Exodus 30

This chapter is of unusual importance, detailing the instructions for the golden altar of incense (Exodus 30:1-10); the institution of the poll-tax for the ransom of souls (Exodus 30:11-16); the command for making a bronze laver (Exodus 30:17-21) the formula for making the holy oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-33); and the recipe for making the holy incense (Exodus 30:34-38).

Efforts of critics to downgrade this chapter by making it a late addition to the instructions in Exodus 25, when examined carefully, are altogether ridiculous and unreasonable. Of course, it is true that Bible students in all ages have wondered why these particular instructions occur just here instead of in the context (Exodus 25), where it usually seems to men that they would have been more logically included.

Whether Moses made the omissions in writing his record, and afterward supplied them in this chapter, or whether Divine Wisdom saw fit to give the instructions in the order in which we now have them, cannot be determined. Certainly no sufficient reason has been shown for the existing order, which hence appears accidental.[1]

The fact which demands attention here is that God's arrangement of the instructions here is different from the plan which men would have followed. As Fields put it, "We are NOT finding fault with the order in which God's Word presents this material. We are just stating a fact."[2] That men are totally unable to give a reasonable explanation of this curiosity is apparent in the vain efforts of those who have attempted to do so.

1. As should have been expected, the knee-jerk response of Bible critics is that of denying the Divine authority of the passage, as well as its Mosaic authorship, and labeling it a production of the priesthood of Israel almost a millennium after Moses: "These (instructions) may have come from a time chronologically later than the material cited in previous chapters, likely as late as the exile."[3] Such a view is impossible to receive! It is obvious to any thoughtful person that if the Jewish priesthood had authored this chapter after the Babylonian exile and inserted it into the holy writings of Moses, they would most certainly have put it in Exodus 25, where human wisdom would most certainly have required them to place it. As Fields expressed it, "If this chapter really were a late addition, the editors would probably have stuck it into the narrative at a point where it would appear to fit more naturally."[4] Our own view is that PROBABLY is too weak a word in Field's statement. It is not that such "editors" would probably have placed it elsewhere; they would unquestionably have done so!

2. Keil supposed that the altar of incense and the laver mentioned in this chapter are thus mentioned last because of their secondary and supplementary status. Of the altar of incense, he said, "The incense offering (on the golden altar) was not only a spiritualizing and transfiguring of the burnt-offering, but a completion of that offering also"; and of the laver, he said, "The making of this vessel is not only mentioned in a supplementary manner, but no description is given of it because of the subordinate position which it occupied."[5] Such an explanation as this falls far short of being satisfactory. As a matter of fact, the golden altar of incense must be ranked first among the articles of furniture in the Holy Place due to its placement near the veil, entitling it actually to be associated with the Holy of Holies as in Hebrews 9:4. Also, the laver, despite its location in the outer court was a most essential requirement in the ordination of the priests and in the ceremonies marking the Day of Atonement, bearing a most important weight of symbolism as a type of Christian baptism. See Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22, etc. No! The placement of this chapter did not derive from any lesser importance of the instructions given.

3. Still another irresponsible suggestion as to the reason for this chapter's unusual placement is seen in the notion that it was a late addition to Exodus, and that it was written after the construction of the second temple which is alleged to be the occasion when the altar of incense was "added" to the Jewish services. "An altar of incense was probably introduced in the second temple ... Hence, we find it in this supplementary section."[6] Such an allegation is unacceptable because the inspired author of Hebrews stated categorically that there was a golden altar of incense in the tabernacle (Hebrews 9:4). The account of the high priest's actions on the day of atonement is alleged not to mention this altar specifically; but a careful reading of the passage requires that "the altar before Jehovah" in Leviticus 16:12 be understood as a reference precisely to this altar and none other. The false idea that the high priest took the coals of fire in his censor from "the great altar"[7] in the court could not be correct, for in no sense was it "the altar before Jehovah." Some scholars have also complained that the "horns" on this altar had no meaning, since sacrifices were not burned upon it; but there are two valid reasons for the horns: (1) They were symbols of power, and nothing in heaven or on earth was ever stronger than prayer; (2) Also, on the day of atonement, the high priest placed the blood of the atoning sacrifices upon the horns of the altar in order to cleanse it from the pollutions inherent in the fact that human beings had used it!

4. One other critical allegation should be noted. Dummelow complained that the directions for placing this golden altar "are apparently self-contradictory."[8] He based that astounding conclusion on the fact that Exodus 30:6 states that it was to be placed "before the veil, and also before the mercy-seat."[9] The error of such a remark is inherent in the truth that anything placed in front of the veil would, of necessity, also have been in front of the ark, in front of the testimony, and in front of the mercy-seat. It is amazing that a scholar like Dummelow should have overlooked so simple a thing as that. Perhaps the mention of the mercy-seat here is to emphasize the reason for the placement of the golden altar, symbolizing the prayers of the faithful, which are always directed to the presence of God, symbolized by the mercy-seat. Only a curtain separated the altar from the mercy-seat. Furthermore, the symbolism of this placement is instructive even for the present era. Today, when men pray, they cannot see God, for the veil of death lies between. But just as the ancient worshipper at that golden altar offered incense toward a mercy-seat that he could not see, so it is today. "Thus this altar occupied a significant position, outside the Holy of Holies, or else it would have been practically inaccessible; but yet it was spiritually in the closest connection with the presence of God within."[10]