Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Brazen Serpent and the Golden Cherubim Were Not Violations of the Second Commandment. Their Meaning.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
XXII.—The Brazen Serpent and the Golden Cherubim Were Not
Violations of the Second Commandment. Their Meaning.
Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be
made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the
waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all
material exhibition2963
of a
latent2964
idolatry. For He
adds: “Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them.”
The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards
commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext2965
| 2965 Titulum. [See Vol. II.
p. 477, this series.] |
for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with
the fiery serpents.2966
I say nothing of
what was figured by this cure.2967
Thus, too, the
golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured
fashion2968
of the ark; adapted
to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of
idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and
they are evidently not at variance with2969
this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that
form2970
of similitude, in reference to which the
prohibition is given. We have spoken2971
| 2971 In chap. xviii.
towards the end. [p. 311, supra.] | of the
rational institution of the sacrifices, as calling off their homage
from idols to God; and if He afterwards rejected this homage, saying,
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto
me?”2972
—He meant
nothing else than this to be understood, that He had never really
required such homage for Himself. For He says, “I will not eat
the flesh of bulls;”2973
and in another
passage: “The everlasting God shall neither hunger nor
thirst.”2974
| 2974 An inexact quotation
of Isa. xl .28. | Although He had
respect to the offerings of Abel, and smelled a sweet savour from the
holocaust of Noah, yet what pleasure could He receive from the flesh of
sheep, or the odour of burning victims? And yet the simple and
God-fearing mind of those who offered what they were receiving from
God, both in the way of food and of a sweet smell, was favourably
accepted before God, in the sense of respectful homage2975
to God, who did not so much want what was
offered, as that which prompted the offering. Suppose now, that some
dependant were to offer to a rich man or a king, who was in want of
nothing, some very insignificant gift, will the amount and quality of
the gift bring dishonour2976
to the rich man and
the king; or will the consideration2977
of the homage
give them pleasure? Were, however, the dependant, either of his own
accord or even in compliance with a command, to present to him gifts
suitably to his rank, and were he to observe the solemnities due to a
king, only without faith and purity of heart, and without any readiness
for other acts of obedience, will not that king or rich man
consequently exclaim: “To what purpose is the multitude of your
sacrifices unto me? I am full of your solemnities, your feast-days, and
your Sabbaths.”2978
By calling them
yours, as having been performed2979
| 2979 Fecerat
seems the better reading: q.d. “which he had
performed,” etc. Oehler reads fecerant. |
after the giver’s own will, and not according to the religion of
God (since he displayed them as his own, and not as God’s),
the Almighty in this passage, demonstrated how suitable to the
conditions of the case, and how reasonable, was His rejection of those
very offerings which He had commanded to be made to
Him.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
