And thou shalt make an altar of shittim wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be foursquare: and the height thereof shall be three cubits. And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof: his horns shall be of the same: and thou shalt overlay it with brass. And thou shalt make his pans to receive his ashes, and his shovels, and his basons, and his fleshhooks, and his firepans: all the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass. And thou shalt make for it a grate of network of brass; and upon the net shalt thou make four brasen rings in the four corners thereof. And thou shalt put it under the compass of the altar beneath, that the net may be even to the midst of the altar. And thou shalt make staves for the altar, staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with brass. And the staves shall be put into the rings, and the staves shall be upon the two sides of the altar, to bear it. Hollow with boards shalt thou make it: as it was shewed thee in the mount, so shall they make it.” (Exod. 27:1-8)

“The ‘Brazen Altar’ was made of copper to represent the perfect humanity of the man Christ Jesus who as the lamb of God (John 1:29,36) gave himself a ransom for all (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:5,6); and thus this ‘Altar’ in a particular sense represents also the ransom sacrifice itself.” (T22)

“The brazen altar represented primarily the perfection of the man Christ Jesus, upon which his offering was accepted of God, as our sin atonement, sanctifying in turn any offering of others that might be presented upon it.” (R3053:6)

“We eat of this flesh of our altar. ‘Except a man eat of my flesh and drink my blood he shall have no life in him.’ (John 6:53) He was speaking to the Church … What does he mean by talking about eating his flesh? When we come to understand the real meaning, as we may now during this Gospel age, it is that his flesh represented his sacrifice which he gave for us, and which he finished at Calvary, and you partake of it, you eat it, you feed upon that which Christ sacrificed, you feed upon the merit of Christ’s sacrifice, and you appropriate it to yourself; you have justification through faith in him, you have eaten of that flesh; you have partaken of that which he sacrificed for us. So have I. And in this way we have justification to life. This is the picture and the meaning of it as you and I come to see it through God’s Word.” (Q703)

“Copper can endure a high degree of heat. Its melting point is about 1982 degrees. … Brass was not known and therefore not used at the time of Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Brass is a mixture of metals, but God did not allow such mixture. (See Deut. 22:9-11) Then too, brass has a comparatively low melting point and would not be practical for the Altar of Burnt-Offering, where the fire was kept burning continually. (See Lev. 6:12,13)” (Chambers, Tabernacle Studies Illustrated, p. 92)

“Brass occurs in the Auth. Vers. of the O.T. as the rendering of necho’sheth (i.e. the shining), and other kindred forms, but doubtless inaccurately, as brass is a factitious metal and the Hebrews were not acquainted with the compound of copper and zinc known by that name. In most places of the O.T. the correct translation would be copper.” (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia, v. 1, “Brass”)

“The word nechosheth is improperly translated by ‘brass’ since the Hebrews were not acquainted with the compound of copper and zinc known by that name. In most places of the O.T. the correct translation would be copper, although it may sometimes mean ‘bronze’ a compound of copper and tin. Indeed a simple metal was obviously intended, as we see from Deut. 8:9, 33:25, and Job 28:2. Copper was known at a very early period and the invention of working it is attributed to Tubal-cain. (Gen. 4:22)” (Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, “Brass”)

This altar stood just inside the gate within the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, making it necessary for anyone who would approach the dwelling place of Jehovah, first to pass it, thus figuratively setting forth the fact that none can have communion with God except he first recognize and appreciate the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

Thus the altar as well as the sacrifice offered upon it, represented Christ. But the typical priests failed to fully appreciate their altar’s true significance as pointing to Jesus, else when the time came, they might have accepted him as their true “altar.” Their failure so to do has excluded them from being partakers of this superior altar. Accordingly the Apostle Paul declares that “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” (Heb. 13:10)

Figure 21: Dimensions of the Furniture (in cubits)

“In this passage [Heb. 13:10] the Apostle is contrasting the Levitical priesthood, their services in the Tabernacle, and the table in the Holy at which they ate the shewbread, with the antitypical Tabernacle and its better table. In this connection he points out that, so far as the priesthood of Aaron was concerned, not only could the church not be priests, but our Lord could not be: for this priesthood sprang from Levi, and Jesus was from another tribe, Judah. Therefore, if Jesus was on earth he could not be a priest. But now God had intended another order of priests, namely, the Melchizedek order, saying to David, ‘The Lord hath sworn and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’ (Psa. 110:4; Heb. 5:6) It is evident, then, that if Christ was to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, he would not be a priest after the order of Aaron.

“When the Apostle has proved that we, as priests, have no right to intrude into the typical Holy or Most Holy, he then shows that they, of the house of Aaron, have no right to our place. They have no right to come into this antitypical Holy, which we enter. If they become members of the royal priesthood, they may enter; but their standing as members of the Aaronic priesthood does not give them the privilege. Thus he shows a discrimination between these two priesthoods, the Aaronic and the Melchizedek. We have the ‘better sacrifices’; we have the better services. We have on the higher plane, everything that they had, typically, on the lower plane.” (R4867:6) “… the altar (Christ).” (R1872:4)

Such offerings as the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings were considered by God as His “food” or “bread” (Lev. 21:17,21) making this altar the table of the LORD. (Mal. 1:7,12) The Altar lifted all that was laid thereon upward!

“Now we have an altar of which they may not eat. What is our altar? Why, dear friends, our altar is Christ, and his consecrated sacrifice. The priest of the typical system ate the meat that was offered to God on the altar. Let me remind you that when a sacrifice was brought to the priest, not on the atonement day, but others, he took the fat and put it on the altar and burned it, but he took the flesh and the priests all ate it. Now, then, they were all partakers of the altar. The altar consumed the fat, etc., but the priests all ate the flesh. Now, says the Apostle, they can eat of that flesh, and can offer upon that altar, but we have a superior offering, and we have a superior altar.” (Q703)

But, let it be carefully noted that on their Atonement Day those typical priests could not be partakers with their altar, for as the apostle so clearly sets forth “the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” (Heb. 13:11) Thus the fires completely consumed the flesh of the sacrifices leaving none for participation by the priests. However, it is different with us, the anti- typical priesthood, for while those typical priests could not partake of their typical altar on the Atonement Day, it is absolutely necessary that we do partake of our superior altar on this great antitypical Atonement Day.

