February 10, 2007
Breadcrumb: Equality of gift-giving
In Ex. 35:21-29, we read that the Israelites brought many gifts for the tabernacle and all its furniture. The text is quick to point out, however, that both men and women brought gifts (Ex. 35:22) We read that every skilled woman, specifically, brought spun linen and goat's hair. (Ex. 35:25-26) The leaders of the community, furthermore, brought precious stones, spices, and oil. Though there are many ways in which the Jewish community segregates men and women, at least when it comes to giving to God, everyone is apparently equal in the sight of the Lord.
February 09, 2007
Breadcrumb: Did Moses wear a Burka?
In Ex. 34:29-35, we read that once Moses came down from Mount Sinai, his face shone. Because of this somewhat unnatural phenomenon, Moses would wear a veil over his face when he spoke with the Israelites, only taking it off when he entered the tabernacle to speak with God. Could Jews have invented the Burka? Probably not, but at least we learn that veils are neither exclusively Muslim, nor exclusively for females. In fact, according to this passage, Moses wore a veil because he was so holy no one could bear to look at his face. It might be an attitude worth thinking about.
February 08, 2007
Exodus 33-35: The other ten commandments
Today's reading is Exodus 33-35 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers several encounters between Moses and God, including Moses' viewing of God's back; the text of the second two tablets; and the offerings the Hebrews gave for the tabernacle.
So, you think you know the ten commandments? If you don't, feel free to review what I wrote already or even the text itself: Ex. 20 (link to NIV). Reacquainted with the text of the two tablets? That's too bad, because you're wrong.
Instead, the text of the second set of tablets is set out in Ex. 34:12-26. There are, in fact, ten commandments, but I'll bet that you've never heard this set. Here's the list, paraphrased into my own words:
Ex. 34:27-28 informs us that these commandments, not the ones in Ex. 20, were inscribed on the two tablets. These, not the ones in Ex. 20, were the holy commandments for the Israelites. And, I'd wager, most fundamentalist Christians would strenuously object to these commandments on the walls of their courthouses and schools.
There are, of course, parallels between these commandments and the ones encountered previously in Exodus. Both argue against making idols, both command the observation of the Sabbath. It could even be argued that the first commandment of each list can be interpreted the same way: that the Hebrews should worship only God and no other gods.
But there the differences stop. This list contains commands the Israelites to worship the three main holidays, and Hannukah isn't among them. The three holidays at which the Hebrews are required to bring sacrifices to the house of God are Passover, Shavuout, and Sukkot. These were all harvest festivals, appropriately. At these times, the Hebrews would have a new batch of crops, and God required his share of them. However, my guess is that unless my readers have had a Jewish education or done study into the Jewish calendar, you probably have never heard of the latter two festivals, despite their importance.
This list of commandments is more highly focused on God's portion of the Hebrews' wealth. In addition to the sacrifices at the holidays listed above, it also notes that God receives the firstborn of every womb (though the human males must be redeemed and returned to their parents) and the first fruits of the land. It also gives instructions for how to administer the sacrifices: blood sacrifices must not be mixed with yeast ("leaven" in KJV). The final commandment is the beginning of Jewish dietary laws, and contains what many have interpreted as the proscription against eating meat and milk at the same meal.
I mentioned, in my analysis of the first ten commandments, that at least half of them (specifically, the latter half) were reasonable, universal laws that could be applied to almost any well-ordered society. The first five commandments, while not so universal, were still moderately so, and could be applied to many monotheistic societies. It is a list that, even if you are not Christian, you might be willing to accept (at least in part) on the wall of a courthouse.
This list has an entirely different feel. Gone are the universal laws not to murder, not to steal, not to covet the property of another. Gone are the proscriptions against bearing false witness. Instead, this set of commandments is much more tribal, much more cultural. These are laws specifically for the people who have made a covenant with God: their festivals, their dietary restrictions, the sacrificial requirements. The is not a general document; it is a highly specific one.
It is precisely these sorts of specific requirements, of which there are many more in Leviticus, that the early Christians turned away from. In fact, the earliest Christians were Jews, and likely obeyed all ten of these commandments in addition to the ones in Ex. 20. However, by the time of Saul of Tarsus, otherwise known as St. Paul, new Christians were no longer required to be Jews as well. Certainly by the turn of the first century after Christ's death, Christians could be gentiles. In many ways, the focus shifted to universal laws, such as the original ten commandments, away from the specific Jewish requirements, such as these. Many Christians today have no idea that such commandments even exist, let alone follow them.
