Yet for all of Paul’s hard words, Galatians is fundamentally a letter of grace. It is a bitter and often painful grace, but it is grace, nonetheless. Even though the Galatians are in very real danger of committing apostasy, from the very beginning the apostle is declaring that the well of God’s grace has not run dry. This is why the apostle extends his usual greeting into giving the Galatians a brief reminder of what exactly the gospel of Jesus Christ is.

Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:
Grace to you and peacefrom God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,who gave himself for our sinsto deliver us from the present evil age,according to the will of our God and Father,to whom be the glory forever and ever.Amen.
Galatians 1:1-5 ESV
When preparing for a new series through a book of the Bible, I always give a great deal of thought to what I am titling the series because I want the title to act as a concise snapshot of what the main theme of the book is. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians proved surprisingly difficult in this matter, since nailing down the overall theme can be a challenge. Of course, there is no shortage of ideas. If Galatians is primarily a polemic against legalism, then we could call the series “Not by Works of the Law,” “Captive Under the Law,” or even “The Curse of the Law.” But if Galatians is foremost a defense of justification by faith alone, then we could call it “Justified by Faith” or simply “Through Faith Alone.” But maybe Paul’s broader goal is to defend the true gospel, which would make the title “No Other Gospel” quite fitting.
Yet the most pervasive theme from the first verse to the last is Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is in the person of Christ that each of the other prominent themes of Galatians are rooted. We are set free from the curse of the law only through Christ becoming a curse in our place. The beauty of our being justified in God’s sight through faith alone is made possible only in Christ. And this good news is rightly called the gospel of Christ. Indeed, the great concern of Paul throughout this letter, which explains his intense and often harsh tone, is that the Galatians were in danger of being severed from Christ (5:4). thus, I propose a simple title for capturing the heartbeat of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “Christ Alone.”
From Paul to the Galatians: Verses 1–2
As is typically the case with ancient letters, this one begins by identifying the author: Paul. This is, of course, the Apostle Paul, who was formerly called Saul and who actively persecuted the church until Christ called him to Himself. Although we do not know for certain when this letter was written, most scholars argue that it is the earliest of Paul’s letters, likely penned before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. R. C. Sproul remarks that his mentor John Gerstner described Paul’s personality and character with an acrostic of his name:
P stood for “polluted” because Paul understood that he was the chief of sinners, and the A referred to his “office” as an Apostle. But the most striking significance to me was that Dr. Gerstner said the U in Paul’s name stood for “uncompromising” and the L stood for “loving.” (Galatians, 2)
It is here in Galatians that we find those final two characteristics meeting together. Paul’s deep love for the Galatians leads him to an uncompromising stance on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Paul then immediately refers to himself as an apostle. Although the word apostle simply means one who is sent, he uses it here to refer to an ecclesiastical office that belonged only to those who received a direct revelation of Jesus Christ. Since it is probable that Paul’s authority as an apostle was being called into question by the influencers, he follows his claim to apostleship with the statement: “not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ…”
By saying “not from men,” Paul is emphasizing that the source of his apostleship did not come from any human authority but directly from God. “Nor through man” is to say that there was no intermediary. Christ Himself set Paul apart to be an apostle. Again, this is what distinguished the apostles from ministers today. The only authoritative offices, elders and deacons, are both appointed and affirmed by the church and can also be removed from office by the church.
Paul’s apostolic authority came instead “through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Obviously, it was Jesus Himself who appeared to Paul, but just as Jesus said that whoever has seen Him has seen the Father, the apostle rightly understood his call through Christ to also be a call from the Father. Furthermore, in answer to those who would deny the divinity of Christ, notice the intimate union in Paul’s mind between Christ and the Father, as well as the distance he places between Christ and ordinary men. Of course, we joyfully affirm that Jesus became truly man, but crucially, He was not merely a man. He is the God-man, truly human but also truly divine.
“who raised him from the dead” John Brown gives a wonderful answer for why Paul included this phrase:
This was a truth ever present to the apostle’s mind in its pre-eminent importance; and consequently he was always ready to give it utterance. It is not unlikely that, in mentioning it here, he meant to suggest the idea,–that as an apostle called by the Savior raised from the dead by the power of the Father, he was certainly not inferior to those who had been called by him in his suffering state. For it does not seem to have been one of the circumstances of which the false teachers in different churches availed themselves, in endeavouring to lessen Paul’s authority, that he had not, like the other apostles, been the companion of Jesus Christ while on earth. (Galatians, 22)
Although verse 1 is more than enough to establish the authority of Paul as an apostle of the risen Christ, he also adds “and all the brothers with me.” This probably refers to those ministering alongside Paul, although it could also be the general believers of which city Paul was writing from. Either way, since this is only letter where Paul cites another group of believers as giving their explicit affirmation of Paul’s words, we can assume that Paul was doing so very intentionally. Indeed, this seems to be simply one more authentication of Paul’s authority. Perhaps the implication to the Galatians is: if the testimony of the Father and the about me is not sufficient, then just know that all the brothers who are with me agree with everything I am about to write. In other words, “Paul is no lone ranger, a renegade working in isolation from the rest of the early church. The gospel he preaches and the gospel the Galatians first believed is the same gospel preached by Paul’s cohorts and many others” (Wilson, Galatians, 21-22).
“to the churches of Galatia” Here we learn the recipients of this letter. Unlike most of Paul’s epistles, this one was not directed to a particular city but to a region. There are two possibilities about which Galatians Paul was writing to. If he was speaking of Galatia in an ethnic sense, then he would have been writing to the Celtic people in northern part of the providence of Galatia. If he was speaking of Galatia in a geographic or political sense, then it is likely that he was addressing area of Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium, which are cities where he preached the gospel in Acts 13-14. The absence of personal names often seems to indicate familiarity in Paul’s writings, so I would assume the latter to be the more likely option.
Regarding the word churches, DeSilva gives us this caution:
The translation “congregations” is preferred here to “churches” given the connotations of the latter in English as established places for worship. The Greek ἐκκλεσία refers to an assembly of people without reference to a building or place, which is more in keeping with early Christian identity and practice. (3)
Read More
Related Posts:

The major theme in these five chapters, which can be observed by the sheer force of repetition. In 35:1, Moses said, These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do. In 35:4, he says, This is the thing that the LORD has commanded, and in 35:10, let every skillful craftsman among you come and make all that the LORD has commanded. In 35:29, the men and women bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded. In 36:1, Bezalel and Oholiab are given skill to work in accordance with all that the LORD has commanded. Then in chapter 39, after each item of the priestly garments is made, we are told that it was as the LORD commanded (vv. 1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31). 