Moses took the blood … and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it.” (Lev. 8:15)

“For whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies it?” (Matt. 23:19) “The blood poured at the base of the altar showed that through the blood of the sacrifice [life given] even the earth was purchased back from the curse.

‘Unto the redemption of the purchased possession.’—See Eph. 1:14.” (T42)

“The blood falling upon the earth, at the foot of the altar of sacrifice, represented that not only mankind had been purchased, but that the earth itself was included, and the blood was sprinkled upon it.” (E443)

This altar was first set apart (sanctified) as unto the LORD at the time of the Tabernacle’s dedication, and was accomplished with the use of the holy anointing oil. (Exod. 40:10) Subsequently, this altar was sanctified for use by the priesthood, and was accomplished with the use of the blood of the sin-offering. (Exod. 29:12; Lev. 8:15)

It will have been noted that both of these operations were performed by Moses who thus typified JEHOVAH—who during this Gospel age has been setting apart “an altar” unto Himself; sanctifying it, for the use of the antitypical priesthood, by way of the blood of the great “sin-offering”— the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus—(T51, 52)

“He … applied the blood to the horns of the altar. The ‘finger’ of the ‘Law’ thus pointed out that the altar of earthly sacrifice was acceptable to God by reason of the shed blood (the life given), and that all who realize the power of the altar (horns are symbols of power) must first recognize the blood which sanctifies it.” (T41, 42)

“So its brazen altar represents primarily the perfection of the man Christ Jesus, upon which his offering was accepted of God, as our sin-atonement, sanctifying in turn any offering of others that might be presented upon it.” (R3053:6)

And while “our altar”—the altar of this Gospel age—is thus sanctified by the blood of the “sin-offering of Christ Jesus,” for use by us as the anti-typical priesthood, in the matter of our consecration to become the priesthood of blessing, the altar of the Millennial age, though it be the selfsame altar, and is served by the selfsame priesthood (but now in the interests of the world of mankind—the then, antitypical Israel) will by reason of its defilement (“uncleanness,” Lev. 16:16) require a special rededication— sanctification—and this by the blood of the “better sacrifices” (Heb. 9:23) of the Gospel age. This, of course, is what is so beautifully depicted in the reconciliation of Lev. 16:18)!

In the May 1880 Watch Tower—before the publication of Tabernacle Shadows—Bro. Russell wrote concerning the horns of this altar:

“The horns are typical of the power of the altar; their being covered with the blood seems to say that none can fully appreciate the power of this altar of sacrifice without recognizing the blood. The horns of the altar reaching in every direction—north, south, east and west—so God’s power to all men is unlimited: but he chooses to cover all the power with the blood of atonement.” (R96:1)

In Tabernacle Shadows he later declared that the altar represented “Christ’s Ransom Sacrifice” (T22); for was it not the place where the sacrifice which typically represented the man Christ Jesus was offered to satisfy Justice, and thus bring in atonement?

“I do not think of any types or shadows representing the ransom, and for the very reason I do not think it would be shown. A bullock would not be found to represent the ransom price and there was no perfect man. The only illustration which we have is this one which God has given us—Jesus the ransomer of father Adam.” (Q562)

“The ransom price relates to the valuable thing itself, namely, the blood or death of Christ—a ransom price sufficient for the payment of the penalty of one member of the human family or of all, as it may be applied. The sin-offering shows the manner in which the ransom-price is applicable or effective to the cancellation of the sins of the whole world.” (R4493)

“The bullock represented Jesus at the age of thirty years—the perfect man who gave himself and died on our behalf … Since the penalty of man’s sin was death, it was necessary that our Redeemer become a man, be ‘made flesh,’ otherwise he could not redeem mankind. A man had sinned, and the penalty was death; and if our Lord would pay the penalty it was essential that he should be of the same nature (but undefiled, separate from sin and from the race of sinners), and die as Adam’s substitute, else mankind could never be liberated from death …

“But since ‘the man Christ Jesus’ gave himself as our ransom-price, it follows that he cannot be restored to that manhood which he gave.” (T51,52)

Figure 22: The Altar and Jehovah’s Attributes

This altar was five cubits square (Exod. 27:1); each side of which faced a different cardinal direction—north, south, east and west. We have represented this in Figure 22 in which we have also arbitrarily divided the top of the altar by way of two diagonals—each of which is approximately seven cubits in length—into four triangles whose bases face these cardinal directions. We have also superimposed a cross upon this altar to symbolize more particularly that ransom sacrifice. It will be noted that the apexes of these four triangles all center in the cross!

Now since God through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus revealed himself, we feel justified in marking the four segments of this altar with the cardinal attributes of Jehovah God: Wisdom, Justice, Love and Power.

We suggest since Justice is the foundation of God’s throne (Psa. 89:14, RSV), that we consider the triangle whose base faces east as representing God’s Justice. The very first thing that one was called upon to recognize as he came into the Court of the Tabernacle through the gate was the Altar of Burnt-Offering, and that sin is a violation of God’s Justice which by way of the sacrifices offered upon this altar might be satisfied. Those ancient sacrifices—the sin-offerings—typified the death of Christ Jesus as the ransom sacrifice for the sin of the world.

The triangle whose base faced the north we suggest be considered as representing God’s Love. He, whose habitation is in the North (R5710:3) is Love. “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) It was Love that found the way in which God could be Just and yet the justifier of those who would believe (Rom. 3:26); and, because it was the sacrifice of His beloved and only begotten son that revealed His Love for the world (John 3:16). All sacrifices at the typical altar, it seems, had to be offered from the north side. (Lev. 1:11)

“God is love, and since he was without beginning, so love was without beginning; because it is his character, his disposition: and he endureth forever, so love will endure forever.” (R3151:6)

It is next suggested that the triangle whose base faced the south be considered as representing God’s infinite Power. Only by it could Jehovah God have accomplished the change of nature of the Logos from the spirit to the human in order that as the man Christ Jesus—a perfect man— he might without the violation of divine Justice become Adam’s redeemer. The same Power was involved in the raising of Christ Jesus from the dead; and will be involved in the calling forth of all men from the tomb or death state, without destroying their identities. However, not until Justice is satisfied can Power—the Power of God—be thus exercised on man’s behalf. This was also very beautifully illustrated by the lid or propitiatory—the Mercy Seat—of the Ark of the Covenant. (See T126)