Were the ten commandments universal laws that could be applied, in large part, to most societies, or were they specific, tribal rules for a specific ancient people? The answer, I suspect, lies largely in which set of commandments you choose to identify.
Today's passage covers several encounters between Moses and God, including Moses' viewing of God's back; the text of the second two tablets; and the offerings the Hebrews gave for the tabernacle.
So, you think you know the ten commandments? If you don't, feel free to review what I wrote already or even the text itself: Ex. 20 (link to NIV). Reacquainted with the text of the two tablets? That's too bad, because you're wrong.
Instead, the text of the second set of tablets is set out in Ex. 34:12-26. There are, in fact, ten commandments, but I'll bet that you've never heard this set. Here's the list, paraphrased into my own words:
- Do not make treaties with the people in the land you are going, lest you worship their gods. (Ex. 34:12-16)
- Do not make cast idols (Ex. 34:13)
- Keep the feast of unleavened bread (ie: Passover; Ex. 34:18)
- The first offspring of every womb belongs to God, both animals and men. Redeem all your sons. (Ex. 34:19-20)
- Do not work on the seventh day. (ie: the sabbath; Ex. 34:21)
- Celebrate the feast of weeks (ie: Shavouot; Ex. 34:22)
- Celebrate the feast of ingathering. (ie: Sukkot; Ex. 34:22) -- Between the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of weeks, and the feast of ingathering, all men must appear before the lord three times per year. (Ex. 34:23-24)
- Do not offer blood sacrifices with yeast, and do not let the Passover sacrifice remain until morning. (Ex. 34:25)
- Bring the first fruits of the land to the house of God. (Ex. 34:26)
- Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. (Ex. 34:26)
Ex. 34:27-28 informs us that these commandments, not the ones in Ex. 20, were inscribed on the two tablets. These, not the ones in Ex. 20, were the holy commandments for the Israelites. And, I'd wager, most fundamentalist Christians would strenuously object to these commandments on the walls of their courthouses and schools.
There are, of course, parallels between these commandments and the ones encountered previously in Exodus. Both argue against making idols, both command the observation of the Sabbath. It could even be argued that the first commandment of each list can be interpreted the same way: that the Hebrews should worship only God and no other gods.
But there the differences stop. This list contains commands the Israelites to worship the three main holidays, and Hannukah isn't among them. The three holidays at which the Hebrews are required to bring sacrifices to the house of God are Passover, Shavuout, and Sukkot. These were all harvest festivals, appropriately. At these times, the Hebrews would have a new batch of crops, and God required his share of them. However, my guess is that unless my readers have had a Jewish education or done study into the Jewish calendar, you probably have never heard of the latter two festivals, despite their importance.
This list of commandments is more highly focused on God's portion of the Hebrews' wealth. In addition to the sacrifices at the holidays listed above, it also notes that God receives the firstborn of every womb (though the human males must be redeemed and returned to their parents) and the first fruits of the land. It also gives instructions for how to administer the sacrifices: blood sacrifices must not be mixed with yeast ("leaven" in KJV). The final commandment is the beginning of Jewish dietary laws, and contains what many have interpreted as the proscription against eating meat and milk at the same meal.
I mentioned, in my analysis of the first ten commandments, that at least half of them (specifically, the latter half) were reasonable, universal laws that could be applied to almost any well-ordered society. The first five commandments, while not so universal, were still moderately so, and could be applied to many monotheistic societies. It is a list that, even if you are not Christian, you might be willing to accept (at least in part) on the wall of a courthouse.
This list has an entirely different feel. Gone are the universal laws not to murder, not to steal, not to covet the property of another. Gone are the proscriptions against bearing false witness. Instead, this set of commandments is much more tribal, much more cultural. These are laws specifically for the people who have made a covenant with God: their festivals, their dietary restrictions, the sacrificial requirements. The is not a general document; it is a highly specific one.
It is precisely these sorts of specific requirements, of which there are many more in Leviticus, that the early Christians turned away from. In fact, the earliest Christians were Jews, and likely obeyed all ten of these commandments in addition to the ones in Ex. 20. However, by the time of Saul of Tarsus, otherwise known as St. Paul, new Christians were no longer required to be Jews as well. Certainly by the turn of the first century after Christ's death, Christians could be gentiles. In many ways, the focus shifted to universal laws, such as the original ten commandments, away from the specific Jewish requirements, such as these. Many Christians today have no idea that such commandments even exist, let alone follow them.
