3'>Tit 2:3</a></em>, M.R. Vincent <em>Word Studies In The N.T.</em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses personally was to make this special oil, although in reality Bezaleel did it (<em><a href='B:20 37:29'>Exo 37:29</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also take fine spices: of liquid myrrh, five hundred shekels</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, "myrrh of freedom" or "freely flowing myrrh". The idea was that the myrrh was to be taken from the shrub not by extraction, but the higher quality myrrh which exuded naturally from it. We may well enquire where they would have found these kinds of shrubs in the desert. Perhaps we have here an example of where the law given was not all intended for immediate obedience there in the desert. Or perhaps they had taken some of these spices with them from Egypt; but the free flowing myrrh means it was taken directly from a living shrub in the ground, and so that explanation doesn't fully fit.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A</em><em>nd of fragrant cinnamon half as much, even two hundred and fifty</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Cinnamon was quite rare, and unknown in Egypt. It was made from the inner bark of a tree similar to the laurel. They would have only found this in Palestine. Again, we get the impression that the full obedience to these commandments was only intended once they had entered the land.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A</em><em>nd of fragrant cane, two hundred and fifty</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This "cane" was a specific product of Judah (<em><a href='B:330 27:17'>Eze 27:17</a></em>), so again it seems that the Divine intention was that soon Israel would be in the land and able to make this kind of oil from the spices there.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and of cassia five hundred, after the shekel of the sanctuary; and a hin of olive oil</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Cassia was a product of the inner bark of the cinnamon tree; see on :23. A hin is just over one gallon. The amount of&nbsp; anointing oil produced was very small in order to anoint all the items mentioned, so the anointing was done just with a few drops; perhaps because of the difficulty in obtaining larger quantities of the spices required, or in order to focus attention on the significance of each drop of anointing. See on :31, where it could be that the oil was miraculously multiplied.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make it a holy anointing oil, a perfume compounded after the art of the perfumer: it shall be a holy anointing oil</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The specific perfumer in view was Bezaleel (<em><a href='B:20 37:29'>Exo 37:29</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall use it to anoint the Tent of Meeting, the ark of the testimony</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We now read of the anointing of the tabernacle and all its component parts, and then the anointing of the priests. Anointing is really most appropriate to persons. "The Christ" is 'the anointed one', and so we are invited to see the entire tabernacle as pointing forward to a person, the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the table and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar of incense</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are now specific articles / utensils listed in the law as required for the table of shewbread. But clearly there were some, as they were anointed. We see again how the law of Moses was flexible and open to expansion or incomplete fulfilment. For it was not to prescribe a rigid way of life, but to inculcate a spirit of living. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the basin with its base</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV correctly reads "his articles..." as in :27. The idea is that all of these components of the tabernacle system were to be seen as representing a person, the anointed ("Christ") Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall sanctify them, that they may be most holy. Whatever touches them shall be holy</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These inanimate items were not of themselves holy, as was thought to be the case in many pagan religions of the time. Their sanctification was granted to them by God, working through the rituals Moses was to perform. LXX "Everyone that touches them shall be hallowed" may not mean that whatever touched them was thereby made holy by touching. Rather the idea is that only sanctified priests were to touch the furniture. "Holy" is the same word as "sanctify" in :30, about the priests being made holy or sanctified <em><a href='B:440 2:12'>Hag 2:12</a></em> makes the point that true holiness cannot be passed on by merely touching. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them, that they may minister to Me in the priest’s office</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Any service of God therefore required being sanctified. The Lord had this theme much on His mind in His prayer of John 17. He sanctified Himself that we might be sanctified (<em><a href='B:500 17:19'>Joh 17:19</a></em>). The idea is that all sanctified by the cross are therefore prepared for ministry. We all therefore have a ministry. We are all called to it- not just some. We are sanctified by the Lord's death so that we might minister; and we do well to ask early on after our conversion "What is my ministry?". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘This shall be a holy anointing oil to Me throughout your generations</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea could be that the oil Moses made would somehow never run out, rather like the oil created by Elisha and Elijah. Just as the clothes of Aaron are assumed to last permanently. I noted on :24 that the amount of anointing oil produced was very small in order to anoint all the items mentioned, so the anointing was either done just with a few drops, or it was miraculously multiplied- and preserved throughout the generations, just as Aaron's clothing was, and as the clothes and shoes of the wilderness generation lasted for 40 years. It is therefore not chance that later read in the Bible of oil being miraculously multiplied and extended in its function.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall not be poured on man’s flesh, neither shall you make any like it, according to its composition: it is holy. It shall be holy to you</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Holy to you" could mean that Moss alone was to make it and it would last for all generations; see on :31. It was to be poured upon the priests whilst they were clothed, and not come on their flesh. Or the idea may be that only the priests, the sons of Aaron, were to be sanctified with it- and not, as Jeroboam did, people from other tribes.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever compounds any like it, or whoever puts any of it on a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people’</em><em>-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "it" may refer specifically to that oil made by Moses; see on :31. The idea may be that the gift of the Spirit, for we too are anointed to service if we are in Christ the anointed one (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em>), will not come upon those who are not sanctified in Christ and washed in the laver of regeneration (cp. baptism). Birth of water is required for the birth of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>). For "cut off", see on :38. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Take to yourself sweet spices, gum resin, and onycha, and galbanum; sweet spices with pure frankincense: there shall be an equal weight of each</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These spices would have been difficult to find in the wilderness, because they were gum from specific trees which didn't grow in the wilderness; and this would confirm the suggestion on :31 that the oil made once by Moses through Bezaleel lasted, or was intended to, throughout the generations of the tabernacle system. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you shall make incense of it, a perfume after the art of the perfumer, seasoned with salt, pure and holy</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Incense is a symbol of prayer (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>). Whilst there is a place for instantaneous and emotional prayers, this doesn’t mean that we should overlook the fact that another kind of prayer should be prayer that is carefully prepared, just as the incense was. Our speech, Paul says, should be “seasoned with salt” (<em><a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a></em>). He’s alluding here, perhaps with the idea that the way we speak generally should be in the same manner as we pray to God, like the incense.