Finally it is suggested that the last of these triangles, the one whose base faced west, be considered as representing God’s Wisdom. On the Mercy Seat it will be recalled, the place of Wisdom was between the two Cherubim (T123; Psa. 80:1; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:6; Isa. 37:16) God’s Wisdom is transcendent. He can know the end from the beginning intuitively, that is without any process of reasoning. (R1832:6)

It is interesting to note that geometrically a square represents that which is perfect. God of course is perfect, and the four triangles we have been discussing here are arbitrary; they do not, when individually considered, really reflect God’s perfect character. Nor could any of God’s attributes, if taken separately, reflect his perfect character. In the final analysis, we shall have to say with Bro. Russell:

“All the Power, all the Justice, all the Wisdom, of God must be used in accordance with his character which is Love. It will, therefore, be loving wisdom, loving justice, which he will use toward all creation in the exercise of his loving power for their good.” (R5210:6)

“The Apostle Paul uses the Greek word for Mercy Seat or Propitiatory (hilasterion) when referring to our Lord Jesus, saying, ‘Whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiatory [or Mercy Seat] … to declare his righteousness … that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.’ (Rom. 3:25,26) The thought here is … The Justice, the Wisdom, the Love, and the Power are God’s own as well as the plan by which all these cooperate in human salvation.” (T124)

Since the altar of burnt-offering represents or symbolizes the ransom sacrifice of the man Christ Jesus (T21), it must of necessity also bespeak forgiveness. Yet it is such forgiveness, as the Lord declared, that is contingent upon our forgiveness of others. (Matt. 6:14,15; Mark 11:25,26) Peter, on one occasion inquired of Jesus as to how many times one should forgive his brother: “Seven times?” (Luke 17:4; Matt. 18:21) You will recall the Master’s reply to the effect that it should be “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22), implying, of course, that one was not to count but to be always ready to forgive.

This thought, we believe, is reflected in the measurements of this altar. We are told that it was foursquare: five cubits long and five cubits broad. (Exod. 27:1; 38:1) The two diagonals, therefore, measured just about seven cubits each, and incidentally formed the mathematical sign x for multiplication. Adding the length to the breadth produces a total of ten cubits. Then if we multiply this figure by the length of one diagonal we arrivwe at 70 cubits. The fact that there are just two such diagonals seems to suggest that we use the second seven also as a multiplier, and thus 70 times 7, the equivalent of Jesus’ words to Peter, “seventy times seven.” However, since the diagonals measure just a bit more than seven cubits (actually 7.071+ cubits), the altar seems to say, “Be liberal in the matter, but forgive and forgive and forgive, again and again and again.” How truly wonderful!

“Before describing the tabernacle, its furniture was specified. And so, when giving instructions for the court of the tabernacle, the altar has to be described: ‘Thou shalt make the altar of acacia wood.’ The definite article either implies that an altar was taken for granted, a thing of course, or else it points back to [Exod.] 20:24 which said ‘An altar of earth shalt thou make.’ Nor is the acacia wood of this altar at all inconsistent with that precept, it being really not an altar but an altarcase and ‘hollow’ (v. 8)—an arrangement for holding the earth together and preventing the feet of the priests from desecrating it.” (Chadwick, Expositor’s Bible, v. Gen/Exod, p. 395)

This seems to us to be in direct violation of the instructions given; by building a case to hold the virgin soil or unhewn stones together, is one using the tool of man upon such an altar? (See Exod. 20:25)

“You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the LORD your God.” (Deut. 16:21, RSV)

Asherah has been wrongly translated “grove” in the KJV. The word has the following significances: 1) A goddess of fertility worshipped by the Phoenicians and the Canaanites. Her ritual of worship was lewd and sometimes was associated with the worship of Baal. She was taken over by the Israelites when they had fallen into idolatry. (1 Kings 16:32,33, RSV) 2) The “images” or symbolisms supposed to represent this goddess, generally a tree trunk often provided with branches and assuming the form of the tree of life. This “image” is referred to in 1 Kings 15:13, 2 Kings 21:7, and 2 Chron. 15:16, RSV.

Because Jehovah God, the God of Israel, was a jealous God (Exod. 20:5; 34:14) and did not intend to share either his glory or his praise with another (Isa. 42:8), he instructed Israel that on coming into the land of promise, they were to destroy these “images” (Exod. 34:13) and were not to place any of them near his altars. (Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:21, RSV)

North Side of the Altar

“And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD.” (Lev. 1:11)

The “North” as a biblical symbolism often represents the Throne or abode of Jehovah God. (R5710:3) It will be recalled that Lucifer, in his unholy ambition to be like the Most High, declared that he would “sit … in the sides of the north.” (Isa. 14:12-14)

That Jehovah’s Throne is situated in the north is borne out by the fact that the Psalmist declared “promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south,” implying that “God (who) is judge … putteth down one, and setteth up another” (Psa. 75:6,7), dwells in the north! A further confirmation of this is found in the prophetic statement with regard to the Church (head and body), which statement declares that, as mount Zion, her situation was to be beautiful; for she was to be accorded the very place once coveted by Lucifer (but denied him—Luke 10:18), namely, the “sides of the north, the city of the great king.” (Psa. 48:2)

We believe, therefore, that there is significance to the fact of Jehovah’s instructions to the ancient Israelitish priesthood, to kill the animals to be offered and sacrificed upon His altar “on the side of the altar northward.” (Lev. 1:11) Of the four sides of this altar, figuratively speaking, the side northward was closest to Him. And, that sacrifice which was to sanctify the antitypical altar—the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus—was graciously supplied by Him, Jehovah, out of His place in the north, as an expression of His LOVE for the world of mankind. (John 3:16) And thus, in obedience to and in emulation of Jehovah God, the antitypical priests serve the “altar” from the “side of the altar northward”!

