Study

8 And let them make me a sanctuary. By first setting before them an inestimable recompense, God stirs up the people to give largely; for, although liberality is praised by all as a most excellent virtue, yet no one willingly deprives himself of his own to bestow it upon others, since all think that it is so much lost to themselves, unless they have some compensation in view. Wherefore, that they may expend cheerfully, God promises that He will dwell among them, than which nothing is more desirable. But we must beware of imagining anything inconsistent with the nature of God, for He who sits above the heavens, and whose footstool is the earth, could not be enclosed in the tabernacle; but, because in His indulgence for the infirmities of an ignorant people, He desired to testify the presence of His grace and help by a visible symbol, the earthly sanctuary is called His dwelling amongst men, inasmuch as there He was not worshipped in vain. And we must bear in memory what we have lately seen, that it was not the infinite essence of God, but His name, or the record of His name, that dwelt there. This was the object of the expressions; that the Israelites ought not to be slow or lazy in setting up the tabernacle, because by these means they would obtain for themselves an inestimable advantage. Another clause follows, that the artificers should copy the pattern shewn to Moses, and not dare to invent anything, since it would be a profanation to mix up anything human with the commands of God; on which matter we shall treat more diffusely when we speak generally of the types. Now is described the form of the Ark and its covering: for the composition of the tabernacle, and its various parts, which Moses now only slightly adverts to, will be presently repeated at greater length in chapter 32. But, although the tabernacle was called God’s house, yet there was a more express image of His glory in the Ark of the Covenant; because the Law, whereby God bound the people to Himself, was there deposited. The material was shittim-wood, covered or overlaid with plates of gold. As to the species of the tree, ¹²¹¹²¹     “This was perhaps the acacia horrida, a kind of mimosa, a native of Arabia, since the Arabic word resembles the Hebrew. The thorns are twinned, and nearly equal to the leaves in length. The leaves are repeatedly winged. The spikes, of white flowers, proceed from the bosom of the leaves. The wood is of an excellent quality, whence it deserves the name given by the Greek translators, ξύλα ἄσηπτα, wood that never decays.” — Illustrated Comment., in loco. “The most important material, the wood for the tent, is just that which is found here most plentifully, while Palestine is deficient in acacia trees.” — Comp. Theophrast., Hist. P1. 4 3. Prosper Alpinus, de Plant. AEg., 100. 1., “Acaciae arbores copiosissime in montibus Sinai penes Rubrum Mare positis proveniunt.” Hieron. ad Joel, 4., “Quae ligna in locis cultis, et in Romano solo absque Arabiae solitudine non inveniuntur. Forskal. Flora AEg. Arab., p. 56.” Havernick, Introd. Pent., p. 284. not even the Hebrews are agreed among themselves, although we may conjecture that it was beautiful and costly; yet God would have gold over its whole surface, and even shining on its staves, that the dignity of the Law might be enhanced But here a question may arise, which introduces many others with it, how the sumptuous splendor both of the Ark, as well as the tabernacle and all its utensils, contributed to the worship of God? for it is certain that God would never be worshipped except agreeably to His nature; whence it follows, that His true worship was always spiritual, and therefore by no means comprised in external pomp.

But the great number and intricacy of the ceremonies were so far from awakening piety, that they were even the occasion of superstition, or era foolish and perverse confidence. Again, so many and such various rites seem to have had no other tendency than to feed curiosity. It will be therefore worth while briefly to premise something respecting this point. They are, in my judgment, at fault, who think that the eyes of the people were captivated by these magnificent sights, lest their religion, being stripped of all ornament, should become dishonored, when amongst the Gentiles their false worship was splendid even to a miracle; and thus a depraved rivalry might affect their minds, ¹²²¹²²     “Et fussent induits a essayer de faire plus qu’eux;” and they might be induced to try to do more than they. — Fr. if the beauty of the tabernacle did not at least equal the pomp of others, as though the God they worshipped were inferior to idols. On the same grounds they imagine that the Jews were burdened with many observances; lest, if God had only sparingly and slightly exercised them, they would in their natural curiosity, have sought in all directions after profane trifles. They tell part of the truth, but not the whole; for I admit that this was given to the ancient people, in order that, when they saw the tabernacle so brilliantly ornamented, they might be inspired with greater reverence. I also admit that, by God’s command, they were engrossed with many ceremonies, that they might not seek after strange ones; but if this had been the only object proposed in them, the whole legal service would have only availed for ostentation in its shadows and histrionic pomps. But it is most absurd to think that God so trifled with His people. We see, too, how honorably David and the Prophets speak of these exercises. ¹²³¹²³     Hengstenberg,. Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 504-505, briefly, but most satisfactorily, enumerates the objects of the Ceremonial Law in reply to the deistical writers, who, like De Wette, “can find out no rational basis for it,” and can form no other notion of these pedantic regulations, this gnat-straining, as he calls it, than as the production of a later priestcraft. “The best apology Hengstenberg says of the Ceremonial Law lies in pointing out its objects, and these, therefore, we present to refute the charges brought against it: — First, It served to cherish the religious sentiment. The Israelite was reminded by it in all his relations, even the most insignificant and external, of God; the thought of God was introduced into the very midst of the popular life. Secondly, It required the recognition of sin, and thus called forth the first thing essential for the reception of redemption, a sense of the need of redemption. The people must be burdened and heavy-laden, in order that the Lord might say to them, Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy, laden, and I will give you rest. The Law was, and was intended to be, a heavy yoke, and therefore would awaken a longing after the Redeemer. Everywhere it proclaimed, Touch not, taste not, handle not! and thus was a perpetual remembrancer of sin. Thirdly, It served to separate Israel from the heathen; it erected between the two a wall of separation, by which communication was prevented. Compare Ephesians 2:14. Not yet strong enough to conquer heathenism, the people were, so to speak, shut up, to be withdrawn from its influence, to preserve them for the time in which, armed with power from on high, they might commence an offensive war against it. The preliminary limitation effected by the Ceremonial Law served as the means of the future illimitedness. Fourthly, Many things in the Ceremonial Law served, by impressions on the senses, to awaken reverence for holy things among a sensual people. The bad consequence of denying this is, that it will then be necessary to impose a symbolic meaning on institutions, in which evidently nothing of the kind is to be found. Fifthly, One principal object of the Ceremonial Law lay in its symbolic meaning. The people, enthralled in visible objects, were not yet capable of vitally appropriating supersensual truth in words, the form most suited to their nature. It was needful for the truth to condescend, to come down to their power of apprehension, to prepare itself a body from visible things, in order to free the people from the bondage of the visible. This form was common to the Israelitish religion with that of the heathen, and therein lies its best apology. Would we rather not speak at all to the dumb than make use of signs? The Ceremonial Law was not the opposite to the worship of God in spirit and in truth, but only an imperfect form of the same, a necessary preparation for it. The accommodation was only formal, one which did not alter the essence, but only presented it in large capital letters to children who could not yet read a small running-hand.” - Ryland’s Translation, Edinburgh, 1847. It is, therefore, impiety to suppose that the legal rites were like farces composed in imitation of the Gentiles. In order, then, to preserve their honor and dignity, we must remember the principle to which we have lately alluded, viz., that all of them were arranged according to the spiritual pattern which had been shewn to Moses in the mount. (Exodus 25:40.) And this both Stephen, and the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, wisely observed, when they would reprove the gross follies of the people who continued to be wrapped up in the external ceremonies, as if religion were comprised in them. (Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:5.) Stephen and the Apostle, therefore, are our best expositors, that the tabernacle, the altar, the table, the Ark of the Covenant, were of no importance except in so far as they referred to the heavenly pattern, of which they were the shadows and images. Thence their entire utility, and even their legitimate use, depended on the truth, (which they represented.) ¹²⁴¹²⁴     Added from Fr For the slaughter of an ox profits nothing in itself, nay, it is but an unimportant thing; and so all the sacrifices, except that they were types, would have been thought nothing of. Whence we gather that there is the greatest difference between the ceremonies of the Law and the profane rites of the Gentiles, for they differ from each other not only inasmuch as God is the author of the one, and that the temerity of men has foolishly invented the other, but because among the Gentiles their religion was entirely comprised in these bare and empty pomps; whilst God, by these rudiments, which He gave to His people, elevated pious minds, as it were by steps, to higher things. Thus the Gentiles seemed to themselves duly to propitiate (their gods) when they offered victims; whilst the sacrifices of the Jews were acceptable to God, because they were exercises of repentance and faith. So the Law instructed the Jews in the spiritual worship of God, and in nothing else, though it were clothed in ceremonies agreeably to the requirements of the age. For, before the truth was fully made known, the childhood of the Church was to be directed by earthly elements, and thus, though there was great affinity and likeness between the Jews and Gentiles as regarded the external form of their religious service, yet its end was widely different. Moreover, when we would seek the body or substance of the ancient shadows, and the truth of the figures, we may learn them, not only from the Apostles, but also from the Prophets, who everywhere draw the attention of believers to the kingdom of Christ; yet their clearer explanation must be sought in the Gospel, where Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, shining forth, shews that their fulfillment exists in Himself alone. But, although by His coming He abolished these typical ceremonies as regards their use, yet at the same time He established the reverence justly due to them; since they have no claim to be held in esteem on any other grounds, except that their completion is found in Him; for, if they are separated from Him, it is plain that they are mere farces, ¹²⁵¹²⁵     Lat., “lusorias.” Fr., “frivoles et comme badinages." since neither the blood of animals, nor the sweetness of fat, nor aromatic odors, nor candles, nor anything of that sort, have any power to propitiate God. This indeed must be remembered, that the Jews did not pay attention to the legal sacrifices in vain, since the promises were annexed to them; as often, therefore, as these sentences occur, “your iniquity shall be blotted out,” — “ye shall appear before my face,” — “I will hear you from the sanctuary,” we are reminded that all the ancient figures were sure testimonies of God’s grace and of eternal salvation; and thus Christ was represented in them, since all the promises are in Him, yea, and amen. (2 Corinthians 1:20.) Yet it by no means follows from hence that there were mysteries hidden in all their details, since some, with mistaken acuteness, pass over no point, however trifling, without an allegorical exposition; as, in this passage, for instance, the dimensions of the ark afford them matter of speculation. ¹²⁶¹²⁶     “Rupertus thus collecteth, that as the Ark is described to be two cubits and a half in length, equal to the stature of a man, so God hath appeared on earth, and shewed himself unto the capacity of men ” — Willet, Hexapla, in loco. But it will be enough for the sound and sober-minded to know that God would have His Law deposited in a handsome vessel, in order that its majesty should be recognized. He commanded that the ark itself should be carried with staves, that the hands of the Levites might not touch it, and thus that its sanctity might be the greater

16. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony. The title of “the testimony,” which is often given to the law, indicates that something more is contained in it than the rule of a just and holy life; viz., the compact whereby God bound Himself to His people, and His people to Himself; therefore the words “the table of the covenant,” are afterwards used instead of “the testimony.” Thus the word עדת, ¹²⁷¹²⁷     “A testimony, or public evidence,” from עוד, to affirm, or testify. — W gneduth, in this passage, and similar ones, is equivalent to a contract, which is commonly called a convention In this sense the Prophet in Psalm 114 calls by the name of testimonies, not only the Commandments, but whatever God hath delivered by the hand of Moses for the salvation of His people. In Psalm 14:7, the word testimony is added as if in explanation of the word law: “The law of the Lord is perfect; the testimony of the Lord is sure;” as in Isaiah 8:20, where it is said, “To the law and to the testimony,” it is not that two different things are referred to, but the utility of the law is commended, because it contains all that God would have testified to His people.

17 And thou shalt make a mercy-seat. The primary root of the verb כפר, caphar, from whence this noun is derived, ¹²⁸¹²⁸     כפרת C. has not derived his explanation of the verb כפר from his usual guide in Hebrew, viz., S.M.; but his remark, that it signifies to smear over with bitumen, or pitch, agrees with its generally acknowledged meaning in Genesis 6:14. It is in the Pihel conjugation, — the effect of which is frequently the same as that proper to the Hiphil, — that the verb means to expiate. The noun, as C. observes, properly signifies a covering. — W. is used for “to smear with pitch,” but in the Hiphil conjugation, it signifies either to expiate, or to purge, or to receive into favor; whence כפר, copher, is expiation, as we have seen elsewhere; and כפרת, caphoreth, a covering or lid. Yet I doubt not but that Moses alludes in this word to a metaphorical meaning, for the law requires a covering to conceal our transgressions. And it is probable that, when Paul calls Christ ἱλαστήριον, (Romans 3:25,) and John ἱλασμὸν, (1 John 2:2,) they both refer to this figure, because God was propitiated towards believers by the covering of the Law, so as to shew Himself favorable to them by hearing their vows and prayers. For as long as the law stands forth before God’s face it subjects us to His wrath and curse; and hence it is necessary that the blotting out of our guilt should be interposed, so that God may be reconciled with us. Nor is it without reason that David exclaims, after he has proclaimed the righteousness of the law, “Who can understand his errors?” (Psalm 19:12.) Whence we gather that, without a propitiation, the law does not bring us near to God, but accuses us before Him. And assuredly, when I consider all things, it seems to me a tame explanation, that Moses spoke literally of the cover, when he ¹²⁹¹²⁹     Addition in Fr., “quand il le magnifie tant, et." would have the Cherubim turn their faces toward it, and God promises that He will give His answers from it. By these honorable distinctions it is exalted above the Ark.

18 And thou shalt make two cherubims. I have stated in my commentary on Genesis and elsewhere, ¹³⁰¹³⁰     See Commentary on Genesis 3:23. Calvin Society Translation, vol. 1, p. 186. The fanciful derivation to which C. objects, he had found in S. M., who states it as popular with the Rabbis, But as untenable. — W. that there are various opinions respecting the word cherub; but that those approach most nearly to the truth who make the כ, caph, not a servile, but a radical letter, and take it generally for any image; for those who suppose the כto be a note of similitude, render it “like a boy;” which in itself is forced, and besides it is refuted by the words of Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 1:10, and Ezekiel 10:1,) who calls the forms of a calf, a lion, and an eagle by this name, as well as the human form. It is enough for me that the images were winged, which represented angels. Therefore, when Moses speaks of the angels, who were placed as guards to keep man away from approaching paradise, he calls them cherubim; not so much in reference to that time, as to keep the people in the doctrine of the Law ¹³¹¹³¹     “Que pour donner goust au peuple de la doctrine de la Loy, et l’accoustumer aux ceremonies;” as to give the people a taste for the doctrine of the Law, and to accustom them to its ceremonies — Fr. But God appointed angels, by whom He exercises His dominion, and who are the ministers of His blessings, to be a symbol of His presence; for as often as He manifested Himself to believers by angels, He in a manner extended His hand to them. On this ground, David, and other Prophets, in order to encourage themselves to confidence in prayer, often speak of God as “dwelling between the cherubims,” (Psalm 80:1; 64:1; Isaiah 37:16;) as much as to say, that He conversed familiarly with His people, since His virtue exercises itself by His angels. That they covered the lid of the ark with their extended wings, I do not imagine to have been done to hide it, but to mark the readiness of their obedience, for the extension of their wings is equivalent to their being prepared for the performance of whatever God might command. Thus they are said to turn their faces towards the mercy-seat, because they are attentive to the will of God. Moreover, because the fullness of the Godhead resides in Christ, He justly declares that, in His descent upon earth, the heavens were opened that the angels might ascend and descend. Their looking towards each other indicates that harmony in which the angels are united for performing the commands of God. It is indeed a plausible conceit, ¹³²¹³²     Gregorius in Gloss. Ord. “The two cherubim are the two Testaments. One of them stands on one end of the mercy-seat, and the other on the other; because what the Old Testament begins to promise in prophecy respecting the Incarnation of Christ, the New relates to be perfectly fulfilled. They are made of very pure gold, because both Testaments are written with pure and simple truth.They stretch out their wings and cover the oracles; because we (who are God’s oracles) are protected from imminent errors by the study of sacred Scripture; and whilst we earnestly look at it, we are covered by its wings from the mistakes of ignorance. They look towards one another with their faces turned to the mercy-seat, because the Testaments differ in nothing, and look mutually to each other; for what the one promises the other exhibits. And they see the mercy-seat, i.e., the Mediator between God and men, placed between them; for they would turn away their faces from each other, if the one promised what the other denied.” — See also Bede in Gloss. Ord., and Augustin Qoest. in Ex. 105. that the two cherubim were the Old and New Testaments, which look from one to the other, and surround the mercy-seat, inasmuch as Christ is their common object; but this notion vanishes before the contradiction of many passages of Scripture.