Exodus 20:22-26

b. The first compendious law of sacrifice

Exodus 20:22-26

22And Jehovah said unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 23Ye shall not make with 24me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. Ah altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25And if thou wilt make [thou make] me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[Exodus 20:23. If we follow the Masoretic punctuation, the literal translation would be: “Ye shall not make with me; gods of silver and gods of gold ye shall not make unto you.” With this division of the verse, an object must be supplied in the first clause, e.g., “Ye shall not make anything,” i.e., any gods, “with me,” i.e., to be objects of worship together with me. In favor of this construction also is the consideration that in the rendering of the A. V. an unwarranted distinction seems to be made between “gods of silver” and “gods of gold.” On the other hand, however, the parallelism of the clauses favors the rendering of the A. V. The latter is adopted by LXX. (where, however, we find ὑμῖν instead of σὺν ἐμοί) and Vulg. (where אתּי is left entirely untranslated). But the majority of scholars prefer the other division. Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

We have to do here with an altogether peculiar section, the germ of all Leviticus, or even of the whole ritual law. This is too little recognized when Keil gives as one division: chaps. Exodus 20:22 to Exodus 24:2, under the title, “Leading Features in the Covenant Constitution,” and then makes the subdivision: (1) The general form of Israel’s worship of God; (2) The laws of Israel. Knobel has observed the turning-point in one respect at all events: “The frightful phenomena amidst which Jehovah announces the fundamental law of the theocracy, fill the people with terror; hence another mode of revelation is employed for the further divine disclosures. They beg that Moses rather than God should speak with them, inasmuch as they are filled with mortal dread, and fear for their lives. In this way the author explains why Jehovah revealed the other laws to Moses, and through him brought them to the people, whereas He had addressed the ten commandments immediately to the people.” How little more was needed in order to discern the genesis of the hierarchical mediatorship.

Exodus 20:22-23. Have talked with you from heaven.—This is the basis for the negative part of the theocratic ritual, and at the same time the explanation of the worship of images and idols. This rests on the fancy that Jehovah cannot approach men from heaven, and that man cannot hear the word of Jehovah from heaven; that therefore images of gods and heavenly objects are necessary as media between the Deity and mankind. It is to be inferred from the foregoing that this prohibition does not exclude the mediatorship of Moses, still less the mediatorship of Christ in the New Covenant, for it is through this real mediation that heaven is to be brought to earth, and humanity united in the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, it is to be noticed that this prohibition is given here as a law respecting worship, whereas in the decalogue it has a fundamental ethical significance. Hence we read here: “Ye shall not make אִתִּי, with me,” by which is designated the adoration of images in religious services, as involving the germ of idolatry. It is here incidentally suggested that images are prohibited because Jehovah was veiled in a cloud, and, “as a heavenly being, can be pictured by no earthly material.” (Keil.)

Exodus 20:24. The positive law of worship. Regarding it as certain that there had been already a traditional service of God, connected with sacrificial rites, we cannot fail to discern here a design to counteract extravagances, and to present in the simplest possible form this ritual devoted to theocratic worship. It may be taken as significant for the service of the Church also, that this fundamental, simple regulation did not exclude further developments, or even modifications. Of course the modifications of this outward manifestation of piety must have an inward ground. How then did the altar of the tabernacle grow out of the low altar of earth or of unhewn stones? First, it is to be considered that the altar of the tabernacle was threefold: the altar of burnt-offering in the court (Exodus 27:1); the altar of incense in the sanctuary (Exodus 30:1); and the mercy-seat in the Holy of holies (Exodus 26:34; Exodus 25:21). The altar of burnt-offering was of acacia wood, overlaid with copper, and three cubits high. The altar of incense, also of acacia wood, was overlaid with gold; finally, the mercy-seat was of pure gold. This gradation points back from the gold through the gilding and the copper to the starting-point, the altar of earth or of stone. This primitive form continued to be the normal type for the altars which, notwithstanding the fixed centre in the exclusive place of worship, were always prescribed for extraordinary places of revelation (Deuteronomy 27:5; Joshua 8:30; Judges 6:26). Not only the right, but also the duty, of marking by altars real places of revelations, was therefore reserved; the worship in high places easily followed as an abuse. Only in opposition to this abuse was the central sanctuary the exclusive place of worship; but it was to be expected that a permanent altar in the sanctuary could not continue to be so much like a natural growth, but had to be symbolically conformed to its surroundings in the sanctuary.

An altar of earth.—“The altar, as an elevation built of earth or unhewn stones, symbolizes the elevation of man to the God who is enthroned on high, in heaven” (Keil). Most especially it is a monument of the place where God is revealed; then a symbol of the response of a human soul yielding to the divine call, Genesis 12:7; Genesis 22:9; Genesis 28:18; Exodus 3:12, etc. Hence it is said: “In all places where I cause my name to be remembered.” “Generally,” says Knobel, “the passage is referred to the altar of the tabernacle, which subsequently was to stand now hers, now there. But this will not do. For (1) The author in no way points to this single, particular altar, but speaks quite generally of any sacrificial worship of Jehovah, and gives no occasion to bring in the tabernacle here contrary to the connection. (2) The altar of burnt-offering in the tabernacle was not made of earth, but consisted of boards overlaid with copper (Exodus 27:1 sq). (3) Jehovah could not say that He would come to Israel at every place where the tabernacle stood, because He dwelt in the tabernacle, and in it went with Israel (Exodus 13:21 sq., etc.).” But though the tabernacle denotes the legal and symbolical residence of Jehovah, yet that does not mean that Jehovah in a human way and perpetually dwells in the tabernacle. The tabernacle was only the place where He was generally to be found, more than elsewhere, and for the whole people; but Jehovah was not confined to the tabernacle. The designation of the altar of burnt-offering as one of copper shows that a rising scale was formed: from the earth to stone, and from stone to copper, and from this still higher to gold plate and to solid gold. So in the way of self-surrender, of offerings under the fire of God’s self-revelation, out of the man of earth is formed the second man, the child of golden light. On the original form of altars, earth enclosed with turf, vid. Knobel, p. 211. As simple as the original form of the altar are the original forms of offerings: burnt-offerings and thank-offerings. Both constitute the first ramification of the Passover, which in the Levitical ritual branches out still further.

Exodus 20:25. An altar of stone.—The aspiration of religious men after more imposing forms of worship is not prohibited by Jehovah, but it is restricted. The stone altar was to be no splendid structure. By any sharp iron (חֶרֶב, generally sword) the stone is desecrated— i.e., under these circumstances; for how can the worshipper, when receiving a new revelation from God, be thinking of decking the altar? “The precept occurs again in Deuteronomy 27:5 sq.; and altars of unhewn stone are mentioned in Joshua 8:31; 1 Kings 18:32; 1Ma 4:47. They were found also elsewhere, e.g., in Trebizond.” (Knobel.) The opinion that hewn stone was looked on as spurious can hardly be maintained, considering the recognition of culture and art in other relations. But vid. Knobel, p. 212. Connected with the first restriction in regard to the splendor of the stone altar is the second: Neither … by steps.—The more steps, the more imposing the altar; therefore no steps! The reason is: “that thy nakedness be not uncovered before it.” Before it, as being the symbol of God’s presence. [But the Hebrew says: “on it.”—Tr.] As the sacrifice symbolically covers the sin of man before God, so the nakedness of the offerer should remain covered, as a reminder of his sinfulness before God and before His altar. The ethical side of the thought is this: that a knowledge of this exposure might disturb the reverence of the offerer. But inasmuch as the later altar of the ritual service in the tabernacle was three cubits high, and therefore probably needed steps (Leviticus 9:22), the priests had to put on trowsers (Exodus 28:42).

Footnotes:

[4][Exodus 20:23. If we follow the Masoretic punctuation, the literal translation would be: “Ye shall not make with me; gods of silver and gods of gold ye shall not make unto you.” With this division of the verse, an object must be supplied in the first clause, e.g., “Ye shall not make anything,” i.e., any gods, “with me,” i.e., to be objects of worship together with me. In favor of this construction also is the consideration that in the rendering of the A. V. an unwarranted distinction seems to be made between “gods of silver” and “gods of gold.” On the other hand, however, the parallelism of the clauses favors the rendering of the A. V. The latter is adopted by LXX. (where, however, we find ὑμῖν instead of σὺν ἐμοί) and Vulg. (where אתּי is left entirely untranslated). But the majority of scholars prefer the other division. Tr.]

[5][“It would seem that the stone which was unhewn, therefore uninjured and unfashioned, found in the condition in which the Creator left it, was regarded as unadulterated and pure, and was therefore required to be used. Similar are the reasons for the commands not to offer castrated animals (Leviticus 22:24), to receive into the congregation a mutilated man (Deuteronomy 23:1), to propagate mongrel beasts and grain (Leviticus 19:19), nor to put on the clothes of the opposite sex (Deuteronomy 22:5).” Knobel, l.c.—Tr.]