“The North is the direction of the group Pleiades, the celestial center of the universe, the supposed seat of divine empire.” (C321; D653)

“There seem to be fewer stars in the north than in any other part of the heavens. Thus the north seems to have been given a very prominent position, the other points of the compass giving it homage, as it were. This fact was observed by the ancients, as the Prophet Job declares: ‘He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.’ (Job 26:7) Throughout the Scriptures the north seems to be closely associated with Jehovah’s government of the earth.” (R5710:3)

“Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, the city of the Great King.” (Psa. 48:2)

“Such is the great promotion which God purposes to give his true saints of this Gospel age, and this promotion can be received from no other quarter than God himself, on his own terms. This is the glorious inheritance of Zion. When she has been exalted and glorified with her Lord, it will be said of her, ‘Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the City of the Great King.’ (Psa. 48:2) Thus the great eminence which Lucifer in his pride and presumption sought to grasp, that he might ‘sit upon the sides of the north’ (Isa. 14:12-14), will be granted as a reward to The Christ, Head and body.” (R5711:1)

Grate

“And thou shalt set the altar of burnt offering before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation.” (Exod. 40:6)

Perhaps all that we need to know about the altar of burnt-offering which stood in the Court of the ancient Tabernacle is what is given us in Exod. 27:1-8 and Exod. 38:1-7. There we are told that it was made of shittim wood overlaid with copper; that it was foursquare, its length and breadth, both being five cubits, and its height three cubits; that it had a grate; and four horns in its corners. For some, this description is too vague; therefore, they allow their imagination to run riot, reading into the account what is not specifically implied in the simple language of the text.

One feature of this altar that has been the subject of much conjecture, is the grate. Normally, of course, we would assume that the grate was that metal screen upon which the fire was built, and whereon the animal sacrifices were laid. It seems to us that the language of the KJV lends itself to this concept quite readily:

“And thou shalt make for it a grate of network of brass [copper]; and upon the net shalt thou make four brazen [copper] rings in the four corners thereof; and thou shalt put it under the compass of the altar beneath that the net may be even to the midst of the altar.” (Exod. 27:4,5)

The “compass” thus would have reference to the upper perimeter of the altar, and the “midst” to its interior. But this is not the way it is presented in Smith’s Dictionary Of The Bible, which among other things has this to say:

“Round the altar, midway between the top and bottom, ran a projecting ledge (compass, A.V.) on which perhaps the priests stood when they officiated. To the outer edge of this, again, a grating or network of brass was affixed, and reached to the bottom of the altar, which thus presented the appearance of being larger below than above. At the four corners of the network were four brazen rings, into which were inserted the staves by which the altar was carried.”

“Special mention, however, is made of the grating of the altar under the ledge or rim. ‘Upon the karob, the ledge or rim, the priests stepped when an offering was made, or when he wished to add more wood, or do anything else on the altar’ (Keil). Knobel has a different view, holding (that the rim was only an ornament, that such a ledge to step on would have disfigured the altar, and moreover) that the altar was so high that it could not have been served without steps; which is contrary to Exod. 20:26.” (Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures)

“The precise construction cannot be determined, and it is useless to speculate where the instructions are so plainly governed by what was seen by Moses in the Mount.” (International Bible Encyclopedia, “Altar,” p. 108)

Some are willing to accept Jewish tradition as of almost equal weight to the Scriptures:

“A Jewish tradition affirms that the frame was filled with earth at each place of encampment. Perhaps the reason why Moses does not mention this is that a statute previously given required that all altars should consist of earth or unhewn stones; so that it was in his mind, a matter of course that the hollow box would contain, when ready for use, one of these canonical materials. The specifications being for use of the artisans, he had no occasion to inform them that it was to be filled with earth.” (Atwater, The Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, p. 34)

Seemingly, this conjecture is based upon the instructions given by Jehovah God to Moses:

“An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me … in all places where I record my name … if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.” (Exod. 20:24,25)

These instructions, however, we believe, apply to all other altars, save to the one which was built according to the pattern Moses was caused to see in the mount. Surely, technically, the placing of soil, or stones within the altar to conform to its outlines, would be the equivalent of using tools upon them, so specifically forbidden. A footnote in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (v. 4, p. 657) reads: “Nothing in the text suggests a mere four sided frame to be filled with earth, as is usually supposed.”

“Much of this description needs but little comment in the way of elucidation, but there is some question regarding the ‘grate of network,’ its form, place and use. The translation is generally accepted as correct, though the word ‘grate’ occurs only in this connection. It is derived from a word meaning to ‘plait,’ and from the same root we have the word ‘sieve’ in Amos 9:9. The ‘network’ which describes it is manifest. This grating was under the ‘compass’ of the altar. Here, too, we have a word nowhere else used, and whose derivation is not absolutely clear. It is said to be derived from a word meaning to ‘surround’: hence ‘border’ or ‘compass’ would be the proper rendering.

“Regarding this ‘border’ there have been various thoughts; some have regarded it as a shelf or ledge, placed at right angles to the altar, midway between top and bottom. Its purpose was then said to be for the priest to stand upon while offering sacrifice. Some consider that the ‘grating of network’ hung under this ledge, reaching to the ground, and making a sort of enlarged base or ornament to the altar, but do not explain in a satisfactory way the rings which were attached to the four corners of the grate. There would have to be four of these grates, and this carries us beyond the directions of Scripture.

“Others again would have the grate as a sort of rim reaching out horizontally from the altar to catch the fire that might fall off the altar. Still others have considered the ‘compass’ to be inside the top of the altar, filling up part of the space, and under it the grate filling up the hollow square which remained much as a picture, surrounded by a frame, the compass. But this, while giving use for the grate and for the rings, gives a somewhat forced meaning to ‘the midst of the altar,’ as though it meant half the area of the open top, the other half being filled by the ‘border.’

“Another possible thought is that the grating of network was a large square, like a square net set under the altar, and so much larger that when the staves were put in the rings, and the altar thus lifted, the network reached to the midst, or halfway up the sides. The objection to this view is that it seems a cumbersome and needless way of carrying the altar, giving no definite use to the net except the unusual one of being a sort of sack to carry the altar.

