The Pulpit Commentaries
Exodus 30:17-21
EXPOSITION
THE BRAZEN LAVER. That the tabernacle was to have an ample supply of water had been implied in the directions given for the washing of Aaron and his sons at its outer door (Exodus 29:4). That it would contain some provision of the kind is further indicated by the command to "wash the inwards" of victims (Exodus 29:17). We have now, in this place, the special directions given to Moses on the subject. He was to provide a brazen, or rather a bronze laver, which was to stand on a separate "foot," or base, of bronze, in the court of the tabernacle, between the entrance to the tabernacle and the "brazen altar." This was to be kept constantly supplied with water, and was to furnish whatever might be needed for the various ceremonies. Among its other uses, it was to supply liquid for the constant ablution of the priests, who were to wash both their hands and their feet on every occasion of their entering the sacred tent, and even on every occasion of their ministering at the brazen altar (Exodus 30:20). This law was to be "a statute for ever" (Exodus 30:21), and its violation was to be punished by death.
A laver. It is remarkable that nothing is said respecting either the shape or the size of the laver. In 1 Kings we have an elaborate description of the "molten sea," which replaced it in Solomon's temple, as well as an almost equally elaborate one of ten other layers made by Hiram, Solomon's artist, at the same time. We may perhaps assume from these examples that the brazen laver of the tabernacle was a large bronze vase or basin, standing upon a stem, which was fixed into a base. It was probably fitted up with an apparatus of taps and cocks. Between the tabernacle …. and the altar. The Rabbinical commentators say that it was not exactly in the middle, but a little towards the south side.
Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. Ablution by clear fresh water is so plain and simple a type of purity as to have been used in almost all religions. The hands and the feet would designate symbolically all a man's active doings, and even his whole walk in life—his "goings out" and his "comings in," in the phraseology of the Hebrews. There would also be a special practical need for such ablutions in the case of persons who were employed about bloody sacrifices, who slew the victims, sprinkled, the blood, and even dashed it against the base of the altar. On some rare occasions the priests were required to bathe their whole persons, and not their hands and feet only (see above, Exodus 29:4; and below, Le Exodus 16:4).
That they die not. Compare Exodus 28:35 and Exodus 28:43. Contempt of the simple and easy regulation to wash at the laver would imply contempt of purity itself; and so an entire hypocrisy of life and character, than which nothing could be a greater offence to God.
It shall be a statute for ever. Compare Exodus 27:21; Exodus 28:43; Exodus 29:9 : etc. Even to him—i.e; to Aaron.
HOMILETICS
The Brazen Laver.
Primarily, the brazen altar has its antitype in THE CHRISTIAN FONT. "Baptism saves us," says St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21). "Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins," said Ananias (Acts 22:16). "There is one baptism for the remission of sins," said the Nicene Fathers. As the priests had to wash at the laver ere they might enter the sanctuary, so entrance into the Church, by the institution of Christ, is by baptism. To wash, of course, is by itself not enough—each of us must "lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." So the priests, besides washing, had to observe all God's other ordinances.
Ultimately, both the laver and the font, both the priestly ablutions and the Christian sacrament of baptism, are types of the true washing, which is WASHING IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. This washing is—
I. ABSOLUTELY, AND IN ALL CASES, NEEDFUL. Only "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). "If Christ wash us not, we have no part in him" (John 13:8). The saved in heaven are those who have "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14). Baptism is "generally necessary" since Christ came and instituted it; yet no one doubts that many unbaptized persons have entered heaven. But not one has entered, or will ever enter, whom the blood of Christ has not cleansed. "Wash me, Saviour, or I die," is the constantly repeated cry of every Christian heart.
II. A SOVEREIGN REMEDY THAT NEVER, FAILS TO SAVE. Thus "washed," we are at once both "justified and sanctified" (1 Corinthians 6:11); both pardoned and made pure. Thus washed, we have access to the Father; we are made fit to enter his courts; our robes are made white, and not only our robes, but our souls. God will never reject one who comes to him in the wedding garment of a robe that Christ has cleansed. Only we must be sure to keep our robes clean—we must not "defile our garments" (Revelation 3:4)—we must wash them again and again in the purifying blood; we must look nowhere else for salvation, but only to the Cross, and we must look to that perpetually.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
The laver and the anointing oil.
I. THE LAVER (Exodus 30:17-2). This was to be made of brass (bronze), and was to be placed near the door of the tabernacle between it and the altar. It was to be used by Aaron and his sons for purposes of ablution. A new symbol of the purity required in those who serve before Jehovah. The Christian contracts daily defilements in his walk, for which also daily cleansing is required (cf. John 13:10; 1 John 1:7).
II. THE ANOINTING OIL (Exodus 30:22-2). Precious, fragrant, holy. To be applied not only to Aaron and his sons, but to the tabernacle and all its vessels. See Homily on Consecration (Exodus 24:6, Exodus 24:7). The oil is the symbol of the Spirit. The holiness imparted to Aaron and his sons by this anointing, and by the rites of consecration generally, was indeed no more than a ceremonial or official holiness. It pertained to the office rather than to the man. Yet the holders of the office were, in virtue of their consecration, laid under obligations to personal holiness as well. The private character of the priest might not avail to nullify his official acts; but the absence in the public representative of the spiritual qualifications for his office would not be allowed to go unpunished. Iniquity in the priest would be visited both on priest and people.—J.O.