Were the ten commandments universal laws that could be applied, in large part, to most societies, or were they specific, tribal rules for a specific ancient people? The answer, I suspect, lies largely in which set of commandments you choose to identify.
February 07, 2007
Breadcrumb: Now that's a recommendation!
In Ex. 31:1-11, God appoints Bezaleel to be the chief craftsman for all the work the Israelites are about to undertake, assisted by Aholiab. Their job will be to build the tabernacle, its furniture, the clothing for the priests, the oils and incense, and everything else needed for the most holy place in the Israelite camp. They need to be carpenters, metal-smiths, tailors, embroiderers, and gem-cutters, among other things. It's a huge load for two people, even if they delegated. But you'd better believe that once they were done building the tabernacle, they'd never be out of work.
February 06, 2007
Breadcrumb: What are the chances?
In discussing the anointing oil and incense, God give the Israelites very specific instructions for how they should be made. (Ex. 30:23-25, 30:34-36) However, he also tells them that no one may use these oils or incense for anything other than their appointed holy tasks, at the risk of being "cut off from his people." (Ex. 30:32-33, 30:37-38) Given the specific instructions, I'm surprised there aren't new age shops offering "authentic" supplies of holy anointing oil and holy incense. Or perhaps there are, and I'm unobservant. Let's just hope the new age mystics aren't Jewish.
February 05, 2007
Exodus 30-32: Going for gold
Today's reading is Exodus 30-32 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers instructions for the altar of incense and washing basin, formulas and instructions for anointing oil and incense, the Bible's first head tax, God's choice of Bezaleel and Aholiab to be the craftsmen, more laws for the Sabbath, and the incident of the golden calf.
The "golden calf" episode has been featured in a number of movies, most notably The Ten Commandments, but also satirically in the Kevin Smith movie Dogma. The message, most cursory believers will be quick to tell you, is not to worship false idols but instead to believe only in God.
But, as with so many Biblical stories, the lesson runs deeper when you start to interpret the complexities of the story. Let us, therefore, take a moment to summarize the events contained within Ex. 32:
So, what does this episode teach us, other than the glib, "don't worship idols"?
First, we need to ask ourselves about Aaron's role in all this. Aaron, it seems doesn't argue at all when the Israelites ask him to make them a new god. There is not a single verse between their request (Ex. 32:1) and Aaron's reply to give him their gold (Ex. 32:2). It is Aaron, not the Hebrews, who declare a feast day to the new god. At least from this perspective, it seems that Aaron was wholly taken up with the new worship.
Yet there are indications that Aaron may not have been so enthusiastic as he might appear. Ex. 32:25 tells us "Aaron had made [the people] naked unto their shame among their enemies." (KJV) In other words, Aaron deliberately made the worshippers vulnerable to anyone who might attack them. Furthermore, Aaron may have been telling the truth when he told Moses that the people pressured him into building the new god (Ex. 32:22-24). After all, God does not revoke Aaron's status as high priest, holiest of men among the Israelites. This may be an indication that there is more argument taking place "behind the text."
But let us move for a moment from Aaron to the rest of the people. If we believe Aaron when he says the people pressured him into making the calf, we need to ask ourselves, "why?" The Hebrews were sitting directly underneath the mountain of God. Mere chapters earlier, they had agreed to follow God's commandments and to keep his covenant (Ex. 24). Presumably, God was still raining down manna and quail, as we have no indication of the Israelites starving. So why, with all these outward signs that their god was a true, present, immediate force, did the Hebrews choose to build a new god?
One answer might lie in the surrounding religions of the ancient Mediterranean. Egypt was a polytheist society: it worshipped many gods. Furthermore, many of these gods had human or at least semi-human shape. The Mesopotamians also had an anthropomorphic religion, as did the Minoans on the island of Crete. With so many polytheistic religions nearby, it must have been surprisingly difficult for the Israelites to say, "our God can't be represented by painting or sculpture. He has no name and no mythic story. He did not come into being, but always existed." To the Hebrews, so recently immersed in Egyptian culture, this must have seemed the height of foolishness, no matter what the evidence at hand indicated.
Furthermore, the Israelites would have had no idea how to worship such a god. They understood how to worship statues and idols: pray before them, offer them food and sacrifices, clothe them in expensive clothes and jewellery, and so forth. It would have been far easier for them to return to their comfort zone of worship, as it were. If they could not offer God the proper worship, at least they could create a god for themselves and worship him properly.
