Exodus: Unity of Law and Grace

The Altar

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Pentateuch

Lesson: The Altar

Genre: Lessons with Q & A

Track: 94

Dictation Name: RR171AY94

Location/Venue:

Year: Early 70’s

Let us worship God. Wherewith shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before the Most High. He hath shown thee, O man, what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Let us pray.

O Lord, our God, we give thanks unto thee for the blessings of the week past, for thine unfailing mercies and the certainties of thy government. We pray for thy blessing supon us as we come to yield ourselves to thee, that by thy word and by thy spirit, our lives may be more and more conformed unto thee, more and more faithful to thy calling, more and more eager in thy service. Watch over us and our loved ones, bless thy true church the world over, and empower thy people to do thy will so that thy kingdom indeed may be served and may come. In Christ’s name. Amen.

Our scripture is from Exodus 27:1-8. Exodus 27:1-8. And our subject: The Altar. “And thou shalt make an altar of shittim wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be foursquare: and the height thereof shall be three cubits. And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof: his horns shall be of the same: and thou shalt overlay it with brass. And thou shalt make his pans to receive his ashes, and his shovels, and his basons, and his fleshhooks, and his firepans: all the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass. And thou shalt make for it a grate of network of brass; and upon the net shalt thou make four brasen rings in the four corners thereof. And thou shalt put it under the compass of the altar beneath, that the net may be even to the midst of the altar. And thou shalt make staves for the altar, staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with brass. And the staves shall be put into the rings, and the staves shall be upon the two sides of the altar, to bear it. Hollow with boards shalt thou make it: as it was shewed thee in the mount, so shall they make it.”

In these verses, we have the directions for the construction of the altar for sacrifice. These directions are restated in Exodus 38:1-7 when we are told of its actual construction. There was to be a wooden understructure of acacia wood, heavily overlaid with bronze and with a grating above. There were to be pointed projections, or horns, at the four corners. All previous altars in Israel had been temporary ones. Now the altar was to be the abiding center for Israel in its worship. The altar stood between the people and the Holy of Holies, or the presence of God. Previous altars had been of earth or unhewn stones. Man could not design an altar or be the builder of one until God himself ordained it, and gave the specific directions for its construction. H.R. Ellison estimated the dimensions of the altar at 7 ½’ square and 4 ½’ high. The projections or horns of the altar, were what a man seeking sanctuary caught hold of.

The description of the tabernacle’s interior begins with the Holy of Holies, it moves outward to a degree, but while basically the directions are for the Holy of Holies to the holy place to the court, this is not always strictly so. There is some variation because of the order of importance. For example, the altar of sacrifice before the altar of incense.

The blood of sacrificial animals was place, in part, on the horns of the altar. The man seeking sanctuary did so in terms of the atonement and the law of the atoner. Some scholars believe that the area between the bronze and the acacia wood was packed with earth to absorb the heat. Verse 5 tells us that the altar was hollow, and some rabbis said that when the altar was not moved, the hollow are was earth-filled. The reference in verses 4-5 to a network in nets means a grill to allow the circulation of air to facilitate burning on the grate. This altar stood near the entrance of the outer court. Before one could go to the laver, or then to the holy place, one had to stand before the altar of sacrifice. This means there is no approach to God without atonement.

In no culture, in no society, has there ever been free and unrestricted access to royalty or to rulers. Such an access would destroy all ability to rule, because it would mean that the authorities would be deluged with endless details and trivia. In no modern corporation or branch of civil government does such unrestricted access to the persons of authority exist. There is, however, a very strong belief on the part of many people that there should be such access. At times, some men have tried briefly to start such an open door policy. Moses, after the Red Sea crossing, attempted to provide this kind of access. His father-in-law, Jethro, rebuked Moses graciously saying, “The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away both thou and this people that is with thee for this thing is too heavy for thee. Thou art not able to perform it in thyself alone.” Jethro urged the adoption of a series of graded courts to cope with Israel’s problems, and the system of elders, one for every ten families, going on up to the seventy elders, was therefore instituted and this step was confirmed by God.

This plan was applied in Israel to the various areas of government, including civil, family, and other spheres. It became the pattern of government for the synagogue and for church government. The term elder, of course, is still in use within the church, but it is within the church that the pattern is least applied. The elders in a church usually sit in judgment on the pastors and members, a function limited to emergencies and serious moral or theological delinquencies in terms of the church’s origins in scripture and church history. The normal function of elders is pastoral. They are to hear the problems of the families in their care, one elder for every ten families, and if they cannot resolve the problem it can be referred on up to the pastor by the elders or the persons involved. Unrestricted access to the pastor is wearing out many clergymen. In fact, the two hardest things on pastors across the country, whatever the denomination, is unrestricted access to them and endless meetings of the church bodies. Of Synods, classis, presbytery, conferences, you name it.

The fact that necessitates mediation between God and man is man’s outlaw status. Man is fallen, he is a sinner, and he is under sentence of death according to God’s law. He, therefore, needs urgently and radically a mediator who can have access to the throne of grace. As George Bush wrote, about 175 years ago perhaps, and I quote, “Taking it for granted that the idea of mediatorship is fundamental in the typical institution of the altar, we are naturally led to investigate the points of analogy in this respect between the shadow and the substance. Now it is obvious that one of the leading offices of a mediator is the procurement of peace, or the reconciliation of offended and contending parties, and we have the decided evidence of heathen antiquity in favor of connecting the effect with a symbolic uses of altars.”

An act of expiation leads to peace and reconciliation. As a result, we have two acts which are inseparably tied to the altar, to atonement. First, a mediatorship that brings peace and reconciliation, because the altar is the place of expiation. Second, because there is this reconciliation, there is a celebration of it by eating, by breaking bread together. This means the passover and other feasts, and in the church communion.

There is, however, a third aspect to the altars. The horns afford protection to the person who is innocent and is pursued by an avenger. The altar is the defense of the helpless and the weak. As a result, because of that aspect, of sanctuary, through the altar, through atonement, the deacon’s offering and ministry to the needy is inseparable from the Lord’s Table and there is no true communion without it. The church must be involved in such a ministry. But the altar and the sacrifice clearly point to Jesus Christ, who is our mediator and our sacrifice.

The altar was in the first section of the sanctuary, the outer court. Only the covenant people had access to it. The second section, the holy place, only the priesthood could enter. The third was the Holy of Holies where only the high priest could enter and, but once a year. This altar was unlike all other known altars and the horns are projections at its four corners. The access to the altar by the unjustly oppressed meant that the royal palace was a place of mercy, not only because of the sacrifices, but also because of the sanctuary or refuge it provided. The altar at the entrance to the sanctuary meant that sin must be atoned for in order that access to God be possible. The horns provided sanctuary for the covenant people who are unjustly accused. The altar thus represented the need for atonement to satisfy man’s justice and a sanctuary against man’s injustice.

George Rollinson wrote, on the purpose of the altar, and I’m going to quote him at a little length because it is an excellent statement. He said, “We have assumed throughout that the purpose of the altar, the main purpose, was expiation. Its proper title was the altar of burnt offering. All offerings, except those which the high priest offered at the altar of incense at the Holy of Holies, were to be made at this brazen altar before the door of the tabernacle. Hither were the Israelites to bring alike their peace or thank offerings, their burnt offerings, and their sin offerings. Expiation was the sole idea of the last of these, and a main idea of the second. It was absent only from the first, the peace offerings. Thus it was the predominant idea of sacrifice. That altar witnessed to the guilt of man in God’s sight, and the need of atonement being made for him before he could be reconciled to the high and holy one. It witnessed also to God’s eternal purpose, that a way of reconciliation should be devised and made known to man. The true victim was not indeed as yet offered. Bulls and goats, lambs and rams could never of themselves, or of their own proper force sanctify the unclean or take away sin. It was only by virtue of the death which their sacrifice prefigured that they had atoning force or could be accepted by God as expiatory. Every victim presented Christ, the one and only sacrifice for sin which could propitiate the Father, and the altar therefore represented and typified the cross on which Christ died, offering himself thereon to the Father as both priest and victim. Shape and material were different and the mode of death was different, but each was the material substance on which the atoning victim died. Each was stained with the atoning blood and each was unspeakable precious to the trembling penitent who felt his need of pardon and if possible, even more precious to him who knew the atonement had thereon be made for him and felt his pardon sealed. No true Israelite could sacrifice on any altar but that of the sanctuary. No true Christian will look for pardon and atonement anywhere but to the cross of Christ, and to him who on that altar gave his life for man.”

Now it is a fact of considerable interest that the early church took the Bible so seriously that its reproduction of the tabernacle’s furnishings were at times very literal. Portable altars were common in many churches, made very much as Exodus 27:1-8 stipulates, but with some differences. They were made of wood until late in the eighth century, but of other materials, including stone, in later centuries, but still portable. The portable altar continued longest in the Ethiopian church and, for all I know, may still be in use.

This tells us a very interesting thing. There are so many groups, including some like the spiritual Franciscans and others in the present era who hold to a Jesus-only kind of theology, which means barren of everything except a kind of emotionalism, who talk about going back to the New Testament church, or the early church. They fail to realize how deeply and inseparably the New Testament church and the early church was a part of the Old Testament church. Inseparable from it. So much so that they did not even distinguish between Old and New Testaments. So, to go back to the New Testament church, or the early church, means properly to go back to the whole word of God. We can disagree with some of the practices of the early church in that perhaps they continued some things a bit too literally, forgetting that some aspects were now fulfilled in the cross. But, all the same, we cannot understand New Testament Christianity, or first and second century Christianity without coming to grips with this fact, there was nothing in the Bible that they did not take very seriously. So much as that, as we saw last year, when it came to worship, many of them, for generations, although they knew that the Christian day of salvation was the day of resurrection, the first day of the week, still continued to observe the day before, because they were unwilling to say that it was ended. So, for many Christians for some time, there were two days of worship. Subsequently, church councils ended that, but it does indicate how serious they were in obeying scripture. Let us pray.

Our Father, we thank thee for thy word, and we thank thee that we now have a mediator, even Jesus Christ, and that we are members of His body, His kingdom, His covenant, and that we have been called to peace, and to service. Bless us in faithfulness to thy kingdom and to thy word. In Christ’s name, amen. Are there any questions now about our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] Do you think that in a modern {?} church it should be assumed that one man, or one head of the household out of every ten will be the norm for the percentage of elders in church? Should that be the goal that churches ought to have?

[Rushdoony] Yes. What we need to do is to return to that pattern, train these elders carefully in their pastoral function. Then, those families under them are to go to them if they have problems, and he is regularly to visit them. The Scottish Kirk did have that pattern of visitation by the elders on a regular basis. If there were problems then, if it were a large church, it would go from the elder over a particular family to perhaps a council of three or four elders, and if there was still no settlement, it would go to the pastor. That was the pattern.

[Audience] So, the difference between a pastor and an elder is largely one of function rather than one of office.

[Rushdoony] Well, it’s a function truly, but in the early church, these elders, since it was dangerous to have too many people meeting in one’s home, and that’s where the church was for generations, at least two centuries, would have a church meet in their home so that we find Paul and the apostles ordaining elders when they went from city to city. That elder would have a church in his home. After awhile, let us say when it grew to twenty families, there might be a second elder to hold them in his home, because it would then be safer. It wouldn’t attract too much attention. IN fact, we find that Priscilla and Aquila had homes in three cities because they were a wealthy business family, and they had the church meet in their home. Now, a person like that of some prominence, with a large home, could easily have forty, fifty people in his home, or a hundred perhaps, and since after worshiping they would eat together, it would seem like some kind of a family celebration. But, in most cases, after the church grew a little, it divided and someone else, as elder, would hold services in his home. That’s how the Episcopal system developed. The first pastor would be the bishop, the others would be presbyters under him. We are seeing this pattern, to a degree, reproduced in some charismatic groups, and in some instances as many as a hundred churches have been formed out of one mother church. Now, we are also seeing something of this pattern in red China, in that the home churches are, strictly, illegal. It can lead to arrest and imprisonment. As a result, they have gone back to the home church and they try to limit those in attendance to ten or twenty, and when there are more than that, when they begin to grow beyond that, they ordain someone as elder to start another group. So, this pattern has both the biblical precedent, plus an expediency about it that is very important. Yes?

[Audience] Seems to be a striking resemblance here between politicians who entertain lobbyists and this idea. Could this be said to be a pagan practice?

[Rushdoony] Well, the lobbyists entertain the politicians.

[Audience] Yeah, but my meaning of the use of the word “entertain” is to, not to go out and entertain but to hold court, in effect, so that lobbyists can bring their problems to them.

[Rushdoony] Well, the function of lobbyists is an important one. The name has come to have a bad connotation where bribery enters in. But historically, the lobbyist represents a group who feel they need to be heard, and it’s their way of getting their particular concerns to the attention of the people in congress or in the state legislature. And most lobbyists simply provide data. They are not there to bribe the lawmaker. That represents a small element, an important element because they are correcting. But the majority of lobbyists for example, will provide information. Let us say their interest is farming. They’ll call attention to problems the farmers have, and they will say, to cite one instance I knew about sometime back, the increase of pheasants in a particular area, the cost to the farmers of what the pheasants eat. Five thousand dollars costing a farmer of modest size, in terms of what the pheasants eat, and all these pheasants maintained and protected for the benefit of hunters who come in and are a problem to the farmers. Why not protect the farmers’ interest? So, the lobbyist goes to the legislatures, legislature with this data in hand, and that’s the cause he represents, or he may be there to say, “The regulations that you are proposing for the control of Christian schools are wrong,” whatever. So, the lobbyist functions, in a sense, as the elders. He is carrying the interests of the people at large to the people at the top. He acts as a mediator between them. He is a paid person, paid, let us say, by the farmers, because he has to be there continuously when the legislature is in session, and he does call attention to problems. He takes in all kinds of data and statistics for the legislative aids to use, and some of the best material that goes into congress or our legislature comes from these lobbyists, because they are fact-finders, they do gather statistics, and for everyone who perhaps misrepresents, or who attempts to falsify the picture or to bribe, there are great numbers who are there to represent the people who cannot all be there. So, in a sense, yes, he does function. That’s a very good point, I’d never thought of it. He has an eldership, so to speak. Are there any other questions or comments? Yes?

[Audience] Altars are still a part of the furnishings of a number of churches, but they are absent in quite a few others, notably the reformed churches, and other protestant churches. Why was the altar dropped from church architectures?

[Rushdoony] Well, at the time of the Reformation, the Lutheran and Reformed leaders did not object to the altar as provided. It was communion that was served and the meaning was indicated, and the altar was, in a sense, a memorial to the atonement. However, as you had the influence of some of the Anabaptist leaders and, in particular, Zwingli, who opposed all music in the church, all musical instruments. Any kind of depiction of anything, then that kind of influence began to permeate all of Protestantism in varying degrees. Calvin had not taken that stand and he was strongly opposed to those who were out to destroy the statues and paintings, the murals in the churches. He wrote against depictions of God the Father and God the Spirit, because he said we cannot see them, but he did oppose their destruction. His attitude was that when they are not used for worship, it’s a different thing. The commandment does not bar any sculpture or any painting, or photography for that matter, as some would have to read it if they read it in that literal sense, but the use of any of these things for worship. So, this Zwingli an and Anabaptist temper has entered into evangelicalism. Unfortunately within the reformed churches it’s been especially strong in the past couple of generations, and its influence has been to trivialize the faith. You have great many people who can’t get excited about the persecution of Christian schools and Christian parents who are homeschooling, but can work up quite an anger over somebody’s use of a picture. It’s an incredible trivialization of the faith. Well, if there are no further questions, let us conclude with prayer.

Our Father, thy word is truth and thy word is indeed a lamp to guide us upon our way, to bless us with a knowledge and wisdom it brings to light. Make us strong in thy word. Thou knowest our every need, our every hurt, our every hunger and thirst. Minister to us in thy wisdom, strengthen us for thy kingdom, and grant that we always know that thou wilt never leave us nor forsake us, so that we may boldly say that Lord is my helper. I shall not fear what man may do unto me. And now go in peace. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen.

End of tape.