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you shall beat some of it very small, and put some of it before the testimony in the Tent of Meeting, where I will meet with you. It shall be to you most holy</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If incense is like prayer, this may refer to how we shouldn’t be afraid nor ashamed to pray to God about the smallest things. Nothing is outside of His control, indeed, God is so often in the details.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God met with Israel over the ark in the most holy place (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:4'>Num 17:4</a></em>). But they were never allowed there. And so He also "met" (s.w.) with Israel at the door of the tabernacle, and spoke with them there (<em><a href='B:20 29:42-43'>Exo 29:42-43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:36'>Exo 30:36</a></em>). But the word for "meet" is used in <em><a href='B:370 3:3'>Amo 3:3</a></em>, where God laments that Israel had not "met" with Him and therefore they could not walk further together. The idea of the "meeting" was that God's word might be revealed, so that the people could walk with Him in His ways. He was like a king, who came out of His throne room to meet with His people. It was an awesome invitation, to be able to meet with the God who only otherwise met with His people in the glory of the most holy place, over the ark. He as it were came out of that most holy place and met with them at the door of the tabernacle. But they weren't interested. Just as so many today.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The incense which you shall make, according to its composition you shall not make for yourselves: it shall be to you holy for Yahweh</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was to be a clear distinction between the spiritual and the secular. Secular life was not to be passed off as spiritual life; and that is the abiding principle. It means that being a Christian is not a case of being a secular person, acting and smelling like them, but claiming that that secular life is in fact a life devoted to God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever shall make any like that, to smell of it, he shall be cut off from his people</em><em>- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God's people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God's eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses may well at this point have been wondering however he as an individual was going to achieve all this work. And his unspoken fear and question, as ours, was now addressed and answered.<em></em></p>


text:
<em>Behold, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah- </em><em></em><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:
<em>and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all kinds of workmanship-</em><em></em><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; <em></em></p>


text:
<em>to devise skilful works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass-</em><em></em><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:
<em>and in cutting of stones for setting, and in carving of wood, to work in all kinds of workmanship- </em><em></em><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:
<em>I, behold, I have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the heart of all who are wise-hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded you- </em><em></em><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><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:
<em>the Tent of Meeting, the ark of the testimony, the mercy seat that is on it, all the furniture of the Tent-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are given the distinct impression again that the "mercy seat" was a separate, detachable part distinct from the ark. "Tent of meeting" is LXX "tabernacle of witness", and the NT seems to prefer this reading (<em><a href='B:510 7:44'>Act 7:44</a></em>). God met with man in that He spoke His word of witness, as a King coming out of His throne room in the most holy place, to meet with and speak to His people. Our hearing of God's word is to this day a meeting with God.<em></em></p>


text:
<em>the table and its vessels, the pure lampstand with all its vessels, the altar of incense-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB reads in the possible ellipsis: "the lampstand of pure gold".&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<em>the altar of burnt offering with all its vessels, the basin and its base- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Base" is literally "foot", again presenting the inanimate features of the tabernacle in human language; because all of them looked ahead to the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<em>the finely worked garments- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>These appear different to the priestly garments which are described afterwards, so they may refer to coverings for the tabernacle furniture whilst it was on the move in the wilderness.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The holy garments for Aaron the priest--the garments of his sons to minister in the priest’s office-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that these garments were specifically "for Aaron" when we might have expected a more generic statement about clothing for the High Priest. We have the sense that so many of these commandments were specifically for that time, and were not specific about how things were to be once the people were in the land. The law of Moses was not therefore intended as a rigid system for all time; because God is open and flexible, and always has possible new directions in view for His people. I discussed elsewhere (<em><a href='B:20 30:31'>Exo 30:31</a></em>) the possibility that the set of clothes made for Aaron were intended to be miraculously preserved for later generations. <em></em></p>


text:
<em>the anointing oil, and the incense of sweet spices for the holy place, according to all that I have commanded you they shall do-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, 'the oil of Messiah'. There is the constant hint that these things were all pointing forward to Messiah.<em></em></p>


text:
<em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The following command about the Sabbath was perhaps inserted at this point to remind Israel that they were not to get so caught up in the work of making all these things that they thought they could skip Sabbath observance. We too are not to become so obsessed with working to obey Divine commandments that we fail to remember that we must "rest" in order to show our faith in grace rather than works. This ceasing from trust in their own works was because they were to reflect upon how it was God's grace and not their works which sanctified them (:13).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<em>Speak also to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Most certainly you shall keep my Sabbaths: for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations; that you may know that I am Yahweh who sanctifies you-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Sabbath was between God and Israel- not the Gentile world. It is therefore not required to be kept now that the body of God's people had been redefined under the new covenant.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel stood at Sinai and were told that if they were obedient, then they would be God's people. But then they were told that actually, God accepted them anyway as His people. And only <em>then</em> was the Law given to Moses- with the message that it was to be kept out of gratitude for what God had <em>already</em> done by grace in saving them just "simply so", because He loved them and had chosen their ancestors by grace (<em><a href='B:50 4:34-40'>Deu 4:34-40</a></em>). Likewise it was <em>because</em> God sanctified Israel that they were to keep the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:13-14'>Exo 31:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>). It wasn't that any human obedience made them holy- the laws were simply an opportunity to respond to the grace shown them. For God's salvation of them from Egypt, like ours from this world, was nothing but grace.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<em>You shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God's people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God's eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<em>Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Yahweh. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is not necessarily parallel to being cut off from the people; see on :14. In addition to that, 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 (:13) 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:
<em>Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>). 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>


text:
<em>It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed’- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>How are we to understand the 'language of limitation' which Scripture abounds with- e.g. <em><a href='B:10 2:2'>Gen 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 31:17'>Exo 31:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:20'>Deu 32:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:27'>Deu 32:27</a></em>? God is almighty and doesn’t need refreshment. One explanation is that such language refers to God’s manifestation through His Angels, who aren’t almighty although they are sinless (<em><a href='B:470 24:36'>Mat 24:36</a></em>). Another take on this is that as God worked creatively for six days and then 'breathed in' on the seventh, the Hebrew <em>naphash </em>being a form of <em>nephesh</em>, to breathe / receive spirit / breath- so God's people were to see their workaday lives as actually creative. The curse of working in the sweat of their faces was thus partly ameliorated by the thought that their labour was in fact creative. And on the seventh day, they were to breathe in the things of the Spirit, in anticipation of the Kingdom which the day of rest symbolized, the end result of all truly creative labour (<em><a href='B:650 4:9'>Heb 4:9</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<em>When He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave to Moses the two tablets of the testimony, stone tablets, written with God’s finger- </em><em></em>The commands to build the tabernacle are repeated 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 style='margin-left:1em'>The tables themselves were made by God, and were written on both sides (<em><a href='B:20 32:15-16'>Exo 32:15-16</a></em>). As they were small enough to be carried, we assume they contained the ten commandments and not the rest of the laws given to Moses. They were the tables of the covenant, and so the letter of the law which was to give way to the spirit of the new covenant therefore includes the command about the Sabbath. For that was one of the ten commandments.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Delayed" is more commonly translated 'to be ashamed'. They may have gotten the impression that Moses was ashamed of them, and he and Yahweh were now going to make a new people. The very opposite was to be the case. This is what God proposed, and it was only the selfless pleading of Moses which changed it.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's warnings about the unfaithful believers who misbehave because their Lord delays His coming is clearly based upon this (<em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>). Moses' return from the mountain (cp. Heaven) is therefore understood by the Lord as a type of His second coming. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, Come, make us gods, which shall go before us- </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>For as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what has become of him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This terrible apostacy was performed with the fire of God's glory and judgment burning above them (<em><a href='B:50 9:15'>Deu 9:15</a></em>). Clearly enough, visible manifestation of God in miracles is not enough to inculcate faith. Pentecostalism has so misunderstood this. The people likewise were getting manna daily at this time. But still they wanted to make visible "gods" to lead them back to where their hearts were, Egypt. We note they never formally abrogated their connection to Yahweh, their apparent issue was with Moses. But he was God's representative.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Stephen in Acts 7 stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews “thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>). This suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of Jesus. It would seem from <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em> that after the golden calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses. Once the point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, this feelings must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation; they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:2-3'>Exo 17:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em> NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader, bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (<em><a href='B:40 16:13-14'>Num 16:13-14</a></em>)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their rejection of him and of God's rejection of him from entering the Kingdom. 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.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron said to them, Take off the golden rings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them to me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Gideon received the golden earrings of the Ishmaelites (<em><a href='B:70 8:24-27'>Jdg 8:24-27</a></em>), his mind should have flown back to how golden earrings were turned into the golden calf (<em><a href='B:20 32:2'>Exo 32:2</a></em>). He was potentially given the strength to resist the temptation to turn them into an idol. But he must have blanked out that Biblical precedent in his heart; he ignored his spiritual potential. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the people took off the golden rings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a></em> says that they changed or altered (Heb.) their glory into a mere ox. The glory of God was visible to them on Sinai at the time. God's glory was in His invisible leading of them through the Angel (:1). But they changed that into the visible and secular. They were not totally rejecting Yahweh, but making an ox / calf similar to one facet of the cherubim. This is classic apostacy, mixing truth with error.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He received what they handed him, and fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made it a molten calf; and they said-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention of the tool and fashioning it is in order to point up the lie which Aaron later tells- that he put the gold in the fire, and out popped a golden calf.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are your gods, Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The human desire to believe in a god rather than a man is demonstrated in Israel’s attitude to Moses. They complained about “this Moses, the <em>man</em> that brought us up out of the land of Egypt”; and therefore made the golden calf. Note in passing how they created <em>one</em> calf, but worshipped it as<em> gods</em> plural. They committed the trinity fallacy of many centuries later. They couldn’t handle a saviour who was human, like them, and so they decided that a god had been their saviour, who existed as a plurality, gods, within a unity, i.e. the golden calf. I will note on :18 that they were to praise the calf with "antiphonal singing", of the kind in <em><a href='B:20 15:21'>Exo 15:21</a></em> when they praised Yahweh for delivering them from Egypt. But it wasn't that they had totally abrogated Yahweh, just as we probably won't become atheists. But they worshipped idols, with all the associated immorality, in the name of Yahweh worship. And this is our abiding temptation, to mix the flesh and Spirit.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation, and said, Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :4, this was not a rejection of Yahweh in so many words, but rather a justification of idolatry in the name of Yahweh worship. We note the emphasis on what Aaron did. No wonder God wanted to slay him at this time (<em><a href='B:50 9:20'>Deu 9:20</a></em>), and he was only saved by grace thanks to Moses' intercession.