Commentari biblici

Orders being given for the fitting up of the place of worship, in this and the following chapter care is taken about the priests that were to minister in this holy place, as the menial servants of the God of Israel. He hired servants, as a token of his purpose to reside among them. In this chapter, I. He pitches upon the persons who should be his servants, Ex 28:1. II. He appoints their livery; their work was holy, and so must their garments be, and unanswerable to the glory of the house which was now to be erected, Ex 28:2-5. 1. He appoints the garments of his head-servant, the high priest, which were very rich. (1.) An ephod and girdle, Ex 28:6-14. (2.) A breast-plate of judgment (Ex 28:15-29), in which must be put the urim and thummim, Ex 28:30. (3.) The robe of the ephod, Ex 28:31-35. (4.) The mitre, Ex 28:36-39. 2. The garments of the inferior priests, Ex 28:40-43. And these also were shadows of good things to come.

Aaron and his sons are set apart for the priest's office, Exodus 28:1. Garments to be provided for them, Exodus 28:2, Exodus 28:3. What these garments were, Exodus 28:4, and of what made, Exodus 28:5. The ephod, its shoulder-pieces, and girdle, Exodus 28:6-8. The two onyx stones, on which the names of the twelve tribes were to be engraven, Exodus 28:9-14. The breastplate of judgment; its twelve precious stones, engraving, rings, chains, and its use, Exodus 28:15-29. The Urim and Thummim, Exodus 28:30. The robe of the ephod, its border, bells, pomegranates, etc., and their use, Exodus 28:31-35. The plate of pure gold and its motto, Exodus 28:36, to be placed on Aaron's mitre, Exodus 28:37, Exodus 28:38. The embroidered coat for Aaron, Exodus 28:39. Coats, girdles, and bonnets, Exodus 28:40. Aaron and his sons to be anointed for the priest's office, Exodus 28:41. Other articles of clothing and their use, Exodus 28:42, Exodus 28:43.

INTRODUCTION TO Exodus 28

This chapter informs us of the servants God would have to minister to him in the house, or tabernacle, he had ordered to be made, even Aaron and his sons, Exodus 28:1 of the garments they were to wear in their service, Exodus 28:2 and first of the garments of the high priest, and particularly of the ephod, with the girdle, on the shoulder pieces of which were to be two onyx stones, with the names of the children of Israel engraved on them, Exodus 28:6, and that of the breastplate of judgment, with the Urim and Thummum in it, Exodus 28:15 and of the robe of the ephod, Exodus 28:31, and of the mitre, Exodus 28:36 and then of the garments of the common priests, Exodus 28:40.

Chapters 25–31

We come now to the long section of P, which contains the instructions stated to have been given by God to Moses on the mount for the construction and equipment of a sanctuary, and for the vestments and consecration of a priesthood. These instructions fall into two parts: (1) chs. 25–29; (2) chs. 30–31. The instructions contained in chs. 25–29 relate to (a) the vessels of the sanctuary, viz. the ark, the table of Presence-bread, and the candlestick,—named naturally first, as being of primary interest and importance (ch. 25); (b) the curtains, and wooden framework supporting them, to contain and guard the sacred vessels (ch. 26); (c) the court round the Sanctuary, and the Altar of Burnt offering, standing in it (ch. 27); (d) the vestments (ch. 28) and the consecration (ch. 29) of the priests who are to serve in the sanctuary (Exodus 29:1-37); (e) the daily burnt-offering, the maintenance of which is a primary duty of the priesthood (Exodus 29:38-42), followed by what is apparently the final close of the whole body of instructions, Exodus 29:43-46, in which Jehovah promises that He will bless the sanctuary thus established with His presence. Chs. 30–31 relate to (a) the Altar of Incense (Exodus 30:1-10); (b) the monetary contributions for the maintenance of public service (Exodus 30:11-16); (c) the Bronze Laver (Exodus 30:17-21); (d) the holy Anointing Oil (Exodus 30:22-33); (e) the Incense (Exodus 30:34-38); (f) the nomination of two skilled artificers, Bezal’el and Oholiab, to make the sanctuary and its appurtenances Exodus 31:1-11); (g) the observance of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-17).

