The Brazen Serpent and the Golden Cherubim Were Not Violations of the Second Commandment. Their Meaning.

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 exhibition ²⁹⁶³ of a latent ²⁹⁶⁴ 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 pretext ²⁹⁶⁵ 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 fashion ²⁹⁶⁸ 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 with ²⁹⁶⁹ this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form ²⁹⁷⁰ of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. We have spoken ²⁹⁷¹ 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 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 homage ²⁹⁷⁵ 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 dishonour ²⁹⁷⁶ to the rich man and the king; or will the consideration ²⁹⁷⁷ 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 performed ²⁹⁷⁹ 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.

Footnotes

314:2963

Substantiam.

314:2964

Cæcæ.

314:2965

Titulum. [See Vol. II. p. 477, this series.]

314:2966

Num. 21:8, 9.

314:2967

See John iii. 14.

314:2968

Exemplum.

314:2969

Refragari.

314:2970

Statu.

314:2971

In chap. xviii. towards the end. [p. 311, supra.]

314:2972

Isa. i. 11.

314:2973

Ps. l. 13.

314:2974

An inexact quotation of Isa. 40:0, Isa. 28:0.

314:2975

Honorem.

314:2976

Infuscabit.

314:2977

Titulus.

314:2978

See Isa. i. 11-14.

314:2979

Fecerat seems the better reading: q.d. “which he had performed,” etc. Oehler reads fecerant.