Exodus 28 provides details about the garments worn by those called to serve as priests. At the beginning and ending of the chapter (Exod. 28:2, 40), God says the garments are for glory and beauty. This highlights the importance of the priestly service.

Much of the description in this chapter simply emphasizes the glory and beauty of the garments. Some of the details, however, seem to carry special significance.

Like the chapters describing the tabernacle, this chapter also emphasizes the presence of God. Several times the priest is said to enter “before Yahweh” [לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה] (Exod. 28:12, 29, 30, 35, 38). Aaron and his sons are called out of Israel to mediate between God and the nation.

The first piece of priestly clothing described in depth is the ephod (Ex. 28:6-13). Stuart notes the fabric from which the ephod was to be made matched the colors used within the Holy Place and Holy of Holies. He also notes the misuse of an ephod by Gideon. He surmises from these two facts that the ephod was a symbol of God’s presence among his people.

Exodus 28:9-12 speaks of stones with the names of the sons of Israel engraved on them. The priests bears the stones as memorials [זִכָּרֹן] before the Lord.

Thus the high priest is a mediator between God and the people. The ephod symbolizes God’s presence among the people as he moves among them wearing the gold, blue, purple, and scarlet yarns—the colors of God’s dwelling place. The stones on the shoulders of the ephod represent the people being brought into the presence of God. by the priest.

The next article of clothing, the breast-piece (Exod. 28:15-30), also emphasizes God’s presence (לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה occurs 3x in Ex. 28:29-30). The breast-piece also uses stones inscribed with the names of the sons of Israel to bring them before the Lord as a remembrance [זִכָּרֹן] (Exod. 28:29).

The breast-piece further indicates God’s presence with his people because it was used or God to render decisions [מִשְׁפָּט] from God for his people (Exod. 28:15, 30).

Exodus 28:31-35 deals with the priest’s robe. It is not clear if there is significance to the blue, the pomegranate, or the collar aside from the fact that the garments were to be made for glory and beauty. The section climaxes, however, with the need for bells on his robe as Aaron enters the holy place before the Lord so that he does not die. The words “holy place” [הַקֹּדֶשׁ] “before Yahweh” [לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה] and “not die” [וְלא יָמוּת] are key words. When someone comes before the Lord, he enters a holy place because God is holy. But for the gracious provision of God, those who enter are liable to die.

Holiness is a theme that runs throughout the chapter. God identifies the garments of the priest as “holy garments” (Exod. 28:2). The are a necessary part of his consecration to the priesthood [לְקַדְּשׁוֹ] (Exod. 28:3, 41). These are the garments necessary for Aaron to enter the Holy Place (Exod. 28:29, 35, 43).

The emphasis on holiness climaxes in Exodus 28:36-38 which deal with the plate that goes on the front of the high priest’s turban. it reads “Holiness to the Lord” [קדשׁ ליהוה]. Holiness is a key word in this section. Because of the plate Aaron could bear the iniquity of the holy things [הקדשׁים] which the sons of Israel consecrated [יקדושׁו] as holy gifts [מתנת קדשׁיהם]. Aaron does this when he comes before the Lord [לפני יהוה]. The idea seems to be that the plate declared the high priest holy and therefore worthy of bearing the iniquity of the consecrated holy gifts, thus making these offerings acceptable to God.

Verses 39-43 wrap up the instructions about clothing for the priests. Once again, as at the beginning the clothing is said to be for glory and for beauty [לכבוד ולתפארת]. The passage also notes that they should be anointed [משׁח] as part the consecration [לְקַדְּשׁוֹ] for their office.

The passage closes by describing undergarments. It may seem odd to end this list of regulations with undergarments, but if the priests’ nakedness was exposed to God’s holy things, they would die. This likely has connections back to the shame Adam and Eve had over their nakedness after they sinned and the need for clothing. It also highlights the danger in unholy man coming into the presence of God.

In the Fall mankind was thrust from God’s presence. The Tabernacle regulations and these instructions for the priest’s garments show that God’s gracious restoration of his presence to his people is no light matter. Because of his holiness and their uncleanness, the penalty for sin—death—was an ever-present threat.

The preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse rests heavily on Matthew 24:34. Mathison says,

The key to understanding the entire discourse is found in verse 34, in which Jesus tells His disciples, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Jesus declares that his prophecy will be fulfilled before the generation to whim He is speaking passes away. In other words, the events of which he speaks in this passage will be fulfilled by A.D. 70, one generation from the date He made the pronouncement.”

Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, 111.

There are a number of hard passages for the preterist within the discourse (see Mathison 112-15 for his explanation of them), but Matthew 24:34 is the most difficult for the non-preterist. Bavinck’s explanation of Matthew 24:34 makes good sense:

The words “this generation” (ἡ γενεα αὑτη, hē genea hautē) cannot be understood to mean the Jewish people, but undoubtedly refer to the generation then living. On the other hand, it is clear that the words ‘all these things’ (παντα τυατα, panta tauta) do not include the parousia itself but only refer to the signs that precede and announce it. For after predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs and his return and even the gathering of his elect by the angles, and therefore actually ending his eschatological discourse, Jesus proceeds in verse 32 to offer a practical application. Here he states that just as in the case of the fig tree the sprouting of the leaves announces the summer, so ‘all these things’ are signs that the end is near or that the Messiah is at the door. Here the expression panta tauta clearly refers to the signs of the coming parousia, not to the parousia itself, for else it would make no sense to say that when ‘these things’ occur, the end is ‘near.’ In verse 34 the words ‘all these things’ (panta tauta) have the same meaning. Jesus therefore does not say that his parousia will still occur within the time of the generation then living. What he says is that the signs and portents of it, as they would be visible in the destruction of Jerusalem and concomitant events, would begin to occur in the time of the generation then living.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:687.

One of the Oswalt quotes noted last week demonstrates how unbelief can distort a scholar’s understanding of Scripture.

It is hard to understand how those who can assert that the theological function of this passage [Isa 36-37 / 2 Kings 18-19] is to claim that God acts in history can then assert with equal force that God did not act in this event (cf. Clements). If they do so to demonstrate that biblical theology is self-discredited, that is one thing. But to speak of the worth of the theology while denying its evidence is very odd indeed.

Oswalt, Isaiah, NICOT, 1:638, n.21

Other examples of this abound if one looks for them. Here are a few others.

In commenting on Ezekiel’s charge as a watchman, Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2.185, speaks of ‘the complete irrationality of the divine activity.’ He refers to God’s first commissioning a foe against his people and then sending a watchman to warn them. ‘Such is the divine logic!’ says Zimmerli. This bold exclamation minimizes the justice of God in bringing judgment on the persistently wicked, the mercy of God in not taking pleasure in the death of the wicked (33:11), and the full responsibility of every human being for his own actions.

Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, 295, n. 30

Or note the contrast between the critical and evangelical commentators on Ecclesiastes 2:26:

Qohelet’s positive counsel rests under a cloud. The ability to enjoy life is not in anyone’s power, coming as a gift from God.

Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, OTL, 89

The final verdict of ‘vanity’ refers to the arbitrary (from the human standpoint) action of God who does as he pleases.

Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC, 26-27

This verse does not present God as capricious but does relate to the biblical idea of the grace of God. To believe that one’s life is ruled by impersonal fate is intolerable; to believe that one’s life is controlled by a personal God is a comfort.

Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, NAC, 296

All these commentators are looking at the same data, but the evangelical sees God’s grace whereas the liberals see a capricious god.

The Tabernacle proper and the furniture described in Exodus 25 symbolize the presence of God among his people. The curtains in chapter 26 indicate the restricted access to God’s presence. They set up barriers to the symbols of God’s presence, and later laws would restrict who could pass those barriers and at what times.

The bronze altar (27:1-8) sat in the tabernacle courtyard. It demonstrated to the people that there could be no access to God without a substitutionary sacrifice.

If Exodus 25 spotlights Tabernacle furniture that symbolized God’s presence, chapter 26, with its description of curtains and frames, highlights God’s distance from his people. The furniture was to be hidden away under curtains. And the curtains that would most clearly indicate the presence of God—those with the cherubim—were to be hidden under other curtains.

The Tabernacle was forward movement in the plan of redemption. God was coming to dwell with his people. But it was also a sign that more needed to be done for God’s people to be restored to full fellowship with him.

Enns observes a few key textual factors that point to the tabernacle as a recreated Eden.

Commentators for centuries have noticed that the phrase ‘the LORD said to Moses’ occurs seven times in chapters 25-31. The first six concern the building of the tabernacle and its furnishings (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1), while the final introduces the Sabbath command (31:12). It seems clear that the purpose of this arrangement is to aid the reader in making the connection between the building of the tabernacle and the seven days of creation, both of which involve six creative acts culminating in a seventh-day rest.

Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, 509. [The weakness of the observation is the clustering of the sayings in ch. 30; why does it not occur consistently at key points of the building process?]

Interestingly the very next event recorded (Ex. 32) is a fall. There a couple of occasions in Scripture in which there is a "recreation" followed by a fall. (The Flood is one example. The passage is full of creation language. It is as if the world is washed clean and recreated. And the next recorded incident after God’s rainbow covenant with Noah is a fall). These passages emphasize the depth to which sin is engraved in the human person. To remove sin there will need to be a real recreation.

Also important to notice, the fall in Exodus 32 puts God’s presence among his people in jeopardy.

The Tabernacle was a visible symbol of God’s presence among his people (Ex 25:8). This was a blessing not to be under-appreciated. When Adam and Eve were thrust from Eden, they were thrust from the presence of God. The Tabernacle was the first step toward God dwelling with his people once again.

Interestingly, it seems that all of the furniture described in Exodus 25 reinforces the concept of God’s presence.

The ark is the first piece of tabernacle furniture mentioned. It is the "supreme post-Sinai symbol of the Presence of Yahweh" (Durham, 350 cited by Enns, 511). Since Scripture reveals that Yahweh was enthroned between the cherubim (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; Ps 80:1; 99:1), the ark, with the cherubim on its lid symbolizes Yahweh’s throne.

The table also testified to God’s presence with his people. The twelve (=tribes) loaves of bread laid on the table were called "bread of the Presence" (ESV, NASB, HCSB, NIV; "shewbread," KJV; Heb, לחם פנים). Leviticus reveals that the priests were to eat this bread each Sabbath in the Holy Place, which probably indicates God’s fellowship with his people.

The lamp is made to look like a tree, and several commentators think the lamp is meant to symbolize the tree of life (Staurt is the most helpful on this point; he makes the best use of cross references).

If the lamp does indeed picture the tree of life, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was like a miniature Eden built in the wilderness [G. K. Beale has some similar ideas in The Temple and the Church's Mission, but he argues Eden was a "temple." I think this argues backwards; the tabernacle and temple were like Eden]. This is an Eden that is also a continual reminder of sin, however. The people are still barred from the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Only priestly mediators are permitted to enter there.

Frame says the biblical story "is the narrative of God coming to be with his people as their Lord, in his control, authority, and presence" (DCL, 273). The construction of the Tabernacle is a major step toward the realization of God dwelling once more with man. It also reveals the need for the remainder of the plan of redemption.

Rob Bradshaw recently posted an article by E. J. Young, “Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship.” The article is supurb. It would repay careful reading. Below are a few highlights:

Christian scholarship therefore is not ashamed of its presuppositions. In fact it glories in them,for it knows well enough that all approaches have presuppositions, whether consciously or unconsciously adopted. Christian scholarship knows where it stands and what it is seeking to accomplish. It understands that there is really but one alternative to the position which it has adopted. If it does not proceed upon the assumption that God is the ultimate source of meaning in life, and hence the ultimate point of predication, it knows that the only alternative is to believe and assert the ultimacy of the human mind. The human mind, however, is something created and finite, and from a finite source knowledge of the ultimate meaning of life can never come.

. . . . . . . . . .

The same may be said of some of the views that are being presented today, views which are widely acclaimed and even received with favour by some evangelicals. These theories have not the slightest hesitation in overriding express statements of the Bible. For that reason they are not in accord with Christian presuppositions and consequently they may be dismissed as mistaken explanations of Israel’s history and religion. This is not to say that there is no value in them or that they should not be studied. But the unlearned reader who simply reads the Old Testament itself and believes it to be true has a far more profound insight into the truth of Israel’s history and religion than he will find in the positions advocated by some modern scholars. One of the saddest signs of the times is that some evangelicals do not seem to recognise that fact.

May the writer be pardoned for mentioning personal experiences? Every now and then following a lecture, some young student will approach and say something like, ‘Why didn’t you pay more attention to Mowinckel, or, Do you not think that Von Rad’s writings are showing us some exciting new things in Old Testament studies?’ Now, surely, we should pay attention to what modern scholars are writing, and surely we can learn from modern scholars, but when we are making a serious effort to understand the history of Israel and its religion we shall learn far more by a serious exegesis of the Old Testament, an exegesis undertaken in a believing spirit, than we will from the writings of men such as Von Rad and Mowinckel who hold an extremely low view of the Bible. Christian scholarship rejoices in the confines that the infallible Word of God places upon it.

. . . . . . . . . .

And this brings us to what is probably the heart of the matter. True Christian scholarship will be characterised by humility. What, however, do we mean in this connexion by humility? We mean simply obedience to God. The humble scholar is the one who is truly obedient to God. But how shall one be obedient to God? The answer is that to be obedient to God means to do His will. We learn of His will, however, in His Word. Hence, we shall follow His Word in all that it says. Even though we may not always understand all the factors involved, we shall, if our desire is truly to be Christian, allow the Word of God to be our guide in all things. Its statements will direct our investigation, and we shall never dare to go contrary to those statements, for we know that they were breathed forth by Him who is truth itself and cannot lie. Christian scholarship then would be bound by the Bible, and rejoice that such is the case.

. . . . . . . . . .

Nor need we really be afraid of the term fundamentalist. Better to be called a fundamentalist than to be found in the ranks of those who deny the Bible. In the long run the truth will prevail, and if Christian scholarship continues in devotion to God’s Word, it need not fear what man can say. Its purpose in the last analysis is the glory of God, and in seeking to accomplish this purpose it may well expect opprobrium.

. . . . . . . . . .

The Christian scholar need not endeavour to read everything. Scholars who seek to read everything are notably superficial when it comes to really fundamental matters. If a man tries to read all that is written in his field he simply cannot have the time to do the solid research that is needed if he himself is to produce something worthwhile. Discernment is needed that he may concentrate upon those works from which he may truly derive profit.

“God intended human beings to have dominion over the animals, the man to have authority over his wife, and all human beings to be subordinate to him. In the narrative of the fall, Satan inhabits an animal, who takes dominion of the woman, who usurps the authority of the man, who blames it all on God (Gen. 3:1). So Satan seeks an exact reversal of the authority structure.”

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 257.

[Note: At the link above you can view a 30 page PDF that includes the extensive table of contents and the book's preface. Full diclosure: I'm participating the WTS Bookstore Blog Partners Program.]

With the failure of the king to right Israel’s (and the world’s) sin problem, the focus turns to the prophets. The book of Kings contains more references to the prophet or the man of God than any other book of the Bible. Kings emphasizes the sure fulfillment of the prophetic word, and this emphasis should have reminded the people that God would fulfill the covenant curses prophesied by Moses if they continued in their disobedience.

The account of Elijah, the greatest of the prophets during the time of the divided kingdom, echoes in many ways the ministry of Moses. It is possible that attentive Israelites looking for a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:18) thought Elijah was that man.

Just as Yahweh demonstrated through Moses that the gods of Egypt were no gods, through Elijah Yahweh demonstrated Baal was no god. The three year drought challenged the belief that Baal brought fertility to the land, and the miraculous provision of food in Sidon, Jezebel’s homeland, demonstrated that Yahweh could do what Baal was supposed to be able to do. In Baal mythology, during the dry season the god Mot held Baal captive in the world of the dead. Each year Anath rescued Baal and together they would restore fertility to the land. By raising the widow’s son from the dead during the drought, Yahweh demonstrated that even though Baal could not rise from the dead, as it were, Yahweh had power to raise people from the dead.

This contest climaxed on Mount Carmel. Elijah’s prayer was the same as the oft repeated purpose of God in the Exodus (Ex 6:7; 10:1; 16:6, 12; 29:46): “that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back” (1.18:37). The last part of the prayer is a request for the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30:1-10.

Elijah may have realized the many ways in which his ministry was like Moses’, but after the climatic confrontation on Mount Carmel he saw that Jezebel was going to kill him just as she had killed Yahweh’s other prophets. [It is better to read וַיַּרְא with the KJV rather than repointing to וַיִּרָא. Keil perceptively notes, “For it is obvious that Elijah did not flee from any fear of the vain threat of Jezebel, from the fact that he did not merely withdrawn into the kingdom of Judah, where he would have been safe under Jehoshaphat from all the persecutions of Jezebel, but went to Beersheba, and thence onwards into the desert” C. F. Keil, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, (Reprint, Hendrickson, 1996), 178. Note also Ronald B. Allen, "Elijah, the Broken Prophet," JETS 22 (Sep. 1979): 198-99.] So despite the fiery response from God and the immediate confession of the people, in the next chapter Elijah is found taking a forty-day journey to Mount Sinai. But Elijah realized that instead of being a prophet like Moses, he was “no better than [his] fathers” (1.19:4). He was not about to let Jezebel kill him, but he would be happy if God would simply take his life (like he did with Moses?). God did not take his life, but, interestingly, before Elijah is taken from earth he crossed the Jordan in a manner reminiscent of Moses’ crossing of the Red Sea.

In some ways Elijah surpassed Moses since, unlike Moses, who died and was buried by the Lord, Elijah was caught up to heaven in a fiery chariot. [Interestingly, it is Moses and Elijah who appear with Christ at the Transfiguration.] Even so, Elijah was not the prophet like Moses. That Prophet was still to come.