The principal names of what we—adopting a rendering based upon Jerome’s tabernaculum (i.e. ‘tent’)—commonly call the ‘Tabernacle’ are the Tent of Meeting (Exodus 27:21), the Tent where God ‘met’ and talked with Moses; the Tent; the Tent of the Witness or Testimony, i.e. (see on Exodus 25:16) the Tent containing the Ark, in which were deposited the two tables of the Decalogue; the Dwelling (Exodus 25:9 al.), the Dwelling of Jehovah (Numbers 16:9 al.), or the Dwelling of the Testimony (Exodus 38:21 al.); and the Sanctuary (see on Exodus 25:8). The first two these designations are found in both JE and P; the others are used exclusively by P. If the passages in which E and J speak of the ‘Tent of Meeting’ or the ‘Tent’—viz. Exodus 33:7-11, Numbers 11:16 f., 24, 26, Exodus 12:5; Exodus 12:10, Deuteronomy 31:14 f.—are read carefully, it will be found that the representation which they give of it differs in several respects very materially from that given by P. In E the Tent of Meeting is outside the camp (Exodus 33:7, Numbers 11:26 f., cf. v. 30, Exodus 12:4 : on Numbers 14:44, see p. 428); it is guarded by one attendant, Joshua, who never leaves it Exodus 33:11; cf. Numbers 11:28); though it had probably some decoration (cf. on Exodus 33:6), it was obviously a much simpler, less ornate structure than that described by P; Moses used to go out to it, and enter into it speak with God, and the pillar of cloud then descended, and stood at the entrance of the Tent, and Jehovah spoke to him from it (Exodus 33:8-11; cf. Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25; Numbers 12:5; Numbers 12:10, Deuteronomy 31:14 f.); on the march also, the ark precedes the host, to seek out a camping-place for it (Numbers 10:33). In P, on the contrary, the Tent of Meeting is in the centre of the camp, with the Levites around it on the west, south, and north, and Aaron and his sons on the east, and the other tribes, three on each side, outside them (Numbers 2; Numbers 3:23; Numbers 3:29; Numbers 3:35; Numbers 3:38); it is served by Aaron and his sons, and a large body of Levites (in Numbers 4:48, 8580); it is a highly decorated, costly structure (chs. 25–27); the cloud (which is not in P spoken of as a ‘pillar’), instead of descending from time to time, as occasion requires, to the entrance of the Tent, that Jehovah may speak with Moses, rests upon the Tent always, when the camp is stationary (Exodus 40:35-38, Numbers 9:15-23), and Jehovah, instead of speaking to Moses at its ‘entrance,’ speaks to him from between the cherubim above the ark (Exodus 25:22, Numbers 7:89); on the march, also, the ark, borne, covered up, by the Kohathites, with the other sacred vessels, is in the centre of the long procession of Israelites, six tribes preceding it, and six following it (Numbers 2:17; Numbers 3:31; Numbers 4:5 ff; Numbers 10:21). Lastly in P the Tent of Meeting is the centre of an elaborate sacrificial and ceremonial system (Leviticus 1-27, &c.), such as is nowhere mentioned in connexion with the Tent of Meeting of J and E, and, in view of the subsequent history (Judg., Sam.), not historically probable,—at least on anything like the same scale. Unquestionably (cf. p. 359) both representations have common features: in both, in particular, the Tent is the place where God speaks with Moses, and communicates to him His will; nor need it be doubted, though it is no stated in so many words, that the Tent of JE, like that of P, sheltere the ark (though a much simpler ark than P’s): but there are also wide differences between them. Here it will be sufficient to have noted these differences: in explanation of them see p. 430 ff.

The Tabernacle, with its various appurtenances, is described to having been made by Bezal’el and Oholiab, and other skilled workmen acting under them, in accordance with detailed specifications given by God to Moses (chs. 25–31), and a ‘pattern,’ or model, shewn Moses in the mount (Exodus 25:9; Exodus 25:40, Exodus 26:30, Exodus 27:8). It is designed as a ‘dwelling’ (Exodus 25:8-9) in which God may permanently dwell among His people (Exodus 29:45); and after it has been erected and consecrated, He gives manifest tokens of His presence in it, He fills it with His glory (Exodus 40:34-38), He habitually speaks in it with Moses (Exodus 25:22), and He gives him many of His instructions from it (Leviticus 1:1, Numbers 1:1). It is also the centre at which all sacrifices are to be offered (Leviticus 1:3; Leviticus 1:5; Leviticus 3:2, &c.).

In its general principle the ‘Tabernacle’ of P is a portable Temple (so Jos. Ant. iii. 6. 1 μεταφερόμενος καὶ συμπερινοστῶν ναός). On the one hand, it is a tent, and is repeatedly so called, formed of tent-hangings, or curtains, held in their places by cords and tent-pins, of oblong shape, and with a flat upper surface (without a ridge pole), like the tents of Bedawin at the present day (see ill. in Smith, DB. iii. 1467; Judges in SBOT. (Engl. vol.), p. 63; Doughty, i. 226; or (best) Benzinger, Bilderatlas zur Bibelkunde, 1905, No. 287, or Arch.2 89), and divided into two compartments, in this respect also (Kn. on Exodus 26:37) resembling the tents of Bedawin, in which a separate compartment is formed by a curtain for the women (Burckh. Bed. i. 39 f.; EB. iv. 4972); on the other hand, the Tabernacle has also the form of a temple of a type very common in antiquity, and in fact represented by Solomon’s temple, consisting of an oblong rectangular structure, with pillars on its front, standing in a large court, and divided into two parts, the hall (in Greek πρόναος, ‘fore-shrine’; in Solomon’s temple, the hêkâl, 1 Kings 6:3; 1 Kings 6:5; 1 Kings 6:17, &c. [in EVV. rendered badly ‘temple,’ suggesting the whole building]), corresponding to the Holy Place, and the shrine (ναός Hdt. i. 183, or ἄδυτον, the ‘part not to be entered,’ Lat. cella; Heb. debîr, the ‘hindmost part,’ 1 Kings 6:5; 1 Kings 6:16, &c. [in EVV., through a false etymology, the ‘oracle’]), corresponding to the Most Holy Place,—both without windows, and the latter containing, if there was one, the image of the deity to whom the temple was sacred, and usually entered only by the priests. The ‘Tabernacle’ was however primarily and essentially a tent; it was the tapestry curtains alone which formed the real ‘Dwelling’ of Jehovah (see on Exodus 26:1); the ‘boards,’ or framework, were merely intended to give the tent greater stability and security than ordinary tent-poles would do. An altar, a priesthood, with regulations determining who might hold it, and prescribing the sacrifices and other religious offices to be maintained, often also an ark containing some sacred object, a table on which food was laid out for the deity, lavers for ceremonial ablutions, &c., were likewise, in one form or other, the necessary elements in an ancient Temple establishment. The Tabernacle of P was an elaborate and ornate structure. Metals more or less precious, and woven materials more or less ornamented, and more or less richly coloured, were employed; the general distinction observed being that the nearer an object was to the Presence of Jehovah in the Holy of holies, the costlier and more beautiful it was, the commoner materials, such as bronze and ordinary woven stuff, being reserved for the objects further off (cf. on Exodus 25:3). In the same way, the high priest had a specially gorgeous and splendid attire, while that of the ordinary priests was much plainer.

In their dimensions, both the ‘Tabernacle’ and the court display great symmetry. The ruling numbers are 3, 4, 7, 10, their parts (1½, 2, 2½, 5), and their multiples (6, 9, 12, 20, 28, 30, 42, 48, 50, 60, 100). If, without indulging in fantastic extravagances, we may discern a symbolism in numbers, we may perhaps see in three a symbol of the divine, in four—suggesting the four quarters of the earth—the totality of what is human, in seven and twelve numbers which, deriving their original significance from astronomy, came to be regarded as symbols of completeness, and in ten and its multiples numbers specially suggestive of symmetry and perfection. In the prominence given to the numbers mentioned, we may perhaps recognize an effort ‘to give concrete expression—in a manner, it is true, which our Western thought finds it difficult to appreciate—to the sacred harmonies and perfection of the character of the Deity for whose “dwelling” the sanctuary is destined’ Kennedy, DB. iv. 667b). The Holy place Isaiah 20 cubits (30 ft.) long, 10 cubits (15 ft.) high and broad, and the Holy of holies a perfect cube of 10 cubits (exactly half the dimensions of the Holy of holies in Solomon’s temple); and these ratios, a perfect cube, or two cubes placed side by side, are, we are told (Enc. Brit.9 Architecture, cited ibid.), still considered the most pleasing in architectural art; while the perfect cube, forming the Holy of holies, may be intended to represent symbolically the ‘perfection of Jehovah’s character and dwelling place, the harmony and equipoise of all His attributes.’ Comp. how, in Revelation 21:16, the ideal perfection of the New Jerusalem is expressed in the fact that ‘the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.’

The ‘Tabernacle,’ moreover, symbolizes directly, and gives visible expression to, various theological and religious truths. It must, however, be clearly understood that in the text itself no symbolism or significance whatever is attributed either to the Tabernacle or to any of its appurtenances; so that, if we go beyond what is suggested directly by the names or uses of the Tabernacle, or its parts, we are in danger of falling into what is arbitrary or baseless. Bearing this in our minds, we may however observe that by one of its principal names, the mishkân, or ‘Dwelling’ (see on Exodus 25:9), the Tabernacle expresses in a sensible form the truth of God’s presence in the midst of His people; by another of its principal names, the ‘Tent of Meeting’ (Exodus 27:21), it gives expression to the truth that God is not only present with His people, but that He reveals Himself to them; by its third name, the ‘Tent (or Dwelling) of the Witness or Testimony,’ it reminded the Israelite that in the Decalogue, inscribed on the Tables in the Ark, it contained an ever-present witness to the claims of God and the duty of man. These three, especially the first, are the fundamental ideas symbolized by the Tabernacle. But there are also other ideas. Thus the gold, and costly, beautifully worked fabrics, which decorated, especially, the Holy of holies, and were also conspicuous in the gorgeous vestments of the high priest, give expression to the thought that the Dwelling, and the most responsible ministers of God, should be decked, or apparelled, with becoming splendour and dignity. The Bronze Altar, standing midway between the entrance to the court and the Tent, emphasized the importance of sacrifice in general under the old Dispensation (see further on Leviticus 1-5.), and taught the truth that ‘apart from shedding of blood there is no remission’ (Hebrews 9:22); while the burnt-offering, offered daily upon it on behalf of the community, gave expression to the spirit of worship which Israel as a whole should ever be actuated, and symbolized its constant sense of the devotion due from it to its divine Lord. The Laver, standing probably directly in front of the entrance to the Tent, in which the priests washed their hands and feet before their ministrations, secured the ceremonial purity, which was an emblem of the moral purity, that should belong to those who are the ministers of God. The Presence-bread—whatever it may have denoted originally (see on Exodus 25:30)—is an expression of thankfulness, and an acknowledgement that man’s daily bread,—is a like all other ‘blessings of this life,’—divine gift. The symbolism of the Candlestick is less obvious: none is suggested by the text; and any that may be proposed is in danger of being far-fetched, or of being read into the description as an afterthought: but—whether this was its original intention, or not—the candlestick may perhaps be most easily regarded as symbolizing the people of Israel, shining with the light of divine truth (cf. the figure of ‘light’ in Isaiah 51:4, Matthew 5:16 f., Php 2:15; and Revelation 1:12; Revelation 1:20, where the seven golden candlesticks seen in vision are said to denote the seven churches). The interpretation of Zechariah 4:1-4; Zechariah 4:11-13 is too uncertain to be used in explaining the symbolism of the candlestick in the Tabernacle (see the Century Bible, p. 203 f.): moreover, the candlestick there is differently constructed, and the lamps are differently supplied with oil. The Altar of Incense symbolized a higher form of devotion than the altar of burnt-offering: the smoke of incense was finer and choicer than that of animal victims; and it symbolized the devotion not of action, but of aspiration and prayer (cf. Psalm 141:2, Revelation 5:8; Revelation 8:3 f.): the blood of the sin-offering was also applied to the altar of incense, when it was offered for the high priest or the community (Leviticus 4:7; Leviticus 4:18 : see also Exodus 30:10). The ark itself, sacred though it is, does not in P enshrine or symbolize the divine Presence: it contains the Decalogue, which is the ‘witness’ to God’s claims and man’s duty: but the Presence is symbolized by the golden cherubim upon it—which are regularly the emblems of the nearness of deity (see on Exodus 25:18-20)—‘from between’ which, and above the ark, Jehovah speaks with Moses. And the cherubim rest upon the golden mercy-seat, or ‘propitiatory,’ symbolizing, with special emphasis and clearness, the mercifulness of God (Exodus 34:6 f.), and His readiness to forgive sin which has been repented of, and duly purged away (p. 332) by a propitiatory rite. The purification of the altar of burnt-offering (see on Exodus 29:36 f.), and the anointing of the Tabernacle and its vessels after their completion (Exodus 30:26-29), signified that objects designed for sacred purposes must be properly consecrated before being actually used in the service of Jehovah. And the ascending degrees of sanctity, attaching to the court, the Holy place, and the Holy of holies, marked both by the materials of which they were constructed, and by the fact that while the people generally might enter the court, only the priests could enter the Holy place, and only the high priest, and he only once a year, and that ‘not without blood,’ the Holy of holies, safeguarded, in an impressive and significant manner, the holiness of God; and shewed that, though the way to Him was open, it was open only under restrictions (Heb Exo 9:8), and especially that the Presence of God Himself could be approached only by those who were, in a special sense, ‘holy’ (cf. Lev Exo 19:2), and who carried with them the blood of atonement. According to the historical view of the Old Testament, these truths and principles do not date from Moses’ time, but were acquired gradually as the result of divinely guided meditation and reflection upon sacred things: but the question the actual date at which they were acquired does not affect their reality and value.

The symbolical meanings attached to the Tabernacle and its vessels, vestments of the high priest, &c., by Josephus and Philo (see Westcott, Hebrews, p. 238 f.), are cleverly drawn out, and testify to the reverence and regard with which the Tabernacle was viewed, but are too remote to possess probability.

In the NT. the Tabernacle is explained symbolically from a different point of view. In the Epistle to the Hebrews it is represented as constructed so as to reproduce a heavenly archetype—not a mere architect’s model, such as Exodus 25:9 would naturally suggest, but—a real and eternal heavenly original, the genuine ‘tent,’ pitched by God, not man (Exodus 8:2),—‘a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, and not of this creation,’ i.e. not of this visible order of things (Exodus 9:11),—whether by this is meant heaven itself, or an ideal celestial temple in heaven,—of which the earthly tabernacle is merely a secondary representation, a copy (ὑπόδειγμα, Exodus 8:5, Exodus 9:23 : cf. Wis 9:8) and shadow (Exodus 8:5), or counterpart (ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν). And into this heavenly Temple, the archetype of the earthly tabernacle, Christ, the ideal and perfect High Priest, entered, like the Jewish high priest, only not with the blood of animal victims, but with His own blood, to appear before God, having obtained eternal redemption for us (Exodus 9:12; Exodus 9:23-26; cf. on Leviticus 16). Thus while Josephus and Philo regarded the Tabernacle as a microcosm, or ‘epitome of that which is presented on a larger scale in the world of finite being’ (Westcott, p. 240), the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews regards it as the temporal and material counterpart of an eternal and invisible temple in heaven. The Tabernacle further corresponds to Christ’s humanity. God ‘dwelt’ in the midst of His people in the ‘Dwelling’ (Exodus 25:9) of a tent; and the Word, when He took flesh, ‘dwelt as in a tent or tabernacle’ (ἐσκήνωσεν) among us, and manifested His ‘glory’ to the world (John 1:14). And entrance into (the presence of God, which was all but closed under the older Dispensation, is now opened, by the blood of Jesus, ‘through a new and living way, which he hath dedicated for us, through the veil, that is to say, through his flesh’ (Hebrews 10:20); on which A. B. Davidson (ad loc.) remarks, ‘This beautiful allegorizing of the veil cannot of course be made part of a consistent and complete typology. It is not meant for this. But as the veil stood locally before the holiest in the Mosaic Tabernacle, the way into which lay through it, so Christ’s life in the flesh stood between Him and His entrance before God, and His flesh had to be rent ere He could enter.’

There is no question that the Tent of Meeting, as described by J and E, is historical; but there are strong reasons for holding that the Tent of Meeting, as described by P, represents an ideal, and had no historical reality. See on this question p. 426 ff.

The execution of the directions given in chs. 25–31 is narrated in chs. 35–40, and (Exodus 29:1-37) Leviticus 8,—mostly in the same words, with merely the future tenses changed into pasts, but with a few cases of abridgment, omission, and transposition. In the notes on 25–31 the passages in 35–40 which correspond are noted at the beginning of each paragraph by ‘cf.’

The general structure and character of the Tabernacle are perfectly clear: but great difficulty and uncertainty attach to some of the details. It is impossible within the limits of the present commentary to discuss the doubtful or disputed points. The following notes are indebted frequently to Kennedy’s full and illuminative art. Tabernacle in DB.; a statement and criticism of divergent views upon the principal doubtful points will be found in Benzinger’s ably written art. Tabernacle in EB.

Ch. 28. The vestments of the priests.

The directions for the sanctuary are complete; and provision has next to be made for the vestments and (ch. 29) consecration of the priests who are to serve it. The directions contained in these two chapters are founded upon the elaborately developed dress and ceremonial of the Zadokite priesthood of the writer’s own day, the original institution of both being referred back to the appointment of Moses himself. Aaron represents the Zadokite high priest of later times; his ‘sons’ represent the ordinary priests. The gorgeous, golden robes of the high priest are described at length: the simpler vestments of the ordinary priests are dismissed in 4 verses (vv. 40–43). Limits of space forbid here more than the briefest notice of the history and functions of the Isr. priesthood (see more fully McNeile, p. lxiv ff.; Baudissin’s article in DB. iv. 67 ff.; EB. iii. 3837 ff.). The present ch. reflects a late stage in the history of the priesthood. The main prerogatives of the older Isr. priest (JE, Jud., Sam.) were to give tôrâh (p. 161), to obtain Divine oracles by the Urim and Thummim (p. 313), and to pronounce decisions ‘before God’ at a sanctuary (Exodus 22:8-9): no doubt he also offered sacrifice (1 Samuel 2:28), but the right of doing this was by no means at this time restricted to the priests (cf. on Exodus 20:24). A member of the guild (cf. on Exo Exodus 4:14), or tribe, of Levi was preferred as a priest (Jdg 17:13). The priests mentioned in Sam.1[206] belong all to the line of Eli, who is first connected with Aaron, through Aaron’s younger son Ithamar, in 1 Chronicles 24:3 (c. 300 b.c.). Abiathar, the last of Eli’s line, who had been David’s principal priest, was deposed by Solomon; and Zadok was made principal priest in his stead (1 Kings 2:27; 1 Kings 2:35). Zadok’s pedigree is not stated in 1 K.: in 1 Chronicles 6:8 &c., he is represented as descended from Aaron’s elder son Eleazar. Zadok’s descendants continued to hold the first place among the Jerusalem priests, with all the prestige and importance which their connexion with the Temple naturally gave them, throughout the period of the monarchy. Even in the 7th cent., however, Dt. (Deuteronomy 18:6-8) insists upon the right of every ‘Levite,’ i.e. of every member of the tribe, to officiate as priest, and draw the emoluments of the priesthood, if he but goes to reside at the central sanctuary2[207]: no doubt, however, the exclusiveness of the families established at Jerusalem placed difficulties in the way of this right being practically exercised: and in the end a sharp line of demarcation was drawn between those who were regarded as the full priestly members of the tribe, and those who did not succeed in securing this position: these latter are the ‘Levites’ in P’s sense of the term (cf. on Exodus 32:29), i.e. non-priestly members of the tribe. It is noticeable that, while Dt. represents the whole tribe as set apart by Jehovah for priestly functions (Exodus 10:8; cf. ibid.), in P Aaron and his sons are consecrated as priests solely in virtue of their own right: the ‘Levites’ (i.e. the other members of the tribe) are appointed to be their assistants for menial duties only afterwards, Numbers 3:5-39; Numbers 8:5-26. For two striking poetical descriptions of the high priest and his ministrations, see Sir 45:9-22 (Aaron), Sir 50:1-21 (Simon).

[206] Except Zadok (on 2 Samuel 8:17, see DB. s.v.), David’s sons (2 Samuel 8:18), a Ira (2 Samuel 20:26).

[207] Dr Orr (Problem of the O. T., p. 191 f.) endeavours in vain, by misunderstanding the plainest Heb. expressions, to escape this conclusion.

On the Ephod

The high priest’s Ephod, it is clear, was a decorated garment: but the position in which it was worn is not clearly stated; and though it has commonly been regarded as worn above the waist (like a waistcoat), Moore (EB. ii. 1308), Holz., and esp. E. Sellin in a paper on the ephod in Orient. Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet (1906), ii.701 f. (cf. Rashi on Exodus 28:4; Exodus 28:6), argue that it was worn below the waist, and was in fact a kind of apron (Moore), or short tightly-fitting skirt: the ‘band’ of the ephod, upon this view, was not at the bottom of the ephod, but at its top, the ephod being suspended from it; and the pouch (which was upon Aaron’s ‘heart’) was not upon the ephod, but likewise above it (‘al in v. 28 being rendered not ‘upon,’ but ‘above’). Sellin urges the terms of v. 27 f.; and it is certainly more natural to suppose that the straps ended at the top of the ephod, and that this was the place of the ‘juncture’ spoken of in v. 27, than that they were continued on the front, down each side, as the usual explanation requires. Still, neither this nor the other arguments adduced seem to be conclusive. It is true, the priests in Egypt wore round their loins short plain skirts (Erman, p. 296: for illustrations of such skirts, see pp. 59 (= 209), 62, 204, 205, 207, Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Phoen. ii. 11, 28, 31, 125, 129; cf. Maspero, i. 405, 468 f.): but this does not prove much; for we do not know that the idea of the high priest’s ephod was derived from Egypt. (In Perrot and Chipiez’s Egyptian Art, i. 247, 302, there are two figures wearing vest-like garments, reaching from the breasts nearly to the knees, with both a band round the waist, and shoulder-straps.)

As regards the notices of the ‘ephod,’ the earlier historical books mention (a) a linen ephod, with which Samuel and David are ‘girt,’ when performing sacred, if not priestly, offices—either a plain linen ‘waistcoat’ (cf. p. 300), or a short skirt girt about the waist (cf. the illustrations cited above); (b) an ephod ‘borne’ (not ‘worn’) by priests, valued by them as a distinctive possession (1 Samuel 2:28), and used in some way when Jehovah was consulted by means of the Urim and Thummim (1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 14:18 LXX. (see RVm.), Exodus 21:9, Exodus 22:18 [omit linen with LXX.: the ephod is here ‘borne’; see Kennedy’s note], Exodus 23:6; Exodus 23:9, Exodus 30:7); (c) the ‘ephod’ made by Gideon, Jdg 8:27; and (d) in conjunction with the oracular (Ezekiel 21:21) ‘teraphim,’ Jdg 17:5; Jdg 18:14; Jdg 18:17-18; Jdg 18:20, Hosea 3:4. In 1 Samuel 21:9, (c) and (d) ‘ephod’ has often been taken to be a plated image (cf. the cognate ’ăphuddâh, which clearly means the gold casing of an image in Isaiah 30:12): in 1 Samuel 14:3, &c. (b) it is clearly used in some way in obtaining an oracle, and the same is doubtless the case with (d), if not with (c). But though we thus learn the use to which the ephod is put, we do not learn what the ephod was. On the whole, however, it seems probable that at least in (b) and (d) the ephod was a more decorated garment than the ‘linen ephod’ (a), worn at this time by the priest in his ordinary ministrations, and was one specially put on by him, as a mark of respect, when consulting the oracle (Sellin, pp. 712, 716; cf. Livy, xxiii. 11). As years went on, the dress of the priests, and especially of the high priest, became more elaborate and ornate; and the high-priestly ephod, as described by P, will be the form which this vestment ultimately assumed. The sacred lots were kept in a pouch attached to the high priest’s ephod; it seems probable that this was already the case with the ephod mentioned in (b) and (d). This may explain why in (b) the ephod is spoken of, not as worn, but as ‘borne’: it was not regularly ‘worn’ by the priest; it was carried about by the priest from place to place, especially on a campaign, and only ‘brought near,’ and put on, when occasion required: it was not only a garment, but had also attached to it a receptacle for the sacred lots: it thus provided the means of consulting them; and to ‘bear,’ or carry, it was a highly prized prerogative of the priests (1 Samuel 2:28; 1 Samuel 22:18). See further DB. and EB. s.v., DB. iv. 840a, v. 641 f.; Kennedy, Sam. p. 49; Holz., with ill., pp. 135–9; Benzinger, Arch.2 347 f., 359 (a skirt); and esp. Sellin, as cited).

Ex 28:1-43.

APPOINTMENT TO THE PRIESTHOOD.

1. take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him--Moses had hitherto discharged the priestly functions

(Ps 99:6),

and he evinced the piety as well as humility of his character, in readily complying with the command to invest his brother with the sacred office, though it involved the perpetual exclusion of his own family. The appointment was a special act of God's sovereignty, so that there could be no ground for popular umbrage by the selection of Aaron's family, with whom the office was inalienably established and continued in unbroken succession till the introduction of the Christian era.

(Compare Exodus 39:1-31.) Moses is now commanded to commit all that pertains to the offerings made to the Lord in the sanctuary to the exclusive charge of the members of a single family, who were to hold their office from generation to generation. In the patriarchal times, the external rites of worship had generally been conducted by the head of the tribe or family, in accordance with the principle involved in the dedication of the firstborn Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:12-13. Moses, as the divinely-appointed and acknowledged leader of the nation, had, on a special occasion, appointed those who were to offer sacrifice, and had himself sprinkled the consecrating blood of the victims on the people Exodus 24:5-6, Exodus 24:8. On the completion of the tabernacle, after Aaron and his sons had been called to the priesthood, he took chief part in the daily service of the sanctuary Exodus 40:23-29, Exodus 40:31-32 until the consecration of the family of Aaron, on which occasion he appears to have exercised the priest's office for the last time (Leviticus 8:14-29; compare Exodus 29:10-26). The setting apart of the whole tribe of Levi for the entire cycle of religious services is mentioned Numbers 3:5-13; Numbers 8:5-26; Numbers 18:1-32.

Exodus 28:1

Nadab and Abihu, the two older sons of Aaron, had accompanied their father and the seventy Elders when they went a part of the way with Moses up the mountain Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:9. Soon after their consecration they were destroyed for offering "strange fire before the Lord" Leviticus 10:1-2. Eleazar and Ithamar are here mentioned for the first time, except in the genealogy, Exodus 6:23. Eleazar succeeded his father in the High priesthood, and was himself succeeded by his son Phinehas Judges 20:28. But Eli, the next high priest named in the history, was of the line of Ithamar. The representatives of both families held office at the same time in the days of David. See 1 Chronicles 24:1-3; 2 Samuel 8:17.

Aaron - and his sons - The priesthood was to be restrained to this family because the public worship was to be confined to one place; and previously to this the eldest in every family officiated as priest, there being no settled place of worship. It has been very properly observed that, if Moses had not acted by the Divine appointment, he would not have passed by his own family, which continued in the condition of ordinary Levites, and established the priesthood, the only dignity in the nation, in the family of his brother Aaron. "The priests, however, had no power of a secular nature, nor does it appear from history that they ever arrived at any till the time of the Asmoneans or Maccabees." See Clarke's note on Exodus 19:22.

And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him,.... Moses is bid to fetch or send for Aaron and his sons to him: or "cause" them to "draw near" (n) to him, and stand before him, that he might in the name of the Lord, and by his authority, distinguish and separate them

from among the children of Israel: and before them all invest them with the office of priesthood, as it follows:

that they may minister unto me in the priest's office, before this time every master of a family was a priest, and might and did offer sacrifice, and all the Israelites were a kingdom of priests; and Moses, as Aben Ezra calls him, was "a priest of priests"; but now it being enough for him to be the political ruler of the people, and the prophet of the Lord, the priestly office is bestowed on Aaron and his sons; nor might any afterwards officiate in it but such as were of his family; and a great honour this was that was conferred on him, and to which he was called of God, as in Hebrews 5:4 and it is greatly in the favour of Moses, and which shows him to be an upright and undesigning man, that sought not to aggrandize himself and his family; that though he had so much honour and power himself, he sought not to entail any upon his posterity. It is hinted in the latter part of the preceding chapter, that Aaron and his sons should minister in the sanctuary, and look after the candlestick, and its lamps; and here the design of God concerning them is more fully opened, which was, that they should be his peculiar ministers and servants in his house, to do all the business appertaining to it:

even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons: who were all the sons that Aaron had that we read of; though Aben Ezra thinks it probable that he might have other sons, and therefore the names of those are particularly mentioned, who were to be taken into the priest's office with him; the two first of these died very quickly after this, in a very awful manner, as the sacred story relates; and from the other two sprung all the priests that were in all successive generations.

(n) "appropinquare fac", Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus.