Leviticus; The Law of Holiness and Grace

Sacred Objects

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Pentateuch

Genre: Lessons with Q & A

Lesson: 63

Track: 63

Dictation Name: RR172AH63

Date: Early 70s

Let us worship God. Serve the Lord with gladness. Come before His presence with singing. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise. Be thankful unto Him and bless His name, for the Lord is good. His mercy is everlasting and His truth endureth to all generations.

Let us pray.

Oh Lord our God, we thank Thee that though the arm of men may fail, though people in high places and low may betray us, may work for the destruction of all things righteous, Thou or Lord doest never fail us. Thy truth endureth to all generations, and Thy government can never be overthrown. Confound the ways of wickedness. Establish Thy government in the midst of Thy enemies and use us, oh Lord in Thy service. Bless us now as we give ourselves to the study of Thy Word and to preparation for better service unto Thee. In Christ’s name, amen.

Our scripture this morning is Leviticus 4:1-9 and our subject, “Sacred Objects.”

Leviticus 24:1-9:

“1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Command the children of Israel that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually.

3 Without the vail of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation, shall Aaron order it from the evening unto the morning before the Lord continually: it shall be a statute forever in your generations.

4 He shall order the lamps upon the pure candlestick before the Lord continually.

5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake.

6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the Lord.

7 And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

8 Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.

9 And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual statute.”

In these verses, we have two sections, verses 1-4 deals with the golden lampstand, or menorah, and verses 5-9, the shewbread or the bread of the presence.

We are dealing here with the subject of sacred object. Now, the term ‘sacred objects’ does not ring too well in the modern ear. It is in fact remote to the modern mind. It is seen as a relic of primitivism to talk about sacred objects. But the Bible not only has much to say about sacred objects but says in Zechariah 14:20, 21 that the goal of history is to make all persons, things and objects sacred.

Now anti-Christianity seeks either to de-sacrelize the world or to sacrelize it on anti-Christian terms. We have generations, in fact a few centuries since the Enlightenment, of the desacrelization of the world, stripping it of any Christian concept. But in the late 50s we began to see another movement, the Beatnik movement, which sought to sacrelize everything and on anti-Christian terms. For example, in the Beatniks, Michael McClure, in his poems, saw drug use, {?} for example, as a means of realizing divinity. Alan Ginsberg, the homosexual, said that all things that are, we would regard as not holy but as evil, were holy, especially, apparently the homosexuals. And Christianity was seen by him and others as the enemy of fallen man’s natural holiness. We are in the last days of the destruction of the idea of the holy in biblical terms.

It goes back, of course, as I indicated a moment or two ago, to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment began the desacrelization of the world and at the same time, the Church began to turn to pietism. The realm of faith retreated to the inner man. The realm of the holy retreated to the inner man. As a matter of fact, this was made an article of faith.

When I was a graduate student, I did a study of the concept from the early days, or the last days of the medieval order to the present. And the position that was developed in the late Middle Ages began to become accepted by one and all as a truth, as surely as people believed that two plus two makes four, they believed that the physical world, the outer world belonged to the State, that only the inner world of man belonged to the Church and to God, to Christ. This meant that the kingship of Christ was forsaken. This meant that the realm of religion was reduced from all things to one thing: the inner life of man. And it was this faith that I found in all the literature from that period on virtually, with few exceptions, that has created our world today. This is the position that makes all churches, no matter what their theology retreat into pietism, retreat into saying that it’s the spiritual life, the inner man that is the realm of the faith.

Of course, one person who understood this very clearly, and which is why as soon as possible, I did a little study on him, was Sigmund Freud, because Sigmund Freud recognized this tradition, this retreat of the faith into the mind of man. And so, he said if we make problems of the mind and spirit of man scientific problems, then we will destroy religion. If we say that the problem of guilt which is what drives men to God is not a religious question but a scientific question, and if we can explain it scientifically, then we will have destroyed religion. There will be no place for it to go. And of course he was right. And before long, the most popular kind of book among the clergy was and probably still is so-called pastoral psychology—all the psychologies of the humanists, simply adapted for the church. And pastoral counseling took the place of doctrine, of theology, of the Bible, and you have the ineffectual preaching that you do today. You have what the Bible calls dumb dogs that cannot bark. Such said the prophets, are the false preachers; those who are false because they do not teach the whole Word of God. They cannot warn people of the enemy, of the evil around them. They are dumb dogs that cannot bark! They’ll respond to a pat on the head, but not to the presence of evil.

In the Bible, not only are we called to be holy, but we are told that time, objects, places, all things must be holy; that we have no right to limit holiness to the inner life of man. God made all things good in the beginning, and therefore all things are to be brought again within the holiness of God.

Today, the very idea of the holy in any popular form has been transferred to the State. We no longer have holy days except one or two which are more secular holidays than anything else. But we have holidays, State holidays: the 4th of July, Lincoln’s birthday, Martin Luther King’s birthday and so on, and we actually speak of certain places as national shrines. National shrines; national treasure. Now, we’ve come to natural shines and natural treasures, so we are saying anything can be holy, anything can be a shrine except what is of Christ.

It is therefore an act of perversity to deny Christianity sacred times, objects and places, and yet this temper is very prevalent in churches—very prevalent. I’ve seen very able and well-meaning men get very worked up because a church in their particular denomination has a cross in the sanctuary or on the steeple. And that’s idolatry, they say. Trivializing the faith! How do they read the Bible? Have they never read about the tabernacle, with the graven basin and bowl, with the pomegranates, with all kinds of things that artists have brought in for the tabernacle and the temple, by orders of Almighty God? Those were not graven images for worship; they were for beauty and for glory. But we’ve trivialized everything. We’ve said the world could have its shrines and its holy days, but not us. And I know of churches, very devout, very fine people, who won’t observe Christmas and Easter. They’re not going to observe holy days, they’re too spiritual for that. Now that goes against all of scripture. It is an act of perversity. It is a denial of scripture. Here we have, as throughout scripture, sacred objects.

It is interesting, the golden lampstand was kept burning in the Holy Place which was otherwise dark, didn’t have windows. It was lit by the High Priest and cared for by him. It was an artificial light. In other words, man provided the light in the Holy Place. This world is to be made holy unto God by us. We are to provide the light. God provides the salvation, but it is the new man in Christ who provides the light to blot out the darkness. Of Jesus Christ, we are told that was the true light, the true golden lampstand, the true menorah, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. All who are in Christ are now the light of the world. According to our Lord, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.” Jesus Christ is the golden lampstand and in Him we are candles, we are lights, each in our place. God is able to provide light in all places, but He has made it our duty to carry Christ’s light into all the world. If we fail to do so, even the Holy Place becomes dark.

In verse 3 we are told the lamps were to burn continually (or better, regularly) from evening until morning, even when the Holy Place was not in use.

In Revelation 1:20, we are again given the image of the lampstand, this time to mean the Church.

According to Exodus 25:31, the lampstand was to be of pure gold. At this point, we come to another controversy. The disciples themselves were indignant when a woman with an alabaster cruse of very precious oil poured it on our Lord’s head. And they demanded to what purpose is this waste? For the ointment might have been sold for much and given to the poor. Our Lord rebuked them for this, but ever since men have echoed that opinion which brought the rebuke of the Lord and the disciples’ complaint is still echoed in spite of our Lord’s rebuke.

Just at present, for example, a great many Catholics are raising a voice to say if the Pope is interested in helping the poor, why doesn’t he sell the treasures of the Vatican? The attitude of Protestants and Catholics seems to be now that the Church should not have beautiful buildings, nor costly furnishings, nor be beautiful. And such complaints come from the rich and the poor alike. What they are saying is that anything costly or beautiful is for them, too good for God, that they can live, as God indicted Israel after the captivity in beautiful houses with huge beams overhead while the temple was in ruins.

Scripture tells us that even the robes of the High Priest were to be for beauty and for glory. Beauty in itself is nothing, and it must be linked to holiness to satisfy God’s requirement, but it is required. We are told also to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness, not in the ugliness of holiness. But that seems to be the modern temper. If it’s ugly, supposedly, it will glorify God more. But I don’t’ see these people who don’t believe in putting money in beautiful buildings put it out for the poor, any more than Judas did, who was a thief, and he complained about such things.

In verses 5-9, we have the reference to the shewbread, or the bread of the presence. Ginsberg’s comment on this is very good. “Each cake therefore was made of two omers of wheat, or as it is here said, of two tenth parts of an ephah which is the same thing. As an omer is a quantity which, according to the divine ordinance in Exodus 16:16-19, supplies the daily wants of a human being. Each of these cakes represents the food of a man and his neighbor, whilst the twelve cakes answered to the twelve tribes of Israel.” The bread was unleavened, and as a result, it did not mold during the course of the week. Dunalow observed, and rightly, that the bread “was an acknowledgement that man owes his daily bread to God. It was a kind of perpetual grace over meat.” The term “bread of His presence” is rendered by Calvin as the bread of faces, and he said, “This was no ordinary symbol of God’s favor, when He descended familiarly to them, as if He was their mess-mate. They (the loaves) were called the bread of faces, because they were placed before the eyes of God. And thus, He made known His special favor, as if coming to banquet with them.” The bread of the presence set forth the fact of the covenant between God and His people, that when His people believe and obey in Him, are faithful to His covenant, God is present with them.

And many of the old table graces begin, “Be present at our table, Lord.” We have God’s covenant presence, where His Law Word is obeyed and where all things that belong to God are treated with reverence as sacred. This applies to all things connected with worship, all sacred objects. It covers us in all our resources, in money, in all the earth, which is the Lord’s. Instead of desacralizing all things, we are to work to bring all things and every thought captive to Christ, to the end that the time may come when even the bells on the horses, as Zechariah said, the common pots and pans are holiness unto the Lord.

Let us pray.

Oh Lord, our God, we thank Thee for Thy Word. We thank Thee that we have a great commission to be the light of the world, to bring the light of Thy holiness to all times, places, things and persons so that the earth may be filled with Thy righteousness and Thy holiness as the waters cover the sea. Use us in this purpose, we beseech Thee. In Christ’s name, amen.

Are there any questions now about our lesson?

Yes.

[Audience] Would it be correct to say that this passage describes what might be the Old Testament version of the Eucharist?

[Rushdoony] Old Testament version of …

[Audience] The Eucharist?

[Rushdoony] Yes, it sets it… of course the Passover also does, but it points to the same thing, and even more to our daily life, to table grace, to the fact that, uh, the whole of our family life, our daily work—everything is to be holiness unto God.

[Audience] Verse 8 … {?} that, uh, meeting of the {?} occurred regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath. Does it instruct celebration of the Lord’s Supper weekly?

[Rushdoony] No, the Passover was once a year, you see, and it’s in a mind of that now. The Catholic Church held to a weekly celebration, and Calvin did too. That’s another question and problem we won’t go into here.

Yes, Otto, you had a question?

[Otto] The progression of the substitution, first there was a substitution for the chimes of the Church for the chimes of the State; symbols of the State, a civil religion, which is an attempt to replace Christianity using Christian {?} Now the symbols of the State religion, the civil religion are being desecrated.

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Otto] So the general {?} is to destroy all the institutions or ceremonies, even the rhetoric that holds a community together. And I consider this part of the revolution.

[Rushdoony] Yes and one reason for it is that if you destroy meaning, which is God-given, then every borrowed realm of meaning also is destroyed. In other words, having destroyed Christianity, they cannot have meaning on their terms. They’ve abolished the concept of meaning. They’ve declared it to be an invalid concept. If meaning is purely existential, which is what has been held progressively in this century, in other words, meaning is what I say I think it is, then what does have universal meaning? Neither Church nor State nor anything. If a picture painted is only an expression of what the artist feels and you’re to put into it whatever meaning you choose, there is no common ground, and then no institution can say we provide meaning in society. So the State has destroyed itself progressively by de-Christianizing culture.

[Otto] By accepting that when revolution succeeded, it sets up new symbols.

[Rushdoony] Yes, but they won’t work. They have to use terror as Lenin saw. You replace meaning with terror, because the meaning you claim as real has no substance. This is why the, uh, most vehement book written by Karl Marx was against Max Stirner; because Max Stirner pushed this idea to its logical conclusion, the meaninglessness of all things and therefore the legitimacy of all acts. He is the man who accused the atheists of his day of being closet Christians because they didn’t practice incest and other perversions, and Marx recognized that Stirner was right. But if Stirner were allowed to establish his thinking and successfully convert men to his position, there could be no socialist order. So he wrote a two-volume diatribe against Stirner.

Well, with Camus and Sartre, the same thing was again forced upon the European intellectuals—Existentialism: no meaning except my own purely subjective existential meaning. And so they wrote passionately against Sartre who was favorable to Marxism, because they said it would mean the death of Marxism to adopt his thinking. There’s a whole body of literature condemning Sartre, even while he was eagerly serving them.

Any other questions or comments? Well if not, let us conclude with prayer.

Oh Lord our God, Thy Word is truth and Thy truth shall prevail and to govern. We thank Thee for the kingship of Christ, and we thank Thee that the powers that be shall be confounded in their wickedness, and Thy kingdom established in all its glory. 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.