Finally, God was temperamental. Certainly, he told the Hebrews that if they followed his laws, they would live long, prosperous lives. But they were difficult laws, and when the Hebrews didn't follow them, God was liable to murder them all, as he had the antediluvians, the people of Sodom and Gemorrah, or the Egyptian firstborn. Though it had seemed like a good idea at the time to agree to a covenant with this god, perhaps in retrospect the Hebrews realized it might not have been such a good idea after all. According to Jewish folklore, God asked all the other cultures of the region to be his chosen people, and each of them rejected him. It was only the Hebrews who finally agreed. Perhaps, in making the golden calf, the Hebrews realized that the other nations might have had a valid point in their rejections.
Unfortunately, the Hebrews had already committed themselves, and were forced to pay the price: slaughter and plague. In the end, therefore, what do we learn from this incident? If you're going to make a decision, stick to it. And if you're going to go back on your deal, make sure you have a convenient scapegoat.
Today's passage covers instructions for the altar of incense and washing basin, formulas and instructions for anointing oil and incense, the Bible's first head tax, God's choice of Bezaleel and Aholiab to be the craftsmen, more laws for the Sabbath, and the incident of the golden calf.
The "golden calf" episode has been featured in a number of movies, most notably The Ten Commandments, but also satirically in the Kevin Smith movie Dogma. The message, most cursory believers will be quick to tell you, is not to worship false idols but instead to believe only in God.
But, as with so many Biblical stories, the lesson runs deeper when you start to interpret the complexities of the story. Let us, therefore, take a moment to summarize the events contained within Ex. 32:
The Hebrews, worried that Moses has not yet come down from Mount Sinai, ask Aaron to make them gods. Aaron, with nary a hint of argument, tells them to break off their earrings and give him the resulting gold, which he uses to fashion a golden calf. He builds an altar before it and declares the next day a feast to this new god. People wake up, give it offerings, and pray to it.
Meanwhile, God knows full well what the Israelites have done. He nearly destroys them all, except for a quick intervention by Moses, who tells God that if he destroys the Israelites now, the Egyptians will mock him (God). Instead, God gives Moses two tablets of laws and sends him down with Joshua to deal with the people.
Moses, when he sees what has happened, gets just as angry as God was, smashes the tablets, burns the calf, and makes the Israelites drink the resulting ashes with water. He also pulls aside Aaron and asks, essentially, "what the hell were you thinking?" Aaron deftly shifts the blame to the Hebrews, calling them "set on mischief." Curiously, he seems to imply that the calf simply created itself out of the fire, as opposed to being the product of Aaron's own handiwork. (Ex. 32:24)
Moses calls forth all those "on the LORD's side" -- the Levites -- who go forth and slaughter three thousand men who had worshipped the golden calf. Moses goes back up to the mountain to try to reason with God, while God curses the Israelites with a plague for what they had done.
So, what does this episode teach us, other than the glib, "don't worship idols"?
First, we need to ask ourselves about Aaron's role in all this. Aaron, it seems doesn't argue at all when the Israelites ask him to make them a new god. There is not a single verse between their request (Ex. 32:1) and Aaron's reply to give him their gold (Ex. 32:2). It is Aaron, not the Hebrews, who declare a feast day to the new god. At least from this perspective, it seems that Aaron was wholly taken up with the new worship.
Yet there are indications that Aaron may not have been so enthusiastic as he might appear. Ex. 32:25 tells us "Aaron had made [the people] naked unto their shame among their enemies." (KJV) In other words, Aaron deliberately made the worshippers vulnerable to anyone who might attack them. Furthermore, Aaron may have been telling the truth when he told Moses that the people pressured him into building the new god (Ex. 32:22-24). After all, God does not revoke Aaron's status as high priest, holiest of men among the Israelites. This may be an indication that there is more argument taking place "behind the text."
But let us move for a moment from Aaron to the rest of the people. If we believe Aaron when he says the people pressured him into making the calf, we need to ask ourselves, "why?" The Hebrews were sitting directly underneath the mountain of God. Mere chapters earlier, they had agreed to follow God's commandments and to keep his covenant (Ex. 24). Presumably, God was still raining down manna and quail, as we have no indication of the Israelites starving. So why, with all these outward signs that their god was a true, present, immediate force, did the Hebrews choose to build a new god?
One answer might lie in the surrounding religions of the ancient Mediterranean. Egypt was a polytheist society: it worshipped many gods. Furthermore, many of these gods had human or at least semi-human shape. The Mesopotamians also had an anthropomorphic religion, as did the Minoans on the island of Crete. With so many polytheistic religions nearby, it must have been surprisingly difficult for the Israelites to say, "our God can't be represented by painting or sculpture. He has no name and no mythic story. He did not come into being, but always existed." To the Hebrews, so recently immersed in Egyptian culture, this must have seemed the height of foolishness, no matter what the evidence at hand indicated.
Furthermore, the Israelites would have had no idea how to worship such a god. They understood how to worship statues and idols: pray before them, offer them food and sacrifices, clothe them in expensive clothes and jewellery, and so forth. It would have been far easier for them to return to their comfort zone of worship, as it were. If they could not offer God the proper worship, at least they could create a god for themselves and worship him properly.
Finally, God was temperamental. Certainly, he told the Hebrews that if they followed his laws, they would live long, prosperous lives. But they were difficult laws, and when the Hebrews didn't follow them, God was liable to murder them all, as he had the antediluvians, the people of Sodom and Gemorrah, or the Egyptian firstborn. Though it had seemed like a good idea at the time to agree to a covenant with this god, perhaps in retrospect the Hebrews realized it might not have been such a good idea after all. According to Jewish folklore, God asked all the other cultures of the region to be his chosen people, and each of them rejected him. It was only the Hebrews who finally agreed. Perhaps, in making the golden calf, the Hebrews realized that the other nations might have had a valid point in their rejections.
Unfortunately, the Hebrews had already committed themselves, and were forced to pay the price: slaughter and plague. In the end, therefore, what do we learn from this incident? If you're going to make a decision, stick to it. And if you're going to go back on your deal, make sure you have a convenient scapegoat.
February 04, 2007
Breadcrumb: Win-win situation
As part of the consecration ceremony, the Israelites must agree to sacrifice two lambs a day, one on the morning and one in the evening, every day. In addition to the lambs, they must also sacrifice flour, oil, and wine. (Ex. 29:38-42) This provided both a spiritual and a practical purpose. Spiritually, the Israelites were appeasing God and maintaining their connection to their deity. Practically, this was giving the priests something to eat, as only priests could eat of the offerings. The Israelites stay in God's good graces, and the priests don't die of starvation: everybody wins!
February 03, 2007
Breadcrumb: Urim and Thummim?
As part of the description of the breastplate, Ex. 28:30 reads as follows in the NIV: "Also put Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece, so that they may be over Aaron's heart whenever he enters the presence of the LORD. Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the LORD." (In the KJV: "the Urim and the Thummim" -- my emphasis)
What are these things, Urim and Thummim? There is no further description of them in this chapter. In Number 27, Joshua inquires of the Urim before the Lord when making decisions. In 1 Sam. 28, Saul tries to receive an answer from God via dreams, prophets, or the Urim. They appear a few other times in scripture (listed in Biblegateway.com). But we actually know almost nothing about them. Given the emphasis on the other aspects of Aaron's clothing, this mystery is all the more baffling.
What are these things, Urim and Thummim? There is no further description of them in this chapter. In Number 27, Joshua inquires of the Urim before the Lord when making decisions. In 1 Sam. 28, Saul tries to receive an answer from God via dreams, prophets, or the Urim. They appear a few other times in scripture (listed in Biblegateway.com). But we actually know almost nothing about them. Given the emphasis on the other aspects of Aaron's clothing, this mystery is all the more baffling.
February 02, 2007
Exodus 28-29: Clothes make the man
Today's reading is Exodus 28-29 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers very specific instructions for the construction of priestly garments for Aaron and his sons (namely: the ephod, breastplate, robe, mitre, tunic, girdle, and breeches), and the ceremony involved in consecrating them as priests.
If you watch many movies, you may occasionally see an "armouring up" scene. This may be literally a scene where a warrior puts on his armour in preparation for battle, it may be James Bond putting on his suit for the final poker game in high-stakes espionage, or it may be the romantic female lead getting dressed up to seduce the romantic male lead. General, these scenes come just before the final conflict of the movie. They tend to show a series of close-ups in which the protagonist puts on each piece of clothing, especially if this involves small adjustments: buttoning buttons, tying up laces, straightening ties, etc. Often the scenes are shot in slow-motion. And, once each individual piece is in place, there is the final reveal of the character in full regalia (whatever that might be), ready to take on the world.
It is not a coincidence that so many movies contain scenes of this nature. Clothes have special significance, especially clothes used only for specific purposes. Uniforms, whether defined strictly or more loosely to include things like "a little black dress," give signals to both the wearer and the onlookers. They say, "I am prepared for something. I am ready. I am special." To the wearer, the special clothing signals a change in their state of mind. To the watchers, they demonstrate that the wearer is in a special class, designated for a special task not given to the general populace.
It is therefore interesting to see what types of clothing Aaron, as high priest of the Israelites, was instructed to wear. Like the description of the tabernacle, described in the last essay, the instructions for Aaraon's clothes are detailed and precise. They include materials, colours, decorative elements, and patterns. Nothing is left unsaid.
As a brief summary, Aaron's clothing as high priest include:
At a glance, we see that the materials used in Aaron's garments are very expensive. The fourteen gemstones used in these garments, the dyes, the gold, and even the materials were all highly costly in the ancient Mediterranean. This is not surprising. As high priest, Aaron had arguably the most important position among the Hebrews after Moses. Costly materials would be expected for a man in his position.
More important is that his clothes symbolize his connection with the entire community of Israelites. Aaron wears the names of all the Israelite tribes not once, but twice: first, on the onyx stones on his shoulders, and second on the gemstones on his breastplate. In fact, Ex. 28:12 reads, in part: "...and Aaron shall bear their names before the LORD upon his two shoulders for a memorial." (KJV) By wearing the names of the Israelite tribes when he goes before God, Aaron is symbolically representing the entire people. Though only the high priest may stand before the ark of the covenant, he nonetheless represents all the Hebrews when he does so.
Another interesting feature of the clothing is the plate attached to the front of his turban (or "mitre"). The instructions say that Aaron must never remove it. Ex. 28:38 reads as follows in the NIV: "It will be on Aaron's forehead, and he will bear the guilt involved in the sacred gifts the Israelites consecrate, whatever their gifts may be. It will be on Aaron's forehead continually so that they will be acceptable to the LORD."
Let us pause for a moment to consider this passage. In a situation strikingly similar to the New Testament, Aaron bears all the guilt of the Hebrews' sacrificial offerings, so that these offerings may be accepted by God. Aaron, high priest of the Israelites and presumably the purest member of their community, must bear the guilt of their offerings before God. The parallels to Jesus -- equally pure and equally guilt-bearing -- are evident.
One more note about the clothing before passing on to more dramatic parts of the narrative (I hope): Ex. 29 is a description of the consecration ceremony for Aaron and his sons. The first part of the ceremony involves dressing them in the priestly garments, as we might expect. (Ex. 29:5-9) Later in the ceremony, they -- both men and clothing -- are consecrated by being sprinkled with blood. (Ex. 29:21) Given that these clothes are supposed to pass through the generations of priests (Ex. 29:29-30), we have to wonder about this first official wearing. As most people find out at one point or another, blood stains are notoriously difficult to remove from clothing. Are Aaron and his sons supposed to wear perpetually blood-stained clothing, or did the Hebrews' have miracle stain remover in the desert, along with all the other paraphernalia they brought out of Egypt? We may never know.
Today's passage covers very specific instructions for the construction of priestly garments for Aaron and his sons (namely: the ephod, breastplate, robe, mitre, tunic, girdle, and breeches), and the ceremony involved in consecrating them as priests.
If you watch many movies, you may occasionally see an "armouring up" scene. This may be literally a scene where a warrior puts on his armour in preparation for battle, it may be James Bond putting on his suit for the final poker game in high-stakes espionage, or it may be the romantic female lead getting dressed up to seduce the romantic male lead. General, these scenes come just before the final conflict of the movie. They tend to show a series of close-ups in which the protagonist puts on each piece of clothing, especially if this involves small adjustments: buttoning buttons, tying up laces, straightening ties, etc. Often the scenes are shot in slow-motion. And, once each individual piece is in place, there is the final reveal of the character in full regalia (whatever that might be), ready to take on the world.
It is not a coincidence that so many movies contain scenes of this nature. Clothes have special significance, especially clothes used only for specific purposes. Uniforms, whether defined strictly or more loosely to include things like "a little black dress," give signals to both the wearer and the onlookers. They say, "I am prepared for something. I am ready. I am special." To the wearer, the special clothing signals a change in their state of mind. To the watchers, they demonstrate that the wearer is in a special class, designated for a special task not given to the general populace.
It is therefore interesting to see what types of clothing Aaron, as high priest of the Israelites, was instructed to wear. Like the description of the tabernacle, described in the last essay, the instructions for Aaraon's clothes are detailed and precise. They include materials, colours, decorative elements, and patterns. Nothing is left unsaid.
As a brief summary, Aaron's clothing as high priest include:
- Linen breeches (underwear). Ex. 28:42
- A woven linen tunic. Ex. 28:39
- A blue linen robe, with a woven collar, and decorated with blue, purple, and scarlet pomegranates around the hem alternated with gold bells. Ex. 28:31-35
- A linen ephod (an apronlike garment), in gold, blue, purple, and scarlet, fastened at the shoulders with two onyx stones, each bearing the name of 6 of the 12 sons of Jacob (ie: the 12 tribes). Ex. 28:6-14
- A square linen breastplate, also in gold, blue, purple, and scarlet, bearing 12 precious stones each engraved with the name of one of the sons of Jacob, and attached to the ephod by golden chains and blue cord running through six golden rings on its sides. Ex. 28:15-30
- An embroidered linen sash or girdle to tie the ephod. Ex. 28:39
- A linen turban (or "mitre"), with a golden plate reading "HOLY TO THE LORD" (NIV) attached to the front with blue cord. Ex. 28:36-38
At a glance, we see that the materials used in Aaron's garments are very expensive. The fourteen gemstones used in these garments, the dyes, the gold, and even the materials were all highly costly in the ancient Mediterranean. This is not surprising. As high priest, Aaron had arguably the most important position among the Hebrews after Moses. Costly materials would be expected for a man in his position.
More important is that his clothes symbolize his connection with the entire community of Israelites. Aaron wears the names of all the Israelite tribes not once, but twice: first, on the onyx stones on his shoulders, and second on the gemstones on his breastplate. In fact, Ex. 28:12 reads, in part: "...and Aaron shall bear their names before the LORD upon his two shoulders for a memorial." (KJV) By wearing the names of the Israelite tribes when he goes before God, Aaron is symbolically representing the entire people. Though only the high priest may stand before the ark of the covenant, he nonetheless represents all the Hebrews when he does so.
Another interesting feature of the clothing is the plate attached to the front of his turban (or "mitre"). The instructions say that Aaron must never remove it. Ex. 28:38 reads as follows in the NIV: "It will be on Aaron's forehead, and he will bear the guilt involved in the sacred gifts the Israelites consecrate, whatever their gifts may be. It will be on Aaron's forehead continually so that they will be acceptable to the LORD."
Let us pause for a moment to consider this passage. In a situation strikingly similar to the New Testament, Aaron bears all the guilt of the Hebrews' sacrificial offerings, so that these offerings may be accepted by God. Aaron, high priest of the Israelites and presumably the purest member of their community, must bear the guilt of their offerings before God. The parallels to Jesus -- equally pure and equally guilt-bearing -- are evident.
One more note about the clothing before passing on to more dramatic parts of the narrative (I hope): Ex. 29 is a description of the consecration ceremony for Aaron and his sons. The first part of the ceremony involves dressing them in the priestly garments, as we might expect. (Ex. 29:5-9) Later in the ceremony, they -- both men and clothing -- are consecrated by being sprinkled with blood. (Ex. 29:21) Given that these clothes are supposed to pass through the generations of priests (Ex. 29:29-30), we have to wonder about this first official wearing. As most people find out at one point or another, blood stains are notoriously difficult to remove from clothing. Are Aaron and his sons supposed to wear perpetually blood-stained clothing, or did the Hebrews' have miracle stain remover in the desert, along with all the other paraphernalia they brought out of Egypt? We may never know.
February 01, 2007
Breadcrumb: Almonds?
The menorah in the tabernacle was to be designed with decorations shaped like almonds, along with their buds and flowers. Why almonds? Two explanations are generally given: first, the almond was the first fruit to blossom in the springtime, which leads to a correspondence between the almond-decorated menorah and the spring (some would say the spring of knowledge or wisdom). Second, in Numbers 17:1-8, Aaron plants his staff in front of the tabernacle, and when he returns the next day, it has bloomed and produced almonds. This seems to be an after-the-fact justification, but it is a common one nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)