When reading through the book of Exodus, most find the second half much less exciting than the first half because of laws and because of these chapters and the previous chapters that they mirror, 25-31. Yet the structure of Exodus wants us to see that this what all the marvelous works that God did to bring Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness has been building toward. Yahweh redeemed His people from their slavery in Egypt so that they could know Him and be His covenantal people.
The tabernacle was the physical expression of that covenant. The LORD appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at certain moments throughout their lives, but He would now dwell in the midst of their descendants. Indeed, the tabernacle is also called the tent of meeting because it marked the place where Israel would always be able to meet with God. If they desired to seek Him, they knew that He would be found at the tabernacle.
The importance of the tabernacle explains why even more space is devoted to it in these chapters. The previous three chapters have recounted Israel’s breaking of the covenant through their worshiping of the golden calf, Moses’ continual intercession for them before the face of Yahweh, and the LORD’s pardoning of their sin. Now with the covenant reestablished, Israel is commanded to build the tabernacle according to the designs that Moses was given upon the mountain. Although the text before us is large, there are two large points that we will observe in them: first, the great giving of all Israel toward building the tabernacle and second, the obedience of the people in building the various elements of the tabernacle exactly as Yahweh commanded.
Sufficient to do all the Work
Chapter 35 begins with one final command for Israel to keep the Sabbath. While these verses again feature some unique wording, they appear to be rather out of place in relation to the remainder of the text. Yet I believe that the reason for placing this command at the beginning of the building of the tabernacle is similar to the reason for commanding the Sabbath to be observed at the end of the instructions for the tabernacle. Although Israel was about to begin one of the most important building projects in all of history, the LORD is preemptively reminding them that it was no excuse for breaking the Sabbath. As glorious as the work on the tabernacle was, whoever does any work on [the Sabbath] shall be put to death. Douglas Stuart gives a great explanation for why the Sabbath was so important:
In a certain sense Israel’s formal starting point for keeping Yahweh’s covenant was keeping the Sabbath, that is, the fourth word/commandment, not because doing so was more important than fulfilling the first three words/commandments but because obedience to the Sabbath requirement was the most obviously measurable of them—either in the keeping or in the disobeying. By the fact that he kept (or did not keep) the Sabbath each week, an Israelite showed without ambiguity whether or not he was committed to keep the covenant. Merely keeping the Sabbath did not confer righteousness if other commandments were violated, but it was an openly visible essential—a sine qua non—of covenant loyalty. Not to keep it would be to say publicly to the world “I am not in covenant relationship with the Lord of the Sabbath.” (748)
In verses 4-9, Moses again speaks to the entire congregation of Israel and commands them to make their contribution for the building of the tabernacle. They were to bring gold, silver, bronze, blue and purple and scarlet yarns and linen, goats’ hair, tanned rams’ skins, goatskins, acacia wood, lamp oil, spices, and gems. These were the materials that would be used to build the tent of meeting. As we noted when Moses first received this command upon Sinai, this nation of former slaves was able to offer such valuable materials because the LORD caused them to plunder the Egyptians as they left.
But lest we think that the LORD gave Israel their treasures simply for the purpose of using them for the tabernacle, notice the emphasis on how the contribution was to be given in verse 5: whoever is of a generous heart. In other words, there was no particular demand made to anyone. Giving was commanded generally to the entire nation, but the particulars of gifts were left to the conscience of each individual. God enriched Israel out of His love for His people and to further humble the Egyptians, and those gifts were really given. The Israelites could have refused to make their contributions, foolish as that decision would have been. Of course, there is a sense in which all that we have properly belongs to God, meaning that we are stewards of our possessions rather than owners. Yet that reality should be balanced with God’s gracious giving of gifts, particularly to His people but even upon the wicked as well. Indeed, the fact that the contributions will be stopped in 36:6-7 shows that God had no intention of taking all of Israel’s riches for use in the tabernacle.
Verses 20-29 then show all the people doing what Yahweh commanded of them.
Then all the congregation of the people of Israel departed from the presence of Moses. And they came, everyone whose heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him, and brought the LORD’s contribution to be used for the tent of meeting, and for all its service, and for the holy garments. So they came, both men and women. All who were of a willing heart brought brooches and earrings and signet rings and armlets, all sorts of gold objects, every man dedicating an offering of gold to the LORD. And every one who possessed blue or purple or scarlet yarns or fine linen or goats’ hair or tanned rams’ skins or goatskins brought them. Everyone who could make a contribution of silver or bronze brought it as the LORD’s contribution. And every one who possessed acacia wood of any use in the work brought it. And every skillful woman spun with her hands, and they all brought what they had spun in blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen. All the women whose hearts stirred them to use their skill spun the goats’ hair. And the leaders brought onyx stones and stones to be set, for the ephod and for the breastpiece, and spices and oil for the light, and for the anointing oil, and for the fragrant incense. All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the LORD.
Again, notice the great emphasis upon everyone who heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him, as well as all who were of a willing heart. This is, of course, the pattern for Christian that we are under today. Although giving a tenth of one’s income (a tithe) is generally a fine enough principle, the New Testament does not give us a particular amount or percentage or even formula for governing our giving. Instead, 2 Corinthians 9:7 tells us plainly: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” That is the principle that must rule over our hearts.
We should also take that all of Israel participated in these contributions. The leaders who possessed gemstones and spices brought them freely. Both men and women are emphasized as giving, and the text specifically spotlights skillful women bringing their weavings. Whenever we couple this with the call for all skillful craftsmen in verse 10, we find a beautiful picture of how Yahweh used the various gifts and skills of His people to build His dwelling place.
Read More
Related Posts:

Although Moses had a more immediate and intimate relationship with God than any other human on the planet, he still could not see the fullness of God’s glory and goodness and still live. Again, even though God spoke to Moses face to face and even though it was God’s face that would go with him and the people of Israel, those are metaphorical ways of speaking. Like all other sinful men (which is all of us), Moses could not behold the unfiltered glory of God and attempting to do so would be deadly. Therefore, Yahweh would hide Moses under the shelter of a rock.

C. S. Lewis once wrote:
If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.
I think Lewis is absolutely right. We do not wander into sin because our desires are too strong but because they are too weak towards the One who is altogether desirable. It was Israel’s weak desire that led to their creating the golden calf, for they were willing to abandon their worship of the Almighty Creator for a dumb image of an animal that they themselves had made.
Thus far, although God has relented from destroying Israel altogether, the people are still waiting for their great sin to be resolved. In our previous passage, Yahweh ordered Moses to lead the people into Canaan, yet He refused to go with them. This set before them a perilous but necessary decision: did they want God Himself or only the gifts that He could give them? Thankfully, Israel seemed to somewhat understand how disastrous the thought of being abandoned by God is.
In our present text, we sit in on a dialogue between Yahweh and Moses, and we discover by Moses was the great mediator of the Old Testament and a shadow and type of Christ our Lord. Our text can be divided into two general parts. Verses 12-17 show Moses’ renewed intercession on Israel’s behalf, and verses 18-23 describe Moses’ personal request from the LORD.
Do Not Bring Us Up from Here // Verses 12-17
In describing how Moses established a temporary tent of meeting outside of Israel’s camp, our previous text ended by describing Moses’ relationship with Yahweh as such: “Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” In this second half of chapter 33, we are invited to listen in on one of Moses’ conversations with the LORD.
Moses said to the LORD, “See, you say to me, ‘Bring up this people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”
In verses 12-13, Moses establishes his first request. He begins by addressing the most recent command that God had given him back in verse 1. The LORD had commanded him leave Sinai and take the Israelites into Canaan, the land of milk and honey that God had promised to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To this command, Moses lays out his first concern: but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Of course, Yahweh had said that He would not go with them but would only send one of His angels before them. Moses was now drawing on that ambiguity and asking for clarification. As we will see, he is ultimately leading up to pleading for Yahweh Himself to go with them, but he begins with this question of who precisely God’s messenger was going to be.
Next, Moses draws the LORD’s attention to what He had previously said of Moses, that He knew the prophet by name and had favor toward him. While God will affirm this in verse 17, we can rightly assume that God previously told Moses this during one of their previous conversations. But regarding this favor towards Moses, Ryken explains:
This means much more than simply that God knew who Moses was. That would be true of anyone, because in that sense God knows everyone by name. But here the Bible is speaking of a special knowledge that is full of love and favor. According to John Mackay, for God to “know someone by name” is to embrace that person in “a relationship of acceptance and friendship.” Moses was an object of covenant grace. God knew him in a loving, saving, and electing way. God knows all his children like this. He knew us in our mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13–16). He knew us even before the foundation of the world. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (Jer. 31:3a). Anyone who is friends with God through faith in Jesus Christ is known and loved by the God who rules the universe.
Then in verse 13 Moses seeks to leverage that favor. If he had truly found favor in God’s sight, then he begged to know God’s ways, in order to know God and find further favor in His sight. By this Moses was asking “to comprehend God’s essential personality, the attributes that guide His actions in His dealings with humankind, the norms by which He operates in His governance of the world.” The LORD will do this very thing in the next chapter, where He will proclaim to Moses His name and character. Indeed, Psalm 103:7-8 explicitly ties these two passages together, saying:
            He made known his ways to Moses,his acts to the people of Israel.The LORD is merciful and gracious,slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
Thus, while God’s ways to us are certainly mysterious, they are nevertheless clear and plain. Douglas Stuart rightly notes that:
There is little room for mysticism in biblical religion; we do not know God by having some sort of inexplicable ethereal communion with him, in which are feelings are used as the evidence for our closeness to him. We know him by learning his ways (i.e., his revealed standards, revealed methods, and revealed benefits)—in other words by objective, rather than subjective, emotional, means. (701)
Notice also the last statement that Moses throws in at the end: Consider too that this nation is your people. After so heavily emphasizing his own relationship with God, he reminds the LORD again that He has adopted and covenanted Himself to Israel as His own people.
In verse 14, Yahweh answers Moses, saying, My presence with go with you, and I will give you rest. On the surface, this is the exact answer that Moses was hoping for. Although far more glorious than we are, Moses was not content to be led into the Promised Land by an angel; He wanted to the presence of the living God to go with Him. As we said of the bread of the Presence, God is literally saying that His face would go with him. Furthermore, God would give Moses rest. Just as Moses rested in the might of Yahweh throughout the destruction of Egypt, so would he continue to rest in God’s powerful hand as he continued to lead the people.
As wonderful as this promise is, Moses finds fault with it. You see, it is for him alone, not for the people of Israel. Thus, Moses presses on further in his task as mediator, saying in verse 15: If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here. Notice how Moses begins by speaking only of himself but ends by tying himself to Israel.
Read More
Related Posts:

Though you and I are no less sinful and idolatrous than the Israelites and no less prone to make light of or excuse our sin than Aaron, we have One who is greater than Moses who has made atonement for our sins. Being both eternal God and the only sinless man, Jesus alone was fit and able to give Himself as a perfect and lasting atonement for all of the sins of all His people. And that is precisely what He did, not upon Sinai, but upon the hill of Golgotha.

After studying through the several chapters of instructions that Yahweh gave to Moses regarding the building and design of the tabernacle, our previous text brought our attention to what the Israelites were doing at the foot of Mount Sinai while Moses was meeting with God. Sadly, even while God was giving his prophet the plans for the tent where He would dwell in the midst of His newly redeemed people, they were already turning aside from the covenant that they promised to keep. They gathered around Aaron and demanded that he make an idol for them, and though Aaron apparently tried to pretend that the golden calf represented Yahweh, both he and the Israelites were fully guilty of violating the First and Second Commandments. Although God said that He ready to consume Israel in His wrath, Moses interceded for the people, and the LORD relented from His anger.
Yet that is not the end of the incident of the golden calf. Although Moses’ initial intercession stayed the wrath of God from falling upon the Israelites, the people had still committed a great sin that could not be simply overlooked. Thus, while the immediate danger of God’s fiery judgment was no longer overhead, the remainder of chapter 32 deals with the ongoing consequence of Israel’s idolatry.
A Broken Covenant: Verses 15–20
Even though we already know what the Israelites have been doing, the suspense of the passage is raised again by slowly taking us down the mountain with Moses and Joshua.
Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets that were written on both sides; on the front and on the back they were written. The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a noise of war in the camp.” But he said, “It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear.”
These four verses force us to wait in suspense over what will happen when Moses encounters the people. Verses 15-16 linger over the tablets that Moses carried with him down the mountain, reminding us as explicitly as possible that these were the work of God and written by God Himself. As one commentator notes, these tablets were the most precious and valuable items on earth, and they were the written documentation of God’s covenant with Israel. A covenant that the people had already broken.
Verses 17-18 then linger on the noise that Moses and Joshua hear coming down the mountain. Even though the people were supposedly having a feast to Yahweh (at least that is what Aaron told himself), Joshua mistakes the noise of their feasting for the sounds of war. But Moses points out that the noise is neither of defeat nor victory; it is the sound of partying. As Ryken notes, “the Israelites were singing to an image of a grass-eating, milk-producing, moo-sounding cow. Someone would almost have to be drunk to worship such a deity, and the Israelites probably were.”
Indeed, the description of Israel as making noise reminds me of C. S. Lewis’ thought on noise through the mouth of the demon Screwtape:
Music and silence—how I detest them both! How thankful we should be that ever since our Father entered Hell—though longer ago than humans, reckoning in light years, could express—no square inch of infernal space and no moment of infernal time has been surrendered to either of those abominable forces, but all has been occupied by Noise—Noise, the grand dynamism, the audible expression of all that is exultant, ruthless, and virile—Noise which alone defends us from silly qualms, despairing scruples, and impossible desires. We will make the whole universe a noise in the end. We have already made great strides in this direction as regards the Earth. The melodies and silences of Heaven will be shouted down in the end. But I admit we are not yet loud enough, or anything like it. Research is in progress.
Verse 19 then describes the bursting of the dam.
And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses’ anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it.
Even though the LORD had already told Moses what was happening at the foot of the mountain, the prophet’s anger was kindled whenever he saw it with his own eyes. Moses then takes two immediate actions. First, he threw the tablets to the ground and broke them in front of the people. Since Moses is not rebuked for this action, we can safely assume that Moses was not being controlled by his anger, which would have been sinful. Rather, as Stuart argues, “Moses’ breaking of the tablets was an important symbolic act done carefully, deliberately, and openly for the benefit of the Israelites… It was a reasoned, overt act demonstrating a fact (the covenant had been broken) and warning of a consequence (divine wrath—far worse than the anger of Moses)” (677). Furthermore, Ryken comments that:
By breaking the tablets, Moses showed that the Israelites had broken the whole law. The Bible says that “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (Jas. 2:10). Actually, the Israelites stumbled at more than one point. But the principle still applies: By worshiping the golden calf, they had broken the whole law of God.
Second, Moses destroyed the golden calf, which all of Israel is blamed for making. Again, Moses’ actions here do not indicate that he was blind with rage. Instead, he burned the idol with fire, ground up the charred remains into powder, and scattered them into Israel’s water source so that the people would be drinking their own false god. Stuart points out that Moses probably did not have all of Israel line up to drink from the water; rather, by scattering it over their water source, every time they got a drink of water they were drinking the golden calf. This all was a means of thoroughly polluting the gold used for the golden calf. It was burned to disfigurement, ground into dust, and drunk.
But what is the next logical implication of what became of the golden calf? The god that they were just worshiping literally became a part of their excrement.
If that seems undignified and offensive, that is precisely the point. Sin, particularly idolatry, is undignified and offensive to the Holy One. Also, this is not the last time that the Bible leaves us to make such an implication. The wicked Queen Jezebel died by fall from a window and being eaten by dogs. Thus, the once seemingly great queen may very well have ended up fouling the sandal of some poor Israelite. This is a strong warning to we whose hearts are idol factories. In 1 Kings 11:4, false gods are referred to using the same word that is translated as vanity all through Ecclesiastes. Idols are nothings, and as Psalm 115:8 warns, “those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them.”
A Cowardly Priest: Verses 21–24
In these verses, Moses confronts Aaron, who was clearly supposed to be in charge of the people while Moses was upon the mountain, and he does so with only one question: What did the people do to you that you have brought such a great sin upon them? Notice that the careful wording of this question shows that Moses knew, whether through revelation or simply intuition, where the fault lay. He knew that the people were at fault somehow for pressing Aaron into making the golden calf. However, he is by no means excusing Aaron, for he places the blame squarely on Aaron for bringing such a great sin upon them.
What then is Aaron’s answer?
And Aaron said, “Let not the anger of my lord burn hot. You know the people, that they are set on evil. For they said to me, ‘Make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ So I said to them, ‘Let any who have gold take it off.’ So they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Moses appeals to God’s promise to the patriarchs. Notice that Moses does not make light of Israel’s sin. Indeed, in the remainder of the chapter, we will see Moses’ own wrath burning against the people. However, here he is set on turning away God’s wrath, and he does so by appealing to God’s own character in promising to bless the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who he very rightly calls by his new name here, Israel).

Looking back upon the large set of instructions that Yahweh gave to Moses for the construction of the tabernacle, we should again remind ourselves of the truth of Beale calling the tent of meeting “Eden remixed.” We have seen this with the garden imagery of the tabernacle, as well as the gold and precious stones that alluded back to Eden. Furthermore, just as the goal of creation as for humanity to dwell with God, the goal of the tabernacle was to restore something of that lost communion to God’s chosen nation and treasured people. Just as God created all things over the span of seven days through the word of His mouth, so too were the tabernacle’s instructions give through a sevenfold declaration of the phrase, “The LORD said to Moses…” Indeed, just as God rested on the seventh day and sanctified the Sabbath, the seventh instruction was for Israel to also keep the Sabbath as holy. Following the days of creation, Genesis 2 records Yahweh giving Adam two glorious gifts, the garden of Eden and his wife, Eve. Likewise, following the instructions for the tabernacle, Yahweh gave Moses two tablets of His covenant union with Israel.
Unfortunately, the similarities between these chapters and the opening chapters of Genesis do not end there. Just as the wonders of creation and Eden are followed immediately with Adam and Eve’s fall into sin, so too the instructions for the remixed Eden are followed by a similar fall into sin by all of Israel.
In our present passage, Moses brings our focus back to the base of the mountain to what Israelites have been doing over the course of his meeting with God. The event that is presented sadly sets the pattern for the remainder of the entire Old Testament.
The Idol // Verses 1-6
Verse 1 sets the scene for the following verses by bringing our attention back to the Israelites as they wait for Moses to come down from Sinai. Indeed, as we read what follows, we should keep in mind that Moses was hidden in the cloud of God’s glory upon the mountain; however, the cloud itself was certainly visible. All of their idolatry was committed under the shadow of the glory that once greatly feared.
With Moses not before them, the Israelites gather themselves together and go to Aaron, saying, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” Notice first that the Israelites gathered themselves together. While it could be simply that they gathered themselves around Aaron, one commentary argues that it is best to view at them gathering against Aaron, since the wording “always carries a menacing nuance.” As with all the world being gathered together at Babel and Israel later gathering themselves against Samuel to demand a king, this ought to remind us that unity is not inherently a virtue. People may be united and of one mind, while being together in rebellion against the Most High.
Second, we should consider the scorn that the Israelites evidently had for their both Moses and Aaron as their leaders. Their dismissal view of Moses is seen in how they distance themselves from him, saying this Moses and calling him the man. As Ryken notes, “Their language was dismissive and disrespectful. They would never say something like this to his face, of course, but now that he was gone, now that his ministry had failed to meet their expectations, they felt justified in setting him aside.” Likewise, they showed disrespect and scorn towards Aaron, who had functioned as Moses’ right hand throughout the exodus, by ordering him to make an idol for them. They had dismissed Moses while he was away, and now they were ready to bully Aaron into doing what they wanted him to do. Of course, while the people do not yet know that Yahweh has set Aaron apart as a high priest, they clearly saw him as authoritative. Thus, if they could get Aaron to make an idol for them, it would be imbued with a greater degree of credibility than if they had just made an idol for themselves.
Sadly, in verses 2-3, Aaron yields to their demands and commands them to give him the earrings from their wives and children. While there is potentially some connection between the earrings that the Israelites were wearing and idolatry, especially compared with Genesis 35:4 and Judges 8:24-27, the simplest connection seems to be with God’s command for the Israelites to give the materials required for the tabernacle. While Moses was commanded to give the command to all of Israel, Yahweh specifically said, “From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me” (25:2). God was specifically calling upon the men of Israel to give their treasures for the building of God’s tent, yet with this idol, Aaron calls upon the men to take the jewelry from their wives and children. This pattern continues generally today as well. True worship in the household ought to be led by husbands and fathers who give sacrificially of themselves just as Christ did for us. False worship, on the other hand, especially the kind seen in various cults, tends to absolve men of their responsibility and robs and abuses women and children.
Verse 4 then tells us that Aaron took their earrings and made them into a calf. Stuart notes that “collecting the earrings, melting them into gold, and shaping the gold around a wooden form to make an idol may have taken more than a day” (665). But whenever it was finished, the people were apparently pleased with the result, for they proclaimed to one another: “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” This seems to be an outright rejection of Yahweh as their God, which may explain Aaron’s actions and words in verse 5: When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.”
Ryken notes that scholars continuously debate whether the golden calf was a violation of the First or Second Commandment, but I agree with his answer: yes. It seems that the Israelites (at least a large portion of them) wanted to reject Yahweh entirely or at least to return to polytheism, which was clearly in violation of the First Commandment. Indeed, they specifically ask for gods, not for an image of Yahweh. Yet Aaron identifies the golden calf with Yahweh, building an altar and proclaiming a feast, both of which were commanded in the Book of the Covenant. Indeed, in verse 6, they offer both peace and burnt offerings. So, it seems as though Aaron was attempting to salvage and justify the situation by saying that they were really doing everything for Yahweh. Yet that is still a violation of the Second Commandment, for regardless of how Aaron tried to spin his actions as being worshipful, they were still against God’s will, which is sin.
Indeed, it is also worth noting that Aaron is absent from verse 6. Although he may have attempted to contain the people, they have broken out of whatever limits he aimed to impose. We have sadly seen this all too often, especially in regard to the sexual revolution, in churches. Pastors, churches, and whole denominations yield to the demands of the culture and go against their conscience, arguing that it will be the only concession that they make. Yet disobedience defies being “managed.” A measure of compromise with sin always breaks away leads to more sin.
And that is indeed what seems to have happened. In saying that the Israelites rose up to play, the notion is, as the NIV translates, revelry. There was probably a heavy emphasis on dancing and sexuality.
What the Israelites were doing was indecent. Their idolatry led to immorality. Their worship was vulgar and debauched. It degenerated into a wanton orgy of lewd dancing. They weren’t worshiping; they were partying. And it wasn’t for God’s glory at all; it was just for their own sinful pleasure. This is what happens when we do things our way rather than God’s way.
Read More
Related Posts:

Pornography degrades the mind into darkness, dulling our senses so that we lose the ability to appreciate the subtle art that God has created all around us. It addicts us to fluff and triviality, and reality becomes intolerable.

In our previous study, we began the final section of the catechism, which is called Restoration. As we noted back in Question 2, the premise of this section is to know “how I am to lead a thankful life of holiness and sexual purity in conformity to and union with Christ.” Question 27-30 initiated that study by giving us reasons and guidance for how we are to make war against our sinful desires. The questions before us today, continue that line of thought by diving into the great challenge of pornography, its harmful effects, the danger of unrepentance, and the nature of genuine repentance.
Question 31
We begin with a notoriously difficult question to answer.
What is pornography?
Pornography is sexually explicit material produced to serve lustful desires of the flesh, activated through the channel of the eye, through the looking upon of naked images of males and females for the purpose of sexual arousal.
Alongside Question 29’s addressing of same-sex desires, this question fits well within the context of the war for sexual purity, for these topics form some of the most pressing threats today. Gordon’s definition is good, yet it is too specific. Merriam-Webster’s definition is broader (and, I believe, better): “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” Gordon’s definition could be similarly modified:
Pornography is sexually explicit material produced to serve lustful desires of the flesh for the purpose of sexual arousal, often activated through the channel of the eye and through the looking upon of naked images of males and females.
This clarification is important because, as Paul notes in Romans 1:30, sinful man is an inventor of evil. If the definition is too specific, then loopholes will be looked for and found. Particularly, if we limit pornography to being viewed images, then we exclude erotic fiction, which is generally more consumed by woman than men. Indeed, during our time in college, my wife was often dismissed whenever she warned other young women that their obsession with romances, whether in film or in book, was creating unhealthy expectations and problematic desires for their future marriages.
Indeed, the Bible sets the pattern for us by often speaking simply of “sexual immorality,” which is the Greek word porneia. Of that term, David DeSilva says that “Porneia originated as a term for buying and selling sexual favors, but came to be used to refer to a variety of sexual practices outside of marriage” (120-121). Indeed, the New Testament uses it as a junk drawer term for all sexual activity outside the godly sexual intimacy within marriage. Although viewing explicit images may be the most common form of pornography, pornography is not limited to the sense of sight nor to the images.
Question 32
Having defined what pornography is, Gordon now gives us six reasons for why pornography is destructive and must be avoided (Note: to reflect the changes to Question 31, I would simply change the word images to material):
Why is pornography so destructive?
Because the use of such images ruins the sexual intimacy intended for marriage, supports idolatry in the worship of the creature, dehumanizes men and women promoting abuse, especially of women, advances other forms of sexual impurity, creates idleness in society to the harm of our neighbors, and degrades the mind into darkness.
As with Questions 11 and 30, this question gives us a good list to meditate upon for ourselves and that we may have a ready answer in discipling others. This question is also worthy of our time considering because it can be all too easy to rest on the assumption that pornography is destructive without giving time to consider what exactly makes it so destructive.
First, pornography “ruins the sexual intimacy intended for marriage.” This is so common and well-documented that I have trouble even knowing where to begin.
Perhaps we can begin with placing much of the blame upon pornography for the sharp decline in both sex and marriage among young people. It is far easier to manage than an actual real-life relationship. It is perfectly tailored to whatever momentary lust one may be feeling, and thanks to the screens that have become extensions of ourselves, it is always available. Thus, many who have never known a screenless life simply do not see the value of putting in the effort having sexual intimacy at all, especially within marriage.
Of course, it also ruins sexual intimacy within marriage. Each man with an internet connection now has Solomon’s error open before him. Though he may technically have only one wife, an endless digital harem is always available. And it is impossible for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church while actively committing digital adultery. Indeed, how can a man find satisfaction in the ordinariness of sex with his wife if his mind is full of everything else.
As Alan Noble sadly points out:
Today you can find a pornographic depiction of virtually any fantasy. If you can dream it, you can find it, and you can probably find it for free within 3 minutes whenever you inevitably get bored of that fantasy, just dispose of it and find something new indefinitely. Humans have always been able to imagine all kinds of sexual scenarios, but we haven’t been able to make them exist unless you happen to be a tremendously powerful despotic ruler. We all have the power of Caligula now.
Caligula, of course, was a particularly disturbing Roman emperor, who is known for his for his incredibly debauched sexual behaviors. The Internet has made it to where we all have the power of the worst of the worst emperors in human history. And now, thanks to smartphones, we have it all 24/7, whenever and wherever we want.
Likewise, though women are sadly becoming ensnared in visual pornography at ever-increasingly rates, the primary pornographic snare for women is through narrative. Men tend to be more visual in nature, while women generally are more drawn the emotional appeal of a story. Many romances designed for women achieve the same function that visual pornography does for men. It creates a fantasy world in the mind, wishing that her husband was more romantic like the man in the story. Indeed, in whatever form, pornography is both a violation of the Seventh Commandment and the Tenth Commandment, for it is very much a form of coveting.
Second, pornography “supports idolatry in the worship of the creature.” To understand what Gordon means by this we should consider the Scripture that he footnotes, Romans 1:24-25:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
This is the first of Paul’s threefold statement of God giving men over to their sins, and he states that God gave people over to the lusts (or the desires) of their hearts because they did not worship Him as the Creator but rather worshiped the creature. As Peter Jones notes, these verses display that the only two religions in the world are worship of the Creator or of some portion (or even the entirety) of His creation. Thus, lust or sinful desires arise from idolatry and then add fuel to that fire. Pornography is idolatry in at least two senses. First, it is idolatry of the self because it places personal desires above all else. Second, it idolizes whatever content is being consumed.
Third, pornography “dehumanizes men and woman promoting abuse, especially of women.” This is likely this chief destructive element of pornography within our minds and for good reason. Michael Knowles did an interview with a former pornstar who is now both a Christian and a pastor. As is the story with many who fall into pornography, he wanted to be an actor and was told that doing porn would get his foot in the door. But interestingly, during one of his interviews, one of the interviewer’s first questions was regarding his relationship with his father, which was non-existent. He then reinforced the point that the pornographic industry is quite literally built upon both men and women without fathers. That is fundamental to what pornography is. It preys upon those who have broken families and are seeking affirmation from people outside themselves. Thus, it is quite rightly called abusive in that sense.
Matthew Lee Anderson also notes that pornography is not simply a violation of the Seventh and Tenth Commandments; it is also a breaking of the Sixth Commandment:
Read More
Related Posts:

The author of Hebrews labors throughout his sermon to show that Jesus is the great and perfect high priest of our faith. Through becoming flesh and tabernacling among us, Jesus was tempted in every way that we are yet never yielded to sin. Thus, while we can rejoice that He is able to sympathize with our weakness, we also rejoice that He does not share in our weakness of sinning. He had no need for a seven-day consecration ceremony with seven slaughtered bulls as sacrifices to cover His sins. Instead, His very purpose in taking on human flesh was to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. 

William McEwen once wrote:
As the sun paints the clouds with a variety of glorious colors, which in their own nature are but dark and lowering vapors exhaled from the earth, so when the Son of righteousness arises, even the carnal ordinances and commandments of the law, dark and earthly as they seem, are gilded by His beams and wear a smiling appearance. By His kindly influence, who is the light of the World, the most barren places of the Scripture rejoice and blossom as the rose.
What portion of sacred writ is more apt to be perused without edification and delight than what relates to the Levitical priesthood: the qualifications of their persons, their apparel, their consecration, and the different parts of their function? And indeed it must be confessed a very hard task to reconcile with the wisdom of God the enjoining such numberless rites, purely for their own sake. But when we consider that Aaron, and his successors, were figures of our Great High Priest, we must acknowledge that these injunctions are neither unworthy of God nor useless to man but are profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness.
In the text before us, we find God’s instructions regarding the garments and the consecration of the priests who would serve in tabernacle. As we approach these multitude of descriptions and details given here, may McEwen’s words prove true. As we view these words in the light of their fulfillment in Jesus Christ, may we see the glory and the beauty of God in them like the painted clouds at sunset.
For Glory and for Beauty 28:1–43
Verses 20-21 of chapter structurally transitions the instructions that Moses received from the inanimate objects of the tabernacle onto the priests, who were very much a living, breathing element of the whole tabernacle complex. However, we will consider them alongside verses 38-44 of chapter 29 towards the end of this study.
Verse 1 of chapter 28 makes it explicit for the first time that Aaron and his sons are to be set apart as Israel’s priests. Just as with Moses himself, with Noah, with Abraham, with David, with the prophets, and the apostles, Aaron did not the mantle of leadership for himself; it was bestowed upon him. And the same pattern ought to continue with leadership in the church today, especially when considering the two biblical offices of elders/pastors and deacons.
Verses 2-5 then sets the subject for the rest of the chapter:
And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen.
Notice that the gold and the colors that were used to make the priests’ garments reflect the gold and the colors that were used for constructing the tabernacle. At its most basic level, the priests, and the high priest in particular, were displaying the glory and the beauty of the tabernacle through their garments. Since the ordinary Israelites could not enter the tabernacle to see the beauties and glory within, the garments of the priests were as though the inside of the tabernacle was coming out to be among the people.
Indeed, many elements of the high priest’s garments were for the comfort and benefit of the people of Israel. Upon the shoulders of the ephod, which is like a large apron, were two onyx stones that each had six of the tribes’ names written upon them, so that the high priest would bear their names before the LORD on his two shoulders for remembrance. The golden bells that hung from the hem of his robe were constant reminder to the Israelites that the high priest was at work, making intercession for them before God. The signet upon his turban, which read “Holy to the LORD,” was a reminder that their high priest had been consecrated for service to Yahweh and was accepted in His presence as their representative.
Of course, the garment piece that receives the most attention in the text is the breastpiece that was to be attached to the ephod. It held twelve precious stones, one for each of Israel’s twelve tribes, and it also held the Urim and the Thummim. No one knows what these things were exactly, but they are what made the breastpiece the breastpiece of judgment. They were later used by men like Joshua and David to prayerfully discern God’s will over particular matters. Douglas Stuart rightly notes:
Theologically, the Urim and the Thummim represented something on the order of last resort appeals to God for guidance—not individual guidance but national guidance on matters that would require the agreement and concerted effort of the whole people. The people’s first resort was supposed to be obedience to the written covenant since the written covenant constituted the most basic or foundational guidance, generally and perpetually applicable, that they possessed. The second resort would be to listen for direct divine guidance through the word of God from a prophet, something that God occasionally, but not necessarily regularly, gave them. The third resort would be prayer, seeking to understand how best to take a national direction of some sort, the Urim and Thummim would be drawn from the breastpiece pouch and examined for God’s answer to the people’s prayer. (Exodus, 613)
The Urim and the Thummim are one of the many ways in which God spoke to our fathers long ago, but as Hebrews 1:1 teaches, those former methods of discerning the will of God have passed away with the coming of Christ, who as God’s Son gives us the full and complete revelation of God. But neither should we use Scripture as a modern Urim and Thummim.
Most fundamentally, the priests’ garments were a reminder of their task before Yahweh on behalf of the people of Israel. They were clothed with the colors and designs of the tabernacle, but they also bore the names of the tribes of Israel. They ministered in the court, presiding over the sacrifices made at the bronze altar but also entering into the tabernacle itself. The priests were mediators, working daily between both heaven and earth, consecrated to Yahweh but representing the people.
That They May Serve Me  29:1–37
Speaking of consecration, the ceremony of consecration is described in 29:1-37. Again, we should keep in mind that this is not the description of Aaron’s actual consecration but rather the instructions that Moses was given for how to consecrate Aaron and his sons into the priesthood.
Read More
Related Posts:

The blood of animals never covered any sinner’s sins. Instead, they pointed forward to the once for all sacrifice that Christ would make for us. Although they did not know His name, all the Israelites who sacrificed and believed by faith that Yahweh had forgiven their sins were truly placing their faith in Christ. In this way, the animal sacrifices of the old covenant were more similar to our present taking of the Lord’s Supper than we might think. Both have no efficacy in and of themselves; rather, both point beyond themselves to Christ. Indeed, both were/are reminders.

Presently, in our study of the book of Exodus, we are considering the instructions for the building of the tabernacle that Yahweh gave to Moses in the span of forty days upon Sinai. As we have noted, the instructions began with the ark of the testimony, the most holy item that would reside in the Most Holy Place. It then moved outward to the table for the bread of the Presence and the golden lampstand, which would furnish the Holy Place. In the previous chapter, we moved outward yet again by considering the instructions for the tabernacle itself. That outward movement continues in our present chapter as we study the design of the bronze altar and the courtyard around the tabernacle in which it stood. As has been our pattern, we will consider the design and function of altar and the courtyard, and then we will conclude with how they are point us toward Christ.
The Bronze Altar // Verses 1-8
You shall make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits long and five cubits broad. The altar shall be square, and its height shall be three cubits. And you shall make horns for it on its four corners; its horns shall be of one piece with it, and you shall overlay it with bronze. You shall make pots for it to receive its ashes, and shovels and basins and forks and fire pans. You shall make all its utensils of bronze. You shall also make for it a grating, a network of bronze, and on the net you shall make four bronze rings at its four corners. And you shall set it under the ledge of the altar so that the net extends halfway down the altar. And you shall make poles for the altar, poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with bronze. And the poles shall be put through the rings, so that the poles are on the two sides of the altar when it is carried. You shall make it hollow, with boards. As it has been shown you on the mountain, so shall it be made.
These verses give us the description for how the bronze altar was to be built. Stuart notes:
Its top surface was thus four and a half feet high (“three cubits high”) off the ground and was a square seven and a half feet on each side (“five cubits long and five cubits wide”), providing a total of fifty-six and one-quarter feet of grilling area (minus whatever was taken up by the corner “horns” and any rim that may have surrounded the top, if either of these imposed upon the total surface of the top). (595)
Like the rest of the tabernacle, the altar needed to be portable, so it had loops and poles for carrying. It was also a hollow box, which, besides being necessary for building a fire, would also have made it much more maneuverable than if it were a solid cube.
As with the other pieces of furniture, it was to be built out of acacia wood, but unlike the items that actually belonged to the tabernacle itself, the altar would not be overlaid with gold but with bronze. This was for both a practical and theological purpose. Practically, gold is melted earlier than bronze, and the since the purpose of the altar was to burn sacrifices, bronze was a better metal to use than gold. Theologically, bronze being a less valuable metal represented being further away from the ark within the Most Holy Place.
The horns upon the corners of the altar likely served the practical function being place where the sacrificial animal could be bound while other preparations were made, for we read in Psalm 118:27: “The LORD is God, and he has made his light to shine upon us. Bind the festal sacrifice with cords, up to the horns of the altar!” However, they apparently took on the meaning of being a place of refuge, since both Adonijah and Joab fled from Solomon’s wrath by laying ahold of the horns of the altar.
Of course, the most important aspect of the altar was its use for burning the sacrifices that the Israelites would bring. As we discussed a few weeks ago, some of those sacrifices would be burned entirely, and some would only be roasted, have the fat burnt away, and then eaten. Yet regardless of the particular kind of sacrifice, Stuart notes that through these slaughtered animals:
God taught his people the basic principle of salvation from sin: something that God considers a substitute must die in my place so that I may live. Altar sacrifice was the primary way for this substitution to happen… By killing an animal, then cooking it on that grill in God’s presence (i.e., in front of the entrance to the tabernacle), and then eating it in God’s presence (symbolically sharing the meal with him), the Israelite worshiper learned over and over again the concept of substitutionary atonement and of covenant renewal. (594-595)
At least, it was supposed to reinforce that principle over and over again. Indeed, here is how Vern Poythress describes how a sacrifice was to be made:
In a typical case the process begins with the worshiper who brings an animal without defect to the priest. The worshiper has raised the animal himself or paid for it with his earnings, so that the animal represents a “sacrifice” in the modern sense of the word. It costs something to the worshiper, and a portion of the worshiper’s own life is identified with it. The worshiper lays his hand on the head of the animal, signifying his identification with it. He then kills the animal at the entranceway into the courtyard, signifying that the animals dies as a substitute for the worshiper.
From that point onward the priest takes over in performing the sacrificial actions. The intervention of the priest indicates that a specially holy person must perform the actions necessary to present the worshiper before God, even after the death of the animal. The priest takes some of the blood and sprinkles it on the side of the altar or on the horns of the altar…depending on the particular type of sacrifice… All of these actions constitute the permanent marking of the altar as testimony to the fact that the animal has died. (Cited in Ryken, Exodus, 817-818)
Each animal that an Israelite took from their field to slice its throat open before the bronze altar, screamed that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). And as they placed their hand upon the animal’s head, they were to reflect that something innocent was taking their place. Because animals are not created in the image of God, they are not morally culpable as we are.
Read More
Related Posts:

In becoming flesh, the Word also dwelt among us. Dwelt is the verb form of the Greek word for tabernacle (skene). Thus, we could say: And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. The tabernacle was a glimpse of heaven on earth, but Jesus is heaven come down to earth and living among us.

We always keep Genesis 1-3 closely at hand because, through those chapters, we are able to make sense of intermingled wonders and sorrows both around us and within us. The whole process of creation in Genesis 1 builds toward the LORD’s creation of mankind, male and female, in His image and after His likeness. Even their task upon the earth would reflect God’s creative work. For just as God formed the formless and filled the void, He commanded mankind to fill the earth with more of God’s image and subdue the earth and have dominion over its creatures.
Chapter 2 then describes God’s creation of garden in Eden, which we rightly call paradise. Yahweh filled the garden with all kinds of fruit trees for food for the first man and woman. It also held the tree of life, which was in the midst of the garden, and rivers flowed out from the garden into the rest of the world that Adam was tasked with subduing. Yet most importantly, the garden was the place where Yahweh would walk, where His presence could be found.
Yet in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve defile the paradise that God provided for them by eating the only fruit in the garden that the LORD forbid them to eat. Not content with reflecting God’s nature, they desired to become gods themselves, and through their rebellion, they were cast out of the garden and brought sin’s curse upon the world that they were given to rule. Barred from the tree of life, Adam, Eve, and all of their children now die and return to the dust from which God made them.
Again, all of this resonates so deeply with us because, as Tolkien rightly said, “We all long for [Eden], and we are constantly glimpsing it: our whole nature at its best and least corrupted, its gentlest and most humane, is still oaked with a sense of ‘exile.’” Marvelously, the rest of the Bible is focused upon how God is restoring and repairing what our own sin has broken and marred.
The Tent of Meeting
As we noted last week, Yahweh’s instructions for building the tabernacle began with the most important furnishing, the ark of the testimony, which represented the very presence of God and would be the place upon which the sacrifice of atonement would be made. It then moved outward to describe the table for the bread of the Presence and the golden lampstand. These three items represented the primary furnishing within the only two rooms of the tabernacle: the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. Continuing the outward movement of the description, the instructions in our present chapter now focus upon the tabernacle itself. Let us first begin by actual instructions given in this chapter, then we will consider the theological significance of the tabernacle as a whole.
Although our eyes may gloss over as we begin to read these instructions, we would do well to remember two things. First, these instructions are not quite as detailed as we might have imagined. In looking at artistic illustrations of the tabernacle, you will quickly find that no two are exactly the same. That is because only the overall details are instructed, while Oholiab and Bezalel (who were the craftsmen in whom God put His Spirit to construct everything) evidently had a measure of artistic freedom.
However, secondly, the instructions that were given do not reveal an overly elaborate and visually stunning tent. Certainly, it was richly furnished and beautifully made, yet it would have been remarkably simple compared to the pagan temples.
As we said of God’s instructions for building altars, this too should shape our understanding of worship as a whole. There is a measure of individual freedom, so long as God’s instructions are carefully followed, yet the overall tenor of worship ought to be simple, beautiful, and obedient.
Moreover, you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet yarns; you shall make them with cherubim skillfully worked into them. The length of each curtain shall be twenty-eight cubits, and the breadth of each curtain four cubits; all the curtains shall be the same size. Five curtains shall be coupled to one another, and the other five curtains shall be coupled to one another. And you shall make loops of blue on the edge of the outermost curtain in the first set. Likewise you shall make loops on the edge of the outermost curtain in the second set. Fifty loops you shall make on the one curtain, and fifty loops you shall make on the edge of the curtain that is in the second set; the loops shall be opposite one another. And you shall make fifty clasps of gold, and couple the curtains one to the other with the clasps, so that the tabernacle may be a single whole.
Verses 1-6 describe the inner curtains of the tabernacle. They were to be made of linen with blue, purple, and scarlet yarn, which were colors that invoked royalty. They were also to have cherubim skillfully worked into them. Thus, from the inside, the priest would be surrounded by cherubim as a reminder that he has entered the tent of God’s earthly presence.
About the size of these curtains, Douglas Stuart writes:
All joined up, the curtain mass that formed the tabernacle roof and sides measured forty-two by sixty feet. Some of this was draped to form side walls and the back wall, so the actual floor space of the tabernacle was forty-five feet by fifteen feet (six hundred and seventy-five square feet). As later described, this floor space was divided in a two-thirds and one-third split into two rooms, the holy place (two-thirds of the floor space, or thirty feet by fifteen feet) and the most holy place (one-third of the floor space, or fifteen feet by fifteen feet). (584-585)
Verses 7-14 then describe the outer curtains.
You shall also make curtains of goats’ hair for a tent over the tabernacle; eleven curtains shall you make. The length of each curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of each curtain four cubits. The eleven curtains shall be the same size. You shall couple five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves, and the sixth curtain you shall double over at the front of the tent. You shall make fifty loops on the edge of the curtain that is outermost in one set, and fifty loops on the edge of the curtain that is outermost in the second set.
You shall make fifty clasps of bronze, and put the clasps into the loops, and couple the tent together that it may be a single whole. And the part that remains of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remains, shall hang over the back of the tabernacle. And the extra that remains in the length of the curtains, the cubit on the one side, and the cubit on the other side, shall hang over the sides of the tabernacle, on this side and that side, to cover it. And you shall make for the tent a covering of tanned rams’ skins and a covering of goatskins on top.
The first set was made from goats’ hair, and the second set were made from animal skins. The curtains of goats’ hair were slightly larger than the linen curtains in order cover them completely as a protective layer. As verse 14 says, there were actually two outer curtains, one of rams’ skin and the other of goatskin (or more likely dugong or dolphin skin). These two layers of leather would protect the tabernacle from the elements.
You shall make upright frames for the tabernacle of acacia wood. [16] Ten cubits shall be the length of a frame, and a cubit and a half the breadth of each frame. [17] There shall be two tenons in each frame, for fitting together. So shall you do for all the frames of the tabernacle. [18] You shall make the frames for the tabernacle: twenty frames for the south side; [19] and forty bases of silver you shall make under the twenty frames, two bases under one frame for its two tenons, and two bases under the next frame for its two tenons; [20] and for the second side of the tabernacle, on the north side twenty frames, [21] and their forty bases of silver, two bases under one frame, and two bases under the next frame. [22] And for the rear of the tabernacle westward you shall make six frames. [23] And you shall make two frames for corners of the tabernacle in the rear; [24] they shall be separate beneath, but joined at the top, at the first ring. Thus shall it be with both of them; they shall form the two corners. [25] And there shall be eight frames, with their bases of silver, sixteen bases; two bases under one frame, and two bases under another frame.
[26] “You shall make bars of acacia wood, five for the frames of the one side of the tabernacle, [27] and five bars for the frames of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the frames of the side of the tabernacle at the rear westward. [28] The middle bar, halfway up the frames, shall run from end to end. [29] You shall overlay the frames with gold and shall make their rings of gold for holders for the bars, and you shall overlay the bars with gold.
Read More
Related Posts:

These feasts were acts of celebration, and they were to be received by the Israelites with joy, for they were being summoned to “appear before the Lord GOD.” They were being called into the presence of the King of kings to eat feast with Him and eat at His table. How could they not rejoice at such a command! And if Israel had reason to rejoice, how much more do we!

Chapters 20-23 of Exodus form a section called in 24:7 the Book of the Covenant. In 21:1-22:15, Yahweh gave Israel laws relating to how they were to treat their slaves and how they were to make restitution for physical harm done to others or the damage of someone else’s property. 22:16-23:9 then provided a number of eclectic laws that each gave Israel a vision for how they were to distinguish themselves from the nations around them. Preceding those large sets of laws were the brief instructions regarding altars and worship in 20:22-26. Those regulations are now paralleled in the text before us, which also focuses upon Israel’s worship of Yahweh. Yet while the laws of the altar largely concerned the place of Israel’s worship, the commands before us will center predominately upon Israel’s time of worship.
Sabbaths Years & Days
Our text begins with God’s commands regarding Sabbath years and days:
For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, 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 beasts of the field may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.
Did this mean that no one in Israel was allowed to farm on the seventh year? Some, like Douglas Stuart, say no. He argues that this command was for allowing particular fields to lie fallow every seventh year, but other fields could still be cultivated because they would be on a different seven-year cycle. This would mean that the poor would always have fallow fields in Israel to eat from.
Other, like Tremper Longman III, believe that all of Israel was called to cease from farming on the seventh year. He writes of Leviticus’ more detailed description:
Leviticus 25 describes a system whereby every seventh year was a Sabbath, when no field was to be planted, pruned, or harvested. Indeed, the Israelite farmer was not even permitted to store any crop that was produced naturally. Everyone could eat this food, but it could not be stored. Israel’s observance of this regulation was totally a matter of trusting God. The agriculture of the area was tenuous enough normally. To actually give up a year of work and expect to eat the following year was to believe that God could and would take care of his people.
IMMANUEL IN OUR PLACE, 171.
Which is correct? We do not know for certain, but we do know that this was for Israel’s good. Stuart writes:
Here Israel learned that their farming practices must include a regular pattern of noncultivation. The purpose of such a practice every seventh year of letting the land lie fallow centered on the way such a routine helped the poor and wildlife. From an agri-science point of view, it also would allow the land some time for additional nitrogen fixing as natural grassing-over would occur on most of the surface of the uncultivated land, and this would be good for the land in the long run. The focus of the command, however, is ecological-humanitarian and not on improving productivity.
EXODUS, 530.
We would do well to take that principle to heart. More and more studies continue to find positive benefits that come from the spiritual disciplines that God commands. Meditation greatly improves focus and mental health. Prayer relieves stress and anxiety. Songs sink further into the heart than mere pieces of information ever could. Gathering regularly with and belonging to a community is a great buffer against the epidemic of loneliness and gives plenty of opportunities to do good to others, which naturally makes us feel better. However, all of these positive benefits are not the point themselves; rather, they simply prove what Christ said: “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). The long-term health of Israel’s soil was a benevolent by-product of trusting in Yahweh’s provisional hand.
Verse 12 then describes the Sabbath day:
Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
Notice that, as with Sabbath year, this particular command to observe the Sabbath day does not mention the worship of Yahweh; instead, it focuses upon the rest of the Israelites and the rest that they ought to provide to their servants and animals. As Ryken notes:
The Sabbath was not just something the people owed to God, but also something they owed to one another. When they were slaves in Egypt, the Israelites never had a chance to rest. However, God did not want that sin to be repeated in Israel. Workers, including household servants, needed to be refreshed by celebrating a weekly Sabbath.
EXODUS, 711.
Indeed, that is the main difference in the Ten Commandments as listed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Exodus 20 commands the Sabbath to be remembered because of the pattern that God established in creation, but Deuteronomy 5 commands it because He liberated Israel out of slavery and they were to also give rest to their servants.
Regardless of how we believe a Sabbath should or should not be observed by Christians today, it is difficult to deny the inherent goodness behind this command. There is certainly plenty of legalism that can be conjured up, as there was in Jesus’ own day, but keeping to Jesus’ principle always in mind is the safeguard against such legalism: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Of course, as with everything that Jesus said, this was not a new teaching; He was simply making the principle behind the Old Testament commands.
To revolt against rest is childish. As any parent knows, fully half of all parenting takes place while trying to get a child to nap or sleep. And we prove ourselves to be no less childish whenever we rebel against God’s good design for us to rest. Of course, we could go even further, for a steadfast refusal to rest is an idolatrous refusal to trust in the Lord. It is easy to say that we trust in God’s provision, but it is another thing entirely to actually place our trust in God’s provision by resting in Him and not taking everything into our own hands. And as these commands particularly show, refusal to rest also does harm to those around us. Stuart rightly gives particular application, saying:
Thus the family that expects a wife/mother to prepare twenty-one meals per week without respite and serve the needs of the family equally on all days violates the command, as would the dairy farmer who never takes a break from the twice-daily milking, or the policeman who does special-duty shifts on days off from regular shifts, or the pastor who never sets for himself or herself a day off or its equivalent. People who do not observe the Sabbath, either in one day or its distributed equivalent, deny themselves or others the sort of life God intended.
EXODUS, 533.
Indeed, we should take care to rest in the Lord because if we fail to do so, like the loving Father that He is, He will often force us to rest or give rest to those who we have kept from rest. Consider how He did so with Israel, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:17-21:
Therefore [Yahweh] brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or aged. He gave them all into his hand. And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his princes, all these he brought to Babylon. And they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem and burned all its palaces with fire and destroyed all its precious vessels. He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
More importantly, however, we should have a desire to happily rest in our Lord. Hear Christ’s call to you today: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30). We certainly go to Christ for our spiritual rest from attempting to earn our own salvation, yet we also go to Him for wholistic rest of heart, soul, and body. We have terrible judgment of what kind of rest is best for us. We often turn to entertainment to “unwind,” yet rest is hardly ever the result. Should we not instead take Christ at His word and go to Him for rest?
Read More
Related Posts: