Sailhamer: Israel's worship in the Sinai Covenant ...

Sailhamer on Exodus 20 v22-26

In vv.22-23, virtually the entire nature of the religion of the covenant is summarized, beginning with the warning against idolatry. Moses was to remind the Israelites that God had spoken to them directly and thus to warn them not to stray from God through worship of idols.

The simple description of true worship in vv.24-26 is intended to portray the essence of the Sinai covenant in terms that are virtually identical to that of the religion of the patriarchs earthen altars, burnt offerings, and simple devotion.

If more than a simple earthen altar is desired (e.g., a stone altar), then it should not be defiled with carved stones and elaborate steps.

The ultimate purpose of any such ritual is the covering of human nakedness that stems from the Fall (cf. Ge 3:7). The implication is that all ritual is only a reflection of that first gracious act of God in covering human nakedness with garments of skin (Ge 3:21). Later, in Ex 28:42, provision was made for the priests to wear linen undergarments “to cover their naked flesh” as they approached the altar.

It is notable that this picture of the nature of the “true religion” of the covenant should precede the countless details yet to be given for the construction of the tabernacle. The detailed and ornate description of the tabernacle seems a far cry from the simple worship envisioned here.

These verses, however, play an important role in the lesson of the immediate narrative and ultimately that of the entire Pentateuch. They serve to focus our attention on the essential nature of the worship intended in the covenant.

Israel's worship in the Sinai Covenant was to be the same as that of the patriarchs as described in the Genesis narratives. God would certainly be honored with all the gold and silver of the tabernacle that was to be built, but his honor was not to be at the expense of the simple call to obedience exemplified by the patriarchs.

Sailhamer, John (1994) NIV Compact Commentary (pp. 89-90) Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Comments

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ. On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion. The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin. The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place w...

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know. So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he kne...

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here. I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions. This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration. I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him. I assume he is a brother in the LORD. Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern: Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a good and healthy example? Let's think about it some together. (Watch this clip below here first.) Context: The clip was posted to stand on its own a...

Search This Blog