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They rose up early on the next day, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It appears that Israel identified the golden calf with the Egyptian goddess Hathor. “The Egyptian goddess Hathor came in the form of a cow, a woman with a cow’s head, or a woman with cows horns and / or cows ears. She bore several other titles including The Golden One and Mistress of Music. She was the patron of love, motherhood, drunkenness, fun, dance and music. The worship of Hathor degenerated into immorality and she is depicted in some scenes and statues as a sensual young woman. Hathor was the protector of travellers from Egypt to various areas including Sinai”. So Israel so quickly forgot the lesson so artlessly taught them – that the idols / demons of Egypt were of no power at all, seeing they had all been targetted by the plagues. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The following references to Hathor provide further insight; supporting references are to be found in my book "The Real Devil" section 4-2-3:<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hathor had several forms including, a cow, a women with a cow’s head, or a woman with cows horns and or ears.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hathor was also known as ‘The Golden One’<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hathor was the protector of travellers from Egypt to various areas including Sinai <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Patron of drunkenness <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hathor had the title ‘Mistress of Music’ <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The worship of Hathor included playing on all kinds of musical instruments together with dancing <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The worship of Hathor was for the joy and pleasure of those who took part <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hathor is also the goddess of love <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The worship of Hathor degenerated into immorality.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, Go, get down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Themselves" is added to the text. They had "corrupted" not just themselves, but their understanding of Yahweh. As explained on :4-6, they were worshipping an idol in the name of Yahweh worship. They had corrupted or turned the glory of God into the form of an ox which eats grass (<em><a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a></em>). And this is the abiding temptation for us all. "Corrupted" is the word used about the corruption of the people which resulted in the flood (<em><a href='B:10 6:11-13'>Gen 6:11-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:17'>Gen 6:17</a></em>). We are therefore to expect a "flood" of destruction. But thanks to grace and Moses' intercession, this didn't come. But it is the same word used of the threatened destruction of everyone in Sodom, which Abraham's intercession avoided (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 18:28'>Gen 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:31'>Gen 18:31</a></em>). That incident surely motivated Moses to rise up to the same possibility of dialogue with God in order to change His intended purpose. We too are to be motivated by Biblical examples of intercession. There is a gap between God's statement of judgment, and His carrying it out. And in that gap, we can ask God to change His intended purpose of judgment; and He is willing to. Understanding God this way gives such intensity and significance to our prayers and intercession.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Corrupted" is s.w. "'destroyed" or "perish". All judgment is finally self inflicted. Sin is its own judgment; hence the Hebrew word for "corruption" also means "destruction", for moral corruption is its own destruction. God Himself does judge, but always prefers men to judge themselves.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on <em><a href='B:20 32:4-6'>Exo 32:4-6</a></em>, the people considered that their idolatry was a form of Yahweh worship. But Yahweh makes it clear that it was in fact a rejection of Him.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They have made themselves a molten calf- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Molten" is literally 'covered'. They had presumably made the calf of the common acacia wood, and covered it with gold- just as the tabernacle furniture was to be constructed in a similar way. Again we see that they were mixing Yahweh worship with idolatry. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And have worshiped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt'- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The calf was likely an imitation of the Egyptian calf god Apis, despite the fact the plagues had targetted the gods of Egypt and shown them to be nothing. They mixed the worship of Yahweh with that of idols, and this is the abiding temptation for God's people. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, I have seen these people, and behold, they are a stiff-necked people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>). 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>). 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>Now therefore leave Me alone- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This seems to suggest that God knew both Himself and Moses well enough to know that Moses could well persuade Him to change His mind, against His ideal intention. And Moses doesn't leave God alone, and does persuade Him. We marvel at the humility and humanity of God, and His extreme openness to human intercession.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Think of God's bitter disappointment with Israel when He invites Moses into the mount as their representative, in order to enter into further covenant with them. Down below, they started worshipping other gods. When God says to Moses "Leave me alone..." (<em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>), He may well refer to the desire for isolation / solitude which a person in extreme grief desires. And of course we are aware of how Moses reasons with God, and asks God to consider His own future and how it might turn out, and how that can be avoided. And God takes Moses seriously, with integrity, and appears to even acquiesce to his arguments. It's amazing. This God is our God. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That My wrath may burn hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of you a great nation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note how God’s anger “burned hot” and so did that of Moses. But Moses asks God not to wax hot in anger (<em><a href='B:20 32:10-11'>Exo 32:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:19'>Exo 32:19</a></em>). What are we to make of this? Surely, positively, Moses was totally in tune with the feelings of God. And yet he does himself what he asks God not to do.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is almost a pattern with God- to devise His purpose, and then in the 'gap' until its fulfillment, be open to the persuasion of His covenant people to change or ammend those plans. This could be what <em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em> is speaking of: "Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets". It's as if He reveals His plans to them so that they can then comment upon them in prayer. And maybe this is why God tells Jeremiah not to pray to Him to change His stated plans against Israel (<em><a href='B:300 7:16'>Jer 7:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:300 11:14'>Jer 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 14:11'>Jer 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:1'>Jer 15:1</a></em>), and why He asks Moses to 'leave Me alone' and not try to persuade Him to change His mind (<em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>). He didn't want, in these cases, His stated plans to be interrupted by the appeals of His people to change them. Interestingly, in both these examples, Moses and Jeremiah know God well enough, the relationship is intimate enough, for them to still speak with Him- and change His mind. Those who've prayed to God in cases of terminal illness (and countless other situations) will have sensed this 'battle', this 'struggle' almost, between God and His friends, His covenant people, and the element of 'persuasion' which there is going on both ways in the dialogue between God and ourselves. The simple fact that God really can change- there are over 40 references to His 'repentance' in Scripture- is vital to understand- for this is the basis of the prayer that changes things, that as it were wrestles with God. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses begged Yahweh his God, and said, Yahweh, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, that you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:1'>Exo 33:1</a></em>. If God's wrath burns hot against people, it means death for them (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 22:24'>Exo 22:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:1'>Num 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:33'>Num 11:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>). But Moses averted this at the time of <em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em> by his intercession. He does so because God's wrath had burned hot against him personally (<em><a href='B:20 4:14'>Exo 4:14</a></em> s.w.), but he had been saved from death by grace. And so he reflects this in appealing for the salvation of others, against whom God's wrath burned hot (<em><a href='B:20 32:10-11'>Exo 32:10-11</a></em>). But Moses at the end of his life warns them not to make God's wrath burn hot against them again- because he will not be around to intercede for them (<em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:4'>Deu 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When God told Moses to leave Him alone to destroy them, and go back down to the people immediately (<em><a href='B:50 9:12'>Deu 9:12</a></em>), Moses stayed on to plead with God not to destroy them. And God listened (<em><a href='B:20 32:7-14'>Exo 32:7-14</a></em>). He repented of the evil He had thought to do. He changed His mind, because Moses stayed on. There is an element of striving with God in prayer, knowing that His mind is open to change (<em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>). This is what stimulates me to what intensity in prayer I can muster. That God is open to hearing and even changing His holy mind about something. Such is His sensitivity to us. Such is His love, that God changing His mind becomes really feasible as a concept. And such is the scary implication of the total freewill which the Father has afforded us. This is why God could reason with Moses as a man speaks to his friend and vice versa. It was a dynamic, two way relationship in thought and prayer and being. Jacob likewise changed God's intentions with him in his night of wrestling in prayer with the Angel; and Jacob is a symbol of us all. He became Israel, he who struggles with God. And this is a key feature of all those who comprise the true Israel. <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 in <em><a href='B:20 33:1'>Exo 33:1</a></em>, where God says that Moses 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 God brought Israel out of Egypt. And we too can experience this mutuality in relationship with the Father. Through Moses allowing himself to become part of God manifestation, he found a confidence to achieve that which felt impossible to him. He asks God: "Who am I...?" to do the great things God required... and the answer was "I will be who I will be" (<em><a href='B:20 3:11-13'>Exo 3:11-13</a></em>). Moses' sense of inadequacy was met by the principle of God's manifestation in him; and so will ours be, if we participate in it. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why should the Egyptians speak, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seems to have shared the primitive idea that a god rose or fell according to the fortunes of his worshippers, when he asks God to not cut off Israel in case the nations mock Yahweh. Yahweh could have responded that this was far too primitive and limited a view. But no, He apparently listens to Moses and goes along with his request!<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘He brought them forth for evil, to kill them in the mountains- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mountains around Sinai.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And to consume them from the surface of the earth?’ Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against Your people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This turning of Yahweh from His wrath was inspirational even generations later, for the Ninevites repeat this phrase and cling onto it in hope (<em><a href='B:390 3:9'>Jon 3:9</a></em> s.w.). David and the restoration Psalmists likewise allude to it, and ask for it to be repeated in their context (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 85:3-4'>Psa 85:3-4</a></em>), and so can we be likewise inspired. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your seed as the stars of the sky, and all this land that I have spoken of I will give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God could have given legitimate answers to each of Moses' objections; for there were indeed times when He did not turn from the fierceness of His wrath (:12)- such as <em><a href='B:300 4:8'>Jer 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 23:26'>2Ki 23:26</a></em>. 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh changed His mind of the evil which He said He would do to His people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Due to Moses’ prayer, “the Lord repented of the evil which he had said he would do unto his people” (<em><a href='B:20 32:14'>Exo 32:14</a></em> RV). Yet these are the very words of <em><a href='B:300 18:8'>Jer 18:8</a></em> - if a <em>nation </em>repents, then God will repent. But in this case, God accepted the singular prayer of Moses. This opens up the question of the degree to which our spiritual effort can affect the eternal outcomes for third parties (see on <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The LXX uses the word translated “propitiation” in the NT with reference to how God forgave / propitiated for Israel’s sins for His Name’s sake (<em><a href='B:20 32:14'>Exo 32:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 79:9'>Psa 79:9</a></em>). That propitiation was only for the sake of the Lord’s future death, which would be the propitiation God ultimately accepted. Having no past or future with Him, Yahweh could act as if His Son’s death had already occurred. But that death and forgiveness for “His name’s sake” were one and the same thing. The Son’s death was the expression of the Father’s Name.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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> 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>Moses turned, and went down from the mountain, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand; tablets that were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other they were written- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 9:15'>Deu 9:15</a></em> says that Moses carried one in each hand. They were likely very small, which is why they were written on both sides. There is double emphasis upon this, perhaps because this was unheard of on Egyptian tablets.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tables- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This seems to lead up to the tragedy of Moses breaking them. They were the most exquisite artwork, God's own handwriting. This was how intimately He was engaged with the covenant He offered Israel, and the tragedy of it being broken. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, There is the noise of war in the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It has been noted that the people must have been camped in the plain near Sinai known as Er-Raheh, which was not visible from the peak of Sinai known as Jebel Musa. The path up the mountain to that point would have gone around the mountain, rather than straight up from the plain. This explains why they first heard rather than saw what was going on, and is another internal evidence for Biblical inspiration.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This incident could be read as an example of Joshua’s genuine naivety- thinking that Israel were far stronger than they were. He mistook the sound of their idolatrous partying for the sound of a battle; and Moses almost rebukes him for his naivety. He allowed the leaders of Israel to lead him into wrong decisions about the initial attack on Ai, and also into being deceived by the Gibeonites. And yet as a younger man, he had boldly stood up to the peer pressure of the princes of Israel in faithfully declaring that Israel could and should go up into Canaan; when the other princes must have put huge pressure upon him to agree with them. He is described as maintaining “another spirit” to theirs (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>). The resolution of youth seems to have been somewhat lost as he grew older. The character presentation of Joshua is absolutely psychologically credible. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, It isn’t the voice of those who shout for victory, neither is it the voice of those who cry for being overcome- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord alludes to this: "You shall weep and lament, but the (Jewish) world shall rejoice" (<em><a href='B:500 16:20'>Joh 16:20</a></em>). Israel rejoiced in the works of their own hands (<em><a href='B:510 7:41'>Act 7:41</a></em>), the golden calf, while Moses was absent- cp. Christ's absence in the grave, with the Jews rejoicing and the disciples lamenting. In another sense, the return of Moses from the mountain may look ahead to Christ's return from Heaven- to find the majority of the new Israel apostate, although thinking they are being especially obedient to Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 32:5'>Exo 32:5</a></em>). The peak of selfless love for Israel which Moses showed at this time therefore points forward to the zeal of Christ for our forgiveness and salvation at his return (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>). Moses at his finest hour of intercession and willing self sacrifice thus typifies Christ at his return. And after the golden calf incident, Israel are encouraged to enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:20 33:1'>Exo 33:1</a></em>)- as at the second coming.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the noise of those who sing that I hear- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew implies "antiphonal singing", of the kind in <em><a href='B:20 15:21'>Exo 15:21</a></em>, and s.w. <em><a href='B:230 88:1'>Psa 88:1</a></em>. This is a classic case of mixing the flesh and the spirit; for they were worshipping the golden calf as a form of Yahweh worship, praising the golden calf for their deliverance from Egypt just as they had praised Yahweh for this in <em><a href='B:20 15:21'>Exo 15:21</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, as soon as he came near to the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses’ anger grew hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands, and broke them beneath the mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>His anger growing hot was exactly the feeling of God. But unlike God, he immediately broke the symbols of the covenant with Israel. Again, God is revealed as more gracious and patient than man. As Moses had pleaded with Yahweh not to be so angry, so Aaron was to do so with the furiously angry Moses. Aaron in all his weakness therefore becomes as Moses, who was also weak before God's presence.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took the calf which they had made- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is emphasized. Aaron's claim it just popped out of the fire was a lie (:24).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And burnt it with fire, ground it to powder, and scattered it on the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were forced to drink / eat dust, just as Adam had to; for he was dust and had to eat the fruit of the dust in punishment. His sin was the essence of every man's sin, including Israel's at this time. The reference to their being made naked (:25) is another allusion to Adam. Israel had been an unfaithful wife to Yahweh, and so they were punished as the woman tested for adultery was (<em><a href='B:40 5:24'>Num 5:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:50 9:21'>Deu 9:21</a></em> says that "grinding it very small until it was as fine as dust". As gold is so heavy, this would be necessary for it to float on the surface on the water. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Aaron, What did these people do to you, that you have brought a great sin on them?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron's excuse was pathetic and untruthful, and Moses doesn't even engage with it. There are times when we too are wise not to engage with evident untruth and self justification, but to cut to the essence of the situation. It was only thanks to Moses' intercession for Aaron that Aaron's life was spared at this point (<em><a href='B:50 9:20'>Deu 9:20</a></em>). We see here how intercession even for the impenitent can be effective (for Aaron in <em><a href='B:20 32:24'>Exo 32:24</a></em> was impenitent, claiming the calf had jumped out of the fire ready made). This has huge pastoral implications for our ministry and prayer life, recalling how for the sake of the faith of the friends, the Lord pronounced the paralyzed man forgiven (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>; also <em><a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"A great sin" is the phrase used of Jeroboam's golden calf, which was based upon this calf (<em><a href='B:120 17:21'>2Ki 17:21</a></em>). Again, people can be made to sin by others- a sober reminder to watch our behaviour. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron said, Don’t let the anger of my lord grow hot. You know the people, that they are set on evil-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron reasons with Moses, surely unconsciously, just as Moses had reasoned with God. And we have these situations in our lives too- where others beg us for mercy and understanding (even if not in so many words), just as we have asked God to show us. But the man who is so arrogant and insensitive to his own sins that he has never done this before God... will not be inclined to be merciful and understanding to those whose situations beg him to do likewise. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 9:20'>Deu 9:20</a></em> must be given its full weight: "Yahweh was very angry with Aaron to destroy him, and I prayed for Aaron also at the same time". Aaron comes over in <em><a href='B:20 32:22'>Exo 32:22</a></em> as more worried about the wrath of Moses his brother than that of God: "Don’t let the anger of my lord grow hot". And so it can easily be with us. We can forget God's feelings and worry only about our image with our family and brethren.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For they said to me, ‘Make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what has become of him’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron quotes their words of :1 absolutely verbatim, careful to be truthful. But then in :24 he tells a pathetic lie. This is totally psychologically credible; that a man prefaces a point blank lie with a careful and strict statement of truth. The Biblical records, unlike the histories of other nations at the time, have total credibility.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I said to them, ‘Whoever has any gold, let them take it off;’ so they gave it to me; and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention of the tool and fashioning of it in :4 is in order to point up the lie which Aaron later tells- that he put the gold in the fire, and out popped a golden calf.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Jewish interpreters go to great lengths to rework the narrative here in order to justify Aaron and Israel, blaming the event on "Satan" rather than Israel. The targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel asks us to read Aaron's words as: "I cast it into the fire, and&nbsp;Satan entered into it, and it came out in the form of this calf!". But the Biblical record is clear that the sin was Aaron's fault, and Israel's (:21,22,31,35); he engraved the calf with a tool. There is no mention of any" Satan" figure. We see again how humans prefer to wriggle out of responsibility for sin by blaming their failure upon a cosmic "Satan" figure, of which the Bible says nothing- and indeed, deconstructs by placing the blame for sin squarely upon human beings and their hearts (:22). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses saw that the people were naked, (for Aaron had made them naked, for a shame among their enemies)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Assyrians led Israel away into captivity (s.w. to make naked), "they discovered her nakedness" (<em><a href='B:330 23:10'>Eze 23:10</a></em>), and yet in their sin Israel made themselves naked (<em><a href='B:140 28:19'>2Ch 28:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 32:25'>Exo 32:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>). The day of Yahweh's judgment upon them through their invaders was only a reflection of their own self-condemnation. Eli's sons <em>made themselves</em> accursed, and were only therefore (and thereby) judged by God (<em><a href='B:90 3:13'>1Sa 3:13</a></em> AVmg.). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were forced to drink / eat dust (:20), just as Adam had to; for he was dust and had to eat the fruit of the dust in punishment. His sin was the essence of every man's sin, including Israel's at this time. The reference to their being made naked is another allusion to Adam.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then Moses stood in the gate of the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They appeared to have made a fence around themselves with gates in it (:27 "from gate to gate").<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And said, Whoever is on Yahweh’s side, come to me!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, "Who unto Yahweh?". The phrase is only used in <em><a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a></em>, where we read that under the new covenant, this will be true of all God's people. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This doesn't have to mean that the Levites hadn't sinned in this, because these loyal Levites were asked to kill their own brothers and neighbours in their tribal encampment area (:27). But their motive may have been that they were loyal to Moses because he was of their tribe, and they could foresee that there was a rebellion against Moses as the people didn't want him as their leader. All human motivation is so sadly mixed. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to them, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘Every man put his sword on his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and every man kill his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These loyal Levites were asked to kill their own brothers and neighbours in their tribal encampment area<em>.</em> So we are wrong to think that all the Levites were loyal to Moses and spurned the golden calf. Indeed it could be that those slain were the unfaithful amongst the tribe of Levi.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :27 that these 3000 may have been the apostate amongst the tribe of Levi (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is “a remarkable correlation between the signs recorded in John, and the plagues Moses brought upon Egypt. There cannot be a complete match as the numbers are unequal, but the differing types of miraculous signs all find their counterpart in the plagues”. The purpose of all these allusions to the time of Moses' return from Sinai was surely to make the following point: As Moses disappeared into Sinai to attain the old covenant, so Christ died for three days to attain the new covenant. The majority of Israel, egged on by their high priest, turned to apostacy. On Moses' return, only some of the Levites were faithful; they sacrificed all their natural relationships in order to defend the Faith (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). Likewise, the majority of Israel turned to apostacy in the first century, mixing the desires of the flesh with their keeping of the Law of Moses, just as they did with the golden calf. The 'little of both' syndrome is one of our most common enemies. Moses' return was like Christ's resurrection. The Levites represent the disciples who went on to become the teachers of Israel, a new priesthood. Those Levites represent us (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>), a minority who stand alone, both in the world and perhaps also among the covenant people, motivated by the word, yet like the disciples at the time of Christ's resurrection- rather unsure, struggling within their own faith, yet going on to be the teachers of the world.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, Consecrate yourselves today to Yahweh, yes, every man against his son, and against his brother; that He may bestow on you a blessing this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could as well be: "You have consecrated yourselves today". They had slain their own Levitical relatives, even their own sons and brothers; encouraging us to see the 3000 they slew as actually a purge of the tribe of Levi. By this they had demonstrated their loyalty to Yahweh as being greater than what they felt towards their own families. And this was highly significant, in an age when family meant absolutely everything. And so having purged their tribe, they had consecrated themselves to Yahweh, and He therefore consecrated them to Himself as His special servants. Previously, the intention had been that all Israel would be a nation of priests. But now that had been adjusted, so that only a self-cleansed tribe would do that work.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened on the next day, that Moses said to the people, You have sinned a great sin. Now I will go up to Yahweh. Perhaps I shall make atonement for your sin-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>. Moses is called up into Sinai and speaks with God. While there, Israel turn away from God, and God wants to make Moses' family His people and reject Israel. But Moses argues with God against this, again showing his humility and his appreciation of God manifestation in Israel, and his earnest desire that God would save Israel. "He said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath". This was only months after his weak faith and reluctance to lead Israel out of Egypt. He says that he will "go up (and) make an atonement" (<em><a href='B:20 32:30'>Exo 32:30</a></em>). And yet he knew the principle that atonement was impossible without shedding blood. Yet he goes further than that: "Blot me, I <em>pray thee </em>(he really wanted to do this) out of thy book" (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>) AV- i.e. the book of salvation (<em><a href='B:330 13:9'>Eze 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:20'>Luk 10:20</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:20:12'>Rev 20:12</a></em>). Moses is willing to give his physical life and also his eternal salvation so that Israel can enter the land. Surely he reached matchless heights of selflessness. And he begged Yahweh to accept this for 40 days and nights, fasting without food or water (<em><a href='B:50 9:17'>Deu 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:10'>Deu 10:10</a></em>). It wasn’t just a once off, emotional outburst of a moment.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To be blotted out of the book God had written may have been understood by Moses as asking for him to be excluded from an inheritance in the promised land; for later, a ‘book’ was written describing the various portions (<em><a href='B:60 18:9'>Jos 18:9</a></em>). The connection is made explicit in <em><a href='B:330 13:9'>Eze 13:9</a></em>: “…neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel”. To be blotted out of the book meant to not enter the land (surely Ezekiel is alluding to Moses’ experience). If Israel were to be blotted out there and then in the wilderness, then Moses wanted to share this experience. God had just spoken of ‘blotting out’ Israel from before Him (<em><a href='B:50 9:14'>Deu 9:14</a></em>), and making a nation of Moses; but now Moses is asking to share in their condemnation rather than experience salvation without them. This was the extent of his devotion. On the last day of his life, Moses reeled off the great speech of Deuteronomy, knowing full well that he was to die without entering the land. In <em><a href='B:50 9:18'>Deu 9:18</a></em> he says that his prayer of <em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em> <em>was heard</em>- in that he was not going to enter the land, but they would. Hence his urging of them to go ahead and enter the land- to experience what his self-sacrifice had enabled. In this we see the economy of God, and how He works even through sin. On account of Moses’ temporary rashness of speech, he was excluded; Moses didn't enter the land. And yet by this, his prayer was heard. He was temporarily blotted out of the book, so that they might enter the land. Moses’ fleeting requests to enter the land must be read as a flagging from the height of devotion he reached, rather like the Lord’s request to escape the cross in Gethsemane. But ultimately he did what he intended- he gave his place in the Kingdom / land so that they might enter (although of course he will be in the future Kingdom). This is why Moses stresses on the last day of his life that he wouldn’t enter the land <em>for Israel’s sake</em> (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>). He saw that his sin had been worked through, and the essential reason for him not entering was because of the offer he had made. It “went ill with him <em>for their sakes</em>” (<em><a href='B:230 106:32'>Psa 106:32</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; In all this, Moses was typifying the death of the Lord. <em><a href='B:290 53:8'>Isa 53:8</a></em> describes His cross as being “cut off (Strong: ‘excluded’) from the land of the living” (s.w. ‘the congregation’- of Israel), for the transgression of His people. This is undoubtedly reference to the self-sacrificial exclusion of Moses from the land, that Israel might enter. The Lord died the death of a sinner, He chose like Moses to suffer affliction with us, that we might be saved. The intense prayer of Moses for Israel’s salvation inspired David in prayer (<em><a href='B:230 25:11'>Psa 25:11</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 32:30-31'>Exo 32:30-31</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul in <em><a href='B:620 2:24-25'>2Ti 2:24-25</a></em> makes a series of allusions to Moses, which climax in an invitation to pray like Moses for the salvation of others: <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“The servant of the Lord (A very common title of Moses) must not strive (As Israel did with him (<em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em>)) but be gentle unto all (The spirit of Moses) apt to teach (As was Moses (<em><a href='B:20 18:20'>Exo 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:12'>Exo 24:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:1'>Deu 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:5'>Deu 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:14'>Deu 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:1'>Deu 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:22'>Deu 31:22</a></em>)), patient (As was Moses), in meekness (Moses was the meekest man (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>)) instructing those that oppose themselves (at the time of Aaron and Miriam’s self-opposing rebellion) if God peradventure will give them repentance (i.e. forgiveness) (“Peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin” (<em><a href='B:20 32:30'>Exo 32:30</a></em>))"- and he prayed 40 days and nights for it. And note too: <em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:5'>Num 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:26'>Num 16:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:20'>2Ti 2:20</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 12:7'>Num 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 2:21'>Num 2:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:37'>Num 16:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:22'>2Ti 2:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 12:2'>Num 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:3'>Num 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:26'>2Ti 2:26</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:33'>Num 16:33</a></em>. This is quite something. The height of Moses’ devotion for His people, the passion of his praying, shadowing as it did the matchless intercession and self-giving of the Lord, really is our example. It isn’t just a height to be admired. It means that we will not half-heartedly ask our God to ‘be with’ brother x and sister y and the brethren in country z, as we lie half asleep in bed. This is a call to sustained, on our knees prayer and devotion to the salvation of others. For the Judaists, an appeal to be like Moses, to emulate him in teaching, was blasphemous; for they considered Moses at such a level that he could never be imitated. Yet Paul urges timid Timothy and all teachers to realistically be Moses to our audience.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses returned to Yahweh, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made themselves gods of gold- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was willing to give his physical life and also his eternal salvation so that Israel can enter the land. Surely he reached matchless heights of selflessness. And he begged Yahweh to accept this for 40 days and nights, fasting without food or water (<em><a href='B:50 9:17'>Deu 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:10'>Deu 10:10</a></em>). It wasn’t just a once off, emotional outburst of a moment.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yet now, if You will, forgive their sin- and if not, please blot me out of Your book which You have written-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is simply fantastic that Moses could love those people so intensely, despite their aggression and indifference towards him. He was prepared to give his place in the Kingdom so that they might enter; he <em>prayed</em> God to accept his offer. He knew that atonement could only be by sacrifice of blood (<em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>; and see the similarity with Phinehas making an atonement for Israel’s forgiveness through the slaying of Zimri and Cozbi in <em><a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>); and yet he climbed the Mount with the intent of making atonement himself for Israel's sin (<em><a href='B:20 32:30'>Exo 32:30</a></em>); he intended to give his life for them. And he didn't make such a promise in hot blood, as some men might. He made the statement, and then made the long climb to the top of the mount. He climbed that mountain (nearly a day's work), and at the top he made an even finer and altogether higher offer to the Angel: "If thou wilt forgive their sin... blot me, I pray thee (notice the earnestness of his desire) out of thy book" (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em> AV). And he begged Yahweh to accept this for 40 days and nights, fasting without food or water (<em><a href='B:50 9:17'>Deu 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:10'>Deu 10:10</a></em>). It wasn’t just a once off, emotional outburst of a moment. And during that climb, it seems he came to an even higher spiritual level; he was prepared not only to offer his physical life, but also his place in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:330 13:9'>Eze 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:20'>Luk 10:20</a></em>; <em>Php_4:3</em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:20:12'>Rev 20:12</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Now although hopefully we are not rejecting Christ as they did, the fact still stands that the love of Moses for Israel typifies the love of Christ towards us. The degree, the extent of Moses' love, is but a dim foretaste of the <em>degree</em> of the love of Christ for us. Now in this is something wonderful, something we really need to go away and meditate about. And the wonder of it all is that Israel did not realize the extent of Moses love at the time. At the end of his life he recounts how God has threatened to destroy the people, and then “I turned and came down from the mount” (<em><a href='B:50 9:15'>Deu 9:15</a></em>). He doesn’t record his 40 days of pleading with the Father, and how he turned down the offer of having himself made into a great nation. In this we see tremendous spiritual culture, pointing forward to the Lord’s own self-perception of His sacrifice. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We'll all be like Moses was at the end, in essence; we'll share his finest hours. Our names will not be blotted out of the book of life (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>), as Moses' wasn't (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was willing to sacrifice his place in the Kingdom for the sake of Israel, and this impressed Paul deeply. For he alludes to it often. "Neither count I my life dear unto myself" (<em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>). "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (<em><a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a></em>). Paul is here rising up to imitate Moses at perhaps his finest hour- willing, at least in principle, to give up his eternal life for the sake of Israel's salvation. The extent of Paul's love for natural Israel does not come out that strongly in the Acts and epistles; but this allusion to Moses says it all. The RVmg. renders <em><a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a></em>: “I could pray…”, more clearly alluding to Moses’ prayer that the people might enter and he be rejected. Yet Paul perceived that God would not accept a substitute offering like that; and hence he says he <em>could </em>pray like this. In essence, he had risen to the same level. Likewise he wrote in <em><a href='B:590 2:8'>1Th 2:8</a></em> RV that he was “well pleased (i.e. theoretically willing) to impart unto, you not the gospel of God only, but our own souls, because ye were dear unto us”. He perceived the difference between mere imparting of the Gospel in preaching, and being willing to give ones’ soul, ones salvation, because of a heart that bleeds for others. No wonder Paul was such a convincing preacher, with such love behind his words. <em></em></p>