“We return then to the primary and natural thought of the ‘grate.’ It was for fire; therefore it must have been within the compass of the altar, not outside of it. But here we have a suggestion as to the ‘compass,’ that it was not something made, but simply the rim. The grating was under this, that is, not level with the rim, but below it; in fact, midway between the top and bottom of the altar. The only difficulty of a mechanical character would be the rings. If the grate was inside the altar and halfway down, how could they receive the staves by which the altar was carried? It is confessed that here is a question, and we can only suggest that these rings might have been passed through holes in the corners of the altar, and thus reached the outside, where they would serve for their intended purpose. This would give security to the altar as it was being carried.” (Ridout, Lectures On The Tabernacle, ppg. 409-411)

There is some ambiguity in the text relating to the “grating” and its placement in the altar of burnt-offering, which has led to a considerable amount of conjecture. At best, such conjectures are merely guesses, and therefore never can satisfy the inquiring mind of the saint as much as a clear “thus saith the Lord.” Nor are these matters of the physical construction of the altar of burnt-offering of utmost importance; rather the altar’s antitypical or spiritual import is what should chiefly concern us.

The difficulty seems to center more particularly about the Hebrew word chatsi which according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible has the following meaning: “half, middle, midst,” and in the KJV has been rendered half 105 times, middle once, midst eight times,1 part three times, two parts once. On page 298 in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, Gesenius gives three definitions for this word, the second of which is “middle” as in Judges 16:4. In the KJV this is rendered mid (night), i.e., the middle of the night! It is interesting, therefore, to note how the various translators have rendered it in Exod. 27:5.

We do not know the length of the sacred cubit. Eighteen inches is a mere approximation. Estimates range from between 13.33 inches (J.R. Dummelow in his one volume Bible Commentary) and 25.2 inches (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible). Most authorities agree with Dr. Smith (Dictionary of the Bible) that “absolute certainty seems unattainable.” Therefore, we conclude, we cannot know exactly what the equivalent of the altar of burnt-offering’s height of three cubits is in feet or inches.

According to J.R. Dummelow, the “building cubit” measured 16 inches. If this is correct, the altar’s height was but four feet; surely not really requiring steps, stairs, nor ramp!

Nor are we sure that “to the midst of the altar” (Exod. 27:5) or “unto the midst of the altar” (Exod. 38:4) as in the KJV, here means halfway up or down the altar’s height; though many of the translators seem to favor the latter view. Were we to assume that the cubit here used was as Dummelow suggests—the “building cubit” of 16 inches—the altar’s height from the base to the top ledge would be four feet and its midway point would be at 24 inches; even more, were it a larger cubit. In any event, with the grating at this point it would have made the removal of the ashes from the altar a most awkward procedure; even were we to suppose that most of the ashes would have fallen through the grating to the ground. Or it may be that the height of the altar should be measured from the top of the horns to the base. If so, it would bring this midway point of the altar’s grating a bit closer to the upper edge!

This halfway point is important when we remember that it governs the position of the carrying staves in the sides of the altar, since the rings for the staves are the identical ones which are in the four corners of the grate. (Exod. 38:5,6)

¹ As in “take me not away in the midst of my days.” (Psa. 102:24)

Figure 23: The Grate at the Halfway Point of the Altar

Horns

“And thou shalt make an altar of shittim wood. … And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof: his horns shall be of the same: and thou shalt overlay it with brass [copper, see Leeser].” (Exod. 27:1,2)

“And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: of shittim wood thou shalt make it. Foursquare shall it be: … the horns thereof shall be of the same. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold … and the horns thereof.” (Exod. 30:1-3)

“The horn is, in cornute animals, the instrument of power, and thence becomes an emblem of strength, and as such is congruous with all the other elements combined in the altar as a symbol. It has accordingly, been commonly understood that the horns of the altar represented the power of its ministrations. But recently it has been suggested that, among the metaphorical significations of the horn, height was no less appropriate than strength as an attribute of an altar. The horn is the highest part of the animal, carried aloft as a badge of power and the honor consequent on power, and therefore used as a sign of elevation. To lift up the horn is to exalt, either in the physical or in a figurative sense … The horns of an altar may be intended, therefore, to symbolize still more emphatically the elevation of the earth on which the sacrifice is offered toward heaven, the residence of the Being to whom it is presented … The horns elevating the place of sacrifice nearer to heaven, the efficacy of the altar was especially conspicuous in these symbols of elevation.” (Atwater, The Sacred Tabernacle of the He- brews)

The horns of the altar had sufficient power to afford at least temporary refuge or asylum to the one who had sinned against his fellow-man. (Exod. 21:14; 1 Kings 1:50; 1 Kings 2:28) The case of Adonijah, a fourth son of David by Haggith, is an interesting illustration of this:

“After the death of his three brothers, Amnon, Chileab, and Absalom, he became eldest son; and when his father’s strength was visibly declining, put forward his pretensions to the crown. David promised Bathsheba that her son Solomon should inherit the succession (1 Kings 1:30) … Adonijah’s cause was espoused by Abiathar and Joab, the famous commander of David’s army. His name and influence secured a large number of followers among the captains of the royal army belonging to the tribe of Judah (com- pare 1 Kings 1:9 with 25); and these, together with all the princes except Solomon, were entertained by Adonijah at a great sacrificial feast held ‘by the stone Zoheleth, which is by En-rogel.’ Nathan and Bathsheba, now thoroughly alarmed, apprised David of these proceedings, who immediately gave orders that Solomon should be conducted on the royal mule in solemn procession to Gihon, a spring on the west of Jerusalem (2 Chron. 32:30). Here he was anointed and proclaimed king by Zadok, and joyfully recognized by the people. This decisive measure struck terror into the opposite party, and Adonijah fled to sanctuary.” (Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 20)

“And Adonijah feared because of Solomon, and arose, and went, and caught hold on the horns of the altar. And it was told Solomon, saying, Behold, Adonijah feareth King Solomon: for, lo, he hath caught hold on the horns of the altar, saying, Let King Solomon swear unto me today the he will not slay his servant with the sword. And Solomon said, If he will show himself a worthy man, there shall not an hair of him fall to the earth: but if wickedness shall be found in him, he shall die. So King Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. And he came and bowed himself to King Solomon: and Solomon said unto him, Go to thine house.” (1 Kings 1:50-53)

Seemingly Smith suggests that it was the “altar of burnt-offering” which stood in the Court of the ancient Tabernacle that was here involved. There is additional support for this:

“By laying hold of these horns of the altar of burnt-offering, the criminal found asylum and safety (1 Kings 1:50; 2:28), but only when the crime was accidental (Exod. 21:14).” (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia, “Horns,” v. 4, p. 339)

However, Exod. 21:14 has reference to the altars of the “cities of refuge.” (See Num. 35:15 and compare with Exod. 21:12-14.)

Another thing is not quite clear here. In the “cities of refuge,” the local congregation would normally first put the “manslayer” on trial and, if he was found innocent of premeditated “murder,” would give him back his freedom but only for so long as he remained within the confines of their city until the death of the High Priest. (Num. 35:25) In the instances cited by Smith, and McClintock & Strong, it was Solomon who did this. Perhaps this is because Solomon was a type of the greater king who will be reigning during the Millennial age, vested with all power and authority.

“The death of David quickly followed on these events; and Adonijah begged Bathsheba who, as ‘king’s mother’ would now have special dignity and influence, to procure Solomon’s consent to his marriage with Abishag, who had been the wife of David1 in his old age (1 Kings 1:3). This was regarded as equivalent to a fresh attempt on the throne; and therefore Solomon ordered him to be put to death by Benaiah, in accordance with the terms of his previous pardon.” (Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 20)

See also Joab who refused to come away from the altar and was slain there. (1 Kings 2:28-34)

“It had four horns to which the victims could be tied that were to be sacrificed, and to which persons in danger of being slain might flee for safety. (Psa. 118:27; 1 Kings 2:28). These evidently pointed to Christ as our Refuge, and to his abundance of power and grace to all who should come to him.” (R101:1* by W.I. Mann)

“But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.” (Exod. 21:14)

“A premeditated murder was inexpiable, not to be ransomed; the murderer must surely die. Even if he fled to the altar of God, intending to escape to a city of refuge when the avenger ceased to watch, he should be torn from that holy place: to shelter him would not be an honour, but a desecration to the shrine. (Exod. 21:12,14)” (Chadwick, The Expositor’s Bible)

“Arrived at the city of refuge, the culprit was not free; but was obliged to stand trial before the elders of the city, representing the congregation of Israel. He was received in the city and protected until such time as the trial could take place. His case was carefully investigated. Prof. Beecher remarks respecting these trials: ‘Much stress is laid upon the previous conduct of the slayer, and the relations between him and his victim, whether he lay in wait for the slain man (Deut. 19:11), whether he ‘hunted’ for him or not (Exod. 21:13; Num. 35:20,22), whether he smote him ‘in secret’ (Deut. 27:24), was it presumptuous—that is to say, malicious? (Exod. 21:14) Was it with guile? (Exod. 21:14) Especially, was there enmity previously between the two men? (Num. 35:21,22) Was there hatred of the slain on the part of the slayer? (Num. 35:21,23; Deut. 19:4,6,11; Josh. 20:5!’ ” (R3092:5)

The horns of the Altar of Burnt Offering were in themselves symbols of power; yet this power came from the blood which sanctified it. As already seen, the Scriptures do set forth the fact that one guilty of a sin against his fellowman, when in danger of being apprehended, might flee for asylum to the altar—take hold of its horns, and find a safe refuge there. (1 Kings 1:50; 2:28)

¹ Smith seems to have taken license here, for nowhere in the Scriptures is it stated that Abishag had ever become David’s wife; and we are definitely told that the “king knew her not.” (1 Kings 1:4)

In the case of Adonijah, one of the sons of David, he had sinned against his king (Solomon) and might have suffered death at his hands. But he fled to the Altar of Burnt Offering, took hold of its horns, and the avenger could not touch him there. However, he could not remain there forever. He now felt sorry for what he had done, and was truly repentant; yet he dared not leave the altar until Solomon had declared that he would not slay him. So King Solomon promised him on one condition, that he (Adonijah) show himself to be a worthy man. On this condition or covenant, Adonijah was released. When subsequently he broke his promise (breaking the covenant), Solomon had him put to death. (1 Kings 2:23-25)

There is an allegorical lesson to be derived from this account. We too, have an altar, the power of which stems from the blood of Christ Jesus, that sanctified it. We too, had sinned against our King, who could justly have destroyed us. But we fled to the altar and found sanctuary, an asylum, a refuge, there. Our faith in the precious blood, justified us—made us free as it were; but only on one condition could we continue to be free and that was that we covenant with our King thereafter to walk “worthily.” Having entered into this covenant we are safe from the “avenger.” But should the time ever come when we would break that covenant by profaning the blood of the covenant by which we were sanctified—outraging the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29)—we would then fall directly into the hands of the “avenger” and be put to death—the Second Death!

No Steps, No Ramp

“And they were both naked. The man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.” (Gen. 2:25)

“And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked . . . I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (Gen. 3:7,10,11)

“And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach. And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die.” (Exod. 28:42,43)

“The Hebrew altar was constructed without steps, though Canaanitish structures had no such prohibition. The regulation (Exod. 20:26) was designed to preclude any unseemly exposition of feet or legs by the officiating priest in the midst of the solemnities of sacrifice.” (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, v. 1, p. 119)

What constituted “nakedness” insofar as the ancient priesthood of Israel was concerned? Surely not the fact of the hands and feet being exposed! Seemingly, however, if any part of the body from the loins down to the ankles was unduly exposed, it was considered indecent, but also unlawful! To guard against this, no altar of Jehovah-God’s was to have steps (nor a ramp) lest the priest’s “nakedness” be discovered.

“Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered.” (Exod. 20:26)

In addition to this, the priests were to wear at such times as they served the Tabernacle or its altar, white linen breeches, for the self-same reason, “to cover (hide) their nakedness.” (Exod. 28:42,43) The expression “from the loins even unto the thighs” is evidently here idiomatic; for with the regular garments of sacrifice (Lev. 16:4) there would not be much danger of the priests exposing that particular part of their anatomies. Undoubtedly the “breeches” covered not only the priest’s loins even unto the thighs, but also the legs down to the ankles as well. Yet even without any steps (or ramp) to the altar, there would be the possibility when the priest stooped down to pick up the sacrifice, or reached up in placing the sacrifice upon the altar, that he might then unduly expose his legs above the ankles. This is the reason for the injunction to the priests, that they wear the linen breeches whenever “they came in unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation, or when they came near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die.”

“The Scriptures tend to avoid direct reference to the sex organs and to issues connected with sex. Frequently the O.T. writers avoid referring directly to the genitalia or the genital regions. Such terms as flesh (Gen. 17:11) and thigh or loin (24:9; Exod. 28:42) were used to avoid direct reference to the genitalia or genital regions. For example, when the Scriptures mention the rite of circumcision, the mention of the male sex organ is concealed by use of the expression ‘flesh of your foreskins’ (17:11). An injunction is given against the wife of a man who, while defending her husband from attack, seizes his adversary by the male sex organs (Deut. 25:11). However, the organs are not referred to directly but as ‘private parts.’ Reference is made to the desolation of Judah by the Assyrians as being as extensive as if one ‘shaved the hair of the feet’ (Isa. 7:20). Some believe that this usage of the word ‘feet’ and similar usage of the term (Ruth 3:1-4,7-9 and also Deut. 28:57) is an indirect reference to the lower parts of the body including the genitalia and pubic hair. In a similar vein, a circumlocution is used to refer to the male penis (Deut. 23:1). The word ‘seed’ is used to refer to male semen and a variety of injunctions are given in relation to this term (Gen. 3:15; Lev. 15:16-18; 22:4). In general, the Scriptures seem to avoid direct reference to the male organs of reproduction.” (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, v. 5, p. 365)

Nakedness of itself was no sin, for both Adam and Eve were brought forth naked, and they were perfect in the day of their creation. But it was sin which perverted their minds, bringing to them a consciousness of their nakedness, so that in shame they sought to be covered. Ever since, nakedness has connotated sin, though more particularly, inbred-sin,¹ and it is therefore a most apt symbol thereof. It represents that sin in which we were born—our imperfection as children of Adam—partakers of the Adamic curse!

¹ “It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me … for the good I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do … it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me … I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” (Rom. 7:17-23)

Now, no amount of washing could ever remove this stain; and this is the reason why the typical priest who though thoroughly washed with the waters from the laver, needed additionally to wear the linen breeches (Exod. 28:42,43), which linen breeches so beautifully represent, we believe, the righteousness of Jesus made available to us through his death— the only covering for inbred-sin. Surely, it is only in the righteousness of Jesus that our Adamic imperfections are completely covered. Despite all our washings with the waters of truth, we all, like the Apostle Paul of old, are conscious of our nakedness and with him cry for the deliverance from this body of death—corruption! (Rom. 7:24) Yet with him too, we rejoice in the covering afforded us in the righteousness of Jesus, for we know that while we are so covered that there is no condemnation against us. (Rom. 8:1)

Thus those who would as priests of God serve acceptably at his “altar” must ever see to it that in their approach they do not uncover their nakedness. Among the things which evidence this nakedness are ambition, pride, self-esteem, the seeking after personal glory or praise, etc. These are not only an abomination unto the Lord, but also an offense to all who are called upon to behold us. Is it any wonder then that God was so particular in establishing the type, warning the typical priest that indecent exposure would merit the penalty of death! (Exod. 28:43)

Merely thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought (Rom. 12:3) or re- fusing to sense the savoriness of another’s sacrifice, or belittling it, may for us be an approaching of the altar by way of “steps”—self-exaltation, self-esteem, spiritual pride. Let us consider for a moment Jesus’ parable of the two men who went up to the Temple to pray; surely, a very commendable thing. (Luke 18:9-14) The account begins with these words: “And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” One was a Pharisee and Jesus said that he stood and prayed with himself, “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all I possess.” The other, the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying “God, be merciful to me a sinner.” Jesus, commenting, said this publican went home justified rather than the Pharisee; and added that “every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” Let us, dear friends, take heed then, that we glory not so much in what God has done for us and not for others, but in God himself. Then, and only then, will our offerings and sacrifices be acceptable to him.

Some believe that this altar had a ramp approaching it, if for no other reason than we read:

“And Aaron lifted up his hand to ward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin-offering.” (Lev. 9:22)

Of course, if this altar was (3 x 18″) 54″ high, then, perhaps, it would require something like a ramp for the priest to reach its top with the sacrifices. However, we do not believe that the original Hebrew ammah “cubit” was 18″ in length, for this would be far too long for a portable Tabernacle.

First, however, let it be noted that, the text does not say that Aaron came down from the altar, but rather from the offering of the offerings. And we are inclined to think that “down” is here a provincialism and is not, therefore, to be understood literally, but rather figuratively, much as we might say to one thinking too highly of himself, “get down off your high horse.” Surely, the offering of the sacrifices of Leviticus 9 was something which was above the common level of their daily tasks! Aaron might thus “come down” to bless the people.

It is worthy of note that the Hebrew word maalah occurring in Exod. 20:26 and there rendered “steps” in the KJV, according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible means “a going up, ascent.” It would therefore cover even such a thing as a ramp, though this latter term has nowhere been used in the common version of the Bible. It has been rendered “stairs” (2 Kings 9:13; Neh. 3:15; 12:37; Ezek. 40:6; 43:17) and “steps” (Exod. 20:26; 1 Kings 10:19,20; 2 Chron. 9:18,19; Ezek. 40:22,26,31,34,37,49).

No priests were ever to enter the precincts of Jehovah—the Tabernacle’s Court, Holy, or Most Holy—without the linen breeches “to cover their nakedness” upon them (Exod. 28:42,43): the Court (wherein the altar of burnt-offering stood); the Holy (the Tabernacle of the Congregation); the Most Holy (the holy place as in Lev. 16:2,16). Especially is the injunction given that Jehovah’s altar was not to have any steps (stairs or ramp) unto it, since an approach by way of such would necessitate the “lifting of the robe” and the consequent exposure of the priest’s nakedness. (Exod. 20:26)

Altars in General

“An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen; in all places where¹ I record my name I will come unto thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.” (Exod. 20:24,25)

“It appears from this that an altar must be of earth,2 or of earthy material, unmodified by human art. The earth was the scene of the sacrifice, as heaven was the home of the Being to whom it was offered. It was earth, however, raised up toward heaven, the conception of an altar including that of elevation. In both the Latin and Greek languages, the idea of altitude is conveyed in the etymology of the word which denotes an altar for the worship of the celestial deities … In Hebrew, the slaughter of the victims, and not the height of the platform on which they were slain, was suggested by the etymology of the word denoting that elevated platform. Height is, however, an essential to an altar for Hebrew worship as if contained in the name itself. It might be built of earth, or of stones in their natural state; but it must be elevated to show that the offering laid on it was a gift from earth to heaven, the party making the oblation thus bringing it as near to the other party as possible.

1. See John 4:21,23.

2. He was offered on the great altar—the earth itself.” (R195:5)

“It further appears, from the statute concerning altars in general, that they were places where God came to meet his people. An altar was, like the tabernacle, a place of meeting between the two parties, the people offering their gifts, and he communicating his blessing. As the site of the tabernacle is designated as the place where Jehovah had set his name, so in this statute he promises to record his name wherever his people erected an altar. The idea conveyed in the tabernacle with all its elaborate symbolisms was, in germ at least, contained in any pile of earth or unhewn stones built for the purpose of sacrificing; the worshipers being raised up by it, and God coming down to meet and bless his worshipping people. This statute, being promulgated before the direction to construct the tabernacle and its altars, provides, by the prohibition of steps, that the person who officiates shall not expose his nakedness; but such an exposure, so incongruous with the sacredness of the employment, was still more effectually guarded against in the service of the tabernacle by means of the drawers which the priests must not fail to put on before they ministered at the altar.” (Atwater, The Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, ppg. 289-291)

“Men had nothing to do with the preparation of the Christ altar. Jesus was the Son of God direct. (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35; Isa. 7:14) Had he been the son of Joseph, he must needs have been what other men are—by nature a transgressor. He could not have been what he was—the lamb without blemish and without spot (1 Pet. 1:19,20); undefiled and separate from sinners (Heb. 7:26); without sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 John 3:5).” (Roberts, The Law of Moses)

This altar of virgin soil, or unhewn stone (Exod. 20:24,25) represented Jesus, as he came directly from the hand of God, our Father. No human instrumentality had aught to do with it: Jesus was not a son of Adam, nor of Joseph! Had he been, he could not have been “separate from sinners,” (Heb. 7:26; 1 John 3:5); but himself, a partaker of the fallen, sinful nature.

This altar has an entirely different significance from that which graced the Court of the Tabernacle; which latter was fashioned by man, though in accordance with the “pattern” shown Moses in the mount (Exod. 25:9), and which altar had horns (Exod. 27:1,2)! The Tabernacle’s altar of burnt-offering represents more particularly the ransom-sacrifice of Christ Jesus (T22)—the “altar” unto which the world of mankind in the Millennial age, will bring its sin-, trespass-, burnt-, and peace-offerings. (See T95,96)

The altar of virgin soil, or unhewn stone (Exod. 20:24,25), however, repre- sents more particularly our “altar,” Christ Jesus, upon which, we as “priests” of this Gospel age, are privileged to present ourselves “living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1)—“Better sacrifices” (Heb. 9:23) in a consecration and dedication unto death unto our God. Note, therefore, that this altar was to be used not for sin- and trespass-offerings, but for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings: sheep and oxen, animals that needed not to be redeemed. (See Exod. 20:24 and Num. 18:17.)

Two of the four Hebrew words rendered “altar” in the Old Testament of the KJV, are defined by Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible as:

harel, hill of God (Ezek. 43:15)
mitzbeach, slaughter place

The two Greek words so rendered in the New Testament of the KJV are:

bomos, a raised place (Acts 17:23)
thusiasterion, place of sacrifice

Altars in Canaan

“And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones; thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them. Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of whole stones: and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God: and thou shalt offer peace offerings.” (Deut. 27:5-7)

“As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lifted up any iron; and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.” (Josh. 8:31)

Altars seem originally to have been intended to lift an offering heaven-ward! Jehovah’s first instructions with regard to such altars is found in Exod. 20:24 and again in Deut. 27:6,7. These texts indicate that the altars were to be made of virgin soil or unhewn stones, and that no tool of man was to be used in fashioning them, thus making them unfit for service to Jehovah. In a sense, Christ Jesus is here represented in the virgin soil and the unhewn stones.

Perhaps the first altar was that which the “voice of the Lord God” utilized incidental to the slaying of the animal whose skin was to be used in pro- viding Adam and Eve with coats to cover their nakedness. (Gen. 3:8,21) Figuratively at least, He (the “Voice of the Lord God”) raised a bit of the earth heavenward when He sacrificed that Lamb (Rev. 13:8), at the same time symbolizing that sacrifice of the man Christ Jesus—the “Lamb of God”—which was subsequently to be slain, to “take away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29,36)

It should be noted that these altars were to be used for burnt- and peace- offerings, respectively. They were not to be used for either the sin- or trespass-offerings. (Exod. 20:24; Deut. 27:6,7) This too is significant. Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings were free-will offerings (Lev. 19:5; 22:18-29); whereas sin-offerings and trespass-offerings were mandatory. Thus did Jehovah God indicate that the offerings of the antitypical priest- hood upon His altar were to be of their own voluntary free will. Note that when Jesus could not be asked of the heavenly Father for either a sacrifice (sin-offering) or offering (burnt-offering), he declared, Lo, I come … to do thy will. (See Psa. 40:6,7; Heb. 10:6,7) Nor should it be any different with the antitypical underpriesthood: their consecrations too should be of their own voluntary free will.

And it is such sacrifices (the “better sacrifice”—Heb. 9:23) that constitute the “bread” (“food”—Lev. 21:17 margin) of Jehovah God upon which He “feeds.” Yet, not only does He (Jehovah God) feed upon such consecrations, such sacrifices upon His altars, but He has ordained that the underpriests, though blemished (imperfect and therefore unworthy of serving at this altar—Lev. 21:17-21) are to feed upon these too. How blessed that I should be privileged to feed upon your consecration and dedication, and be strengthened thereby also!

The fact that the altars of the Tabernacle and the Temple were fashioned with tools—made “foursquare” (Exod. 27:1; 30:2)—should not be understood to militate against what has already been said above, but rather should be understood to set forth that God wished to teach still other significant lessons by way of the measurements and geometric configurations.

“The faithfulness of the ancient worthies, even unto death, could not take away sin, and could not be presented before God as a sin-offering, nor as a sacrifice at all [see T105], the altar [Christ] not having been set up. (Matt. 23:19)” (R1872:4)

“Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?” (Matt. 23:19)

As for us, the antitypical priesthood of this Gospel age who are privileged to use this altar (Christ Jesus), in presenting our bodies “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Rom. 12:1), is it not the altar that sanctifies the gift?