Dennis Tuuri

Exodus 25 and Exodus 35

The offering for the tabernacle. When the tabernacle is going to be built, the offering is made by the willinghearted. In Exodus 25:2, God speaks to the children of Israel: “Tell them that they bring me an offering of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart, he shall take my offering.”

We read the same thing in Exodus 35. It repeats several times throughout the text that this is a willinghearted offering. Verse 5 of Exodus 35: “Take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord. Whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it.” This is not a compulsory offering. It was an offering of those that were willing to make it. The willinghearted are the ones who made this.

Secondly, we find that this is an offering of the Lord. This is so important. This isn’t an offering to the church officers. It’s not an offering to Moses. It’s not an offering to the congregation in general. It’s an offering unto the Lord for the particular purposes that he establishes for it. Verse 5 again: “If ye be willinghearted, let him bring it an offering of the Lord: gold and silver,” etc.

It is both to the Lord and it is of the Lord because the Lord gives us the increase. He gives us the things that we bring together to construct material in the tabernacle. He gives us the wealth that we bring to build church buildings in the New Testament decentralized era as well.

These offerings which were willinghearted and unto the Lord are for the construction of the tabernacle. God is saying that you’re going to build me a house, a dwelling place where worship and congregated worship will occur. Other things will go on there. Sacrifices will be offered. This is to be constructed not through the use of the tithe, but rather through the use of a particular offering of the people.

Fourth, we saw in the text as we read it that this offering was made in abundance. So abundantly, in fact, that God has Moses instruct the people: “Enough’s enough. Stop bringing goods here. We have enough to build this thing with now. Stop.” The people had to be restrained in their offering to the Lord.

1 Chronicles 29

1 Chronicles 29 records the construction of the temple. These are the two real property construction projects of the Old Testament: the tabernacle in the wilderness, and then the temple in the land. In the temple as well, we see the same thing.

In 1 Chronicles 29:2, David says: “I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God the gold for things to be made of gold, the silver for things of silver,” etc. David starts the construction project—the accumulation for the temple—by saying that he has brought with all his might for the house of God. This is for the construction of the temple.

Verse 3: “I have mine own proper good of gold and silver. These things have I given to the house of my God.”

Then in verse 5: “The gold for things of gold and the silver for the things of the silver and all manner of work to be made by the hands of artificers. And who then is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the Lord?”

David addresses the congregation of the Lord, primarily through the representatives, and says: “I have begun this process of constructing the Lord’s house and accumulating things for it. Who is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the Lord?”

The response in verse 6 comes from the representatives of the people. “Then the chief of the fathers and princes of the tribes of Israel, the captains of thousands and of hundreds with the rulers of the king’s work offered willingly.”

Verse 7: “And gave for the service of the house of God of gold a thousand talents and of silver ten thousand talents, and of brass eighteen thousand talents, and one hundred thousand talents of iron.”

Verse 9: “Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly unto the Lord, and David the king also rejoiced with great joy.”

We have the same basic truths. This is an offering for the temple made by the willinghearted unto and from the Lord for the construction of the temple. Again, we see that there is abundance in the numbers that are shared in terms of the amount of gold and silver offered. 1 Chronicles 29 tells us that the truths relative to the tabernacle also relate to the construction of the temple.

Haggai and Malachi

I have referenced Haggai and Malachi. These are the prophets who, when the need comes for construction of a new temple—a new house of God—encourage and exhort the people in that way.

Haggai 1:2: “Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, ‘This people say, The time is not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built.’”

Verse 6: “Ye have sown much, and bring in little. Ye eat, but ye have not enough. Ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink. Ye clothe you, but there is none warm. And he that earneth wages earneth wages to put into a bag with holes.”

Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Consider your ways. Go up to the mountain and bring wood and build the house, and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the Lord.”

Verse 9: “Ye looked for much, and lo, it came to little. And why? Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.”

What’s going on is that God doesn’t demand that his house be built first in a period of reconstruction or reformation in the time that the prophet Haggai wrote. But he does say that it should be a priority to the people to establish the particular worship house of God. They, as many of us would, postpone the day that the house is supposed to be built. And God says: “You got great houses. Where’s my house?”

He tells the people: “You’re beginning to suffer economically because you’ve refused to come into obedience to these truths of offerings for the house of God.”

The same thing is true of Malachi. In the repair of the temple and the upkeep of the Levitical order, Malachi records God saying: “You have robbed me in tithes and in offerings. There’s no meat in my house. My house is becoming more and more broken down, God says.”

Throughout the Old Testament, the real property of the institutional church—the congregation—is constructed with free will offerings made by the willinghearted, from and to the Lord. The people, when they offer, do so in abundance. And if they don’t, then God says that there is judgment upon them. That judgment will typically take the form of economic judgment.

Application to the New Testament Church

These truths all relate to the temple and tabernacle, and the New Testament church is a different sort of administration of the worship system of the church. So you can’t take these things one hundred percent one for one. We have now a decentralized administration. We don’t have a centralized worship service in the context of a single nation or single country. We have now gone out through all the world. There is no more a temple to be built where everybody comes to a particular architectural place.

But I think that these truths of real property in the Old Testament are applicable to the construction of real property in the New Testament as well. The temple, while it certainly was different in many ways from the New Testament church, was the particular dwelling place of God on the earth. Yet God establishes his embassies in the context of the different countries of the earth today through institutional churches.

So there’s much to be seen in correlation of these things.

Gary North on the Temple

I want to read several quotes here from Gary North’s book *Tools of Dominion*—a commentary on the book of Exodus and the case laws. He spends several chapters considering the construction of the temple, and I wanted to mention one of the reasons.

Let me read this quote first: “God constructed the people of Israel into his house by means of his covenant words spoken at Mount Sinai. Then God told them to build him a house.” Now he’s reading from a commentary here by Meredith Kline. “Though a more literal house than the living house of Israel, the tabernacle house was designed to function as symbolic of the other. The kingdom people—the house—was the true residence of God.”

That is a truth. If you look at the Old Testament and then look at the New Testament, how this develops in Corinthians and other places, Paul says: “Ye are the temple of the living God.”

We normally think of that in America in an individualistic sense. Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and we shouldn’t, you know, smoke, etc., because of that. That’s how people apply it. But you’ll find in the Greek that frequently that word—the “you” that are the temple—is used in the plural sense. When the people of God come together and constitute themselves, particularly on the day of the Lord, every Lord’s day, the Sabbath day, we do so constituting the temple of God.

If we had time to do it now—I don’t have time—but if you see the way that the tribes are developed in a particular way, laid out to dwell in a particular place in the wilderness around the tabernacle of God, what he’s showing us is that the true dwelling place of God is with the people. We are living stones. That’s in relationship to the construction of the temple—those stones that are in the temple. The scriptures say that the essential dwelling place of God is in the midst of his people. That’s the picture.

The greatest blessing we can have is the presence of God, and that presence of God, of course, drives out enemies. In the Old Testament and in the New Testament, there are to be geographical structures that remind us of this truth—that we are the temple of God and we constitute ourselves together, particularly for worship.

The temple was not ultimately the dwelling place of God. It was a picture of God’s dwelling with his people. But nonetheless, it was a picture, and there’s much that we can get out of as we meditate upon it.

Do you ever wonder why David talks about meditating upon the temple and his night watches, etc.? Because the temple and the particular architecture that God gives us there gives us truths that are repeated throughout the scriptures in principles that relate to all of our lives, not just worship.

For instance, when I read through that long list of what the people offered, have you ever thought about the fact that it was an interesting coincidence that the people had just the very things that were needed to construct the tabernacle? They didn’t plan that back in Egypt as they’re about to make their escape out of the land. God tells them to plunder the Egyptians, so to speak, to receive payment with restitution for the slavery that the Egyptians had put them into. That’s really what it was. But he doesn’t tell them what to get from them exactly. He gives them some general categories.

But as the people come into the wilderness, they have just what is needed for God to construct what he desires to construct in terms of the tabernacle.

We cannot build the local church. I cannot figure out what kind of a guy and what kind of a woman and these kind of kids and this kind of a guy for this kind of work in the local church. Can’t do it. God, in his providence, moves people in, takes people out, rearranges people in different institutional churches according to his purposes. When you come together and we come together in this church, we have just what’s right, according to the providence of God, to do what we need to do for kingdom work. But we can’t plan it any more than the people of the Old Testament could plan what they might possibly need for a worship facility in the wilderness.

Another truth that we can see in this is that there were a great diversity of things that were brought: little pins that were brought to hold the sockets together, and there was gold that was brought. There were different kinds of linen, different things that were made. A great diversity of materials existed in the architectural symbol of the tabernacle and then the temple.

So it is in the New Testament: we’ve got a great diversity of giftings in the context of the institutional church. Even in a small church such as this, if you’ve been here very long, you know the different giftings and things people can bring to this particular institutional manifestation of the body of Jesus Christ. Diversity is also a part of all this.

Much more we could talk about, but what I want to try to get you to think about here is that there’s a correlation between the congregated host of God who particularly come together in the Lord’s day and then the architectural symbols that God has built around them in the context of both tabernacle and temple.

Covenantal Continuity and Permanence

I want to read some extended quotes here by Gary North from his commentary. He talks first of all that the temple is a symbol of covenantal continuity. “God is master of the universe and men must acknowledge their subordination to him through sacrifice.” He’s talking about the principle of sacrifice. The animal sacrifices would take place at a particular place. “The tabernacle could therefore serve as a focus for the community’s sense of order and permanence. The tribes would be drawn together, overcoming the potential fragmentation of tribal society.”

One purpose of real property is to bring people together physically and, as a result, reinforce the covenantal community that he’s built in the context of the local church.

“The tabernacle was also a symbol of permanence, but only for as long as they honor the ethical terms of the covenant. Permanence is ultimately covenantal and therefore is governed by the ethical terms of the covenant.”

In other words, what he’s saying is that when we’re looking at building a local church, for instance, a dwelling place, a physical structure, it can be seen as a symbol of permanence. But the idolatry that we can fall into is thinking that somehow it *is* the permanence. The fact that we have constructed bricks and mortar, etc.—in the scriptures repeatedly, permanence is spoken of not in terms of the institutional or rather the physical structure, but rather covenantal obedience and submission to God.

The tabernacle, particularly in the ark of the covenant, was built with carrying poles on it. It would be an external picture to the people as they saw these poles sticking out from elements of the architecture. If they failed, if they did not continue to conform themselves to the covenant, God would get up and leave—which is what he did, several times.

So permanence is not to be seen in the structure, and that can be idolatrous to us. But as a warning to us, on the other hand, the tabernacle, the temple, and the local church can be a picture and a reinforcer of covenantal community and also of permanence in the context of ministry.

Eschatology and Symbols

North also writes this: “The people’s economic contributions in constructing the tabernacle served as a ritual means for them to testify to an eschatology of victory. First, their craftsmanship was an affirmation of permanence. Second, their labor on the tabernacle was an affirmation of history. Each man’s contribution would be seen by later generations and be appreciated so long as the community retained its covenant faithfulness to God. Those who would come later would look back and be thankful to those who had gone before.

Finally, the tabernacle would replace the place of worship in the various cities of Canaan. The Canaanites would surely be defeated—an affirmation of the coming military conquest of Canaan. God would bring judgment against their enemies. This pointed to God as cosmic judge, the fourth aspect of the biblical covenant.

The tabernacle was important in reinforcing the doctrine of the covenant. This covenant joined the tribes together into one people. The covenant also extended through time, linking the fathers in the wilderness with the sons who would occupy the promised land. The covenant meant continuity over time.

The biblical covenant and the tabernacle symbolized a future orientation. The importance of symbols for society should not be disregarded. Symbols will always exist. The issue is not symbols or no symbols. Rather, it’s a question of which symbols and whose symbols. Symbols are an inescapable concept, whether linguistic, musical, architectural, or whatever.

Men need to sacrifice something of value in order to affirm their deeply felt commitments. Men do not choose wedding rings made of iron or brass to give to their wives. When, well, some foolish people have actually used, you know, the old pop tops off cans, I suppose, and their rejection of traditional marriage. But North is writing, of course, what is normal in Christian culture. Men do not choose wedding rings made of iron or brass to give to their wives. If they’re committed to orthodox worship, they should prefer beautiful buildings to churches that resemble large shoe boxes.

These things are true of the tabernacle and temple. But as North is pointing out, these same concepts are true in terms of the institutional church in the New Testament period as well.

Protestant Architecture and Economic Concerns

“There’s been a permanent decentralization of authority, worship, and culture in New Testament times. The requirement of ecclesiastical decentralization of the New Testament era was recognized by Protestants of the 16th century, but they did not fully comprehend the importance of the tabernacle principle for the emotional and spiritual life of the families that built churches and local communities.”

He’s talking about the period in the 16th century, the time of the Reformation. He’s being somewhat critical of that time in terms of architecture.

“They did not understand how fundamental to every culture is an economics of sacrifice. Men need to affirm and symbolize the permanence of the religious vision of the present and its links to the future. One of the problems with Protestant architecture during the Reformation was the denial by Protestant leaders of the legitimacy of the cathedrals of Europe. The reformers often displayed a self-conscious rejection of the legitimacy of architectural beauty and community economic sacrifice.

The drab surroundings of the Protestant churches, especially in the 16th century, denied the eschatology of victory held by many of them. The need for sacrifice was sublimated and transferred to business concerns, charity, and affairs external to the affairs of the institutional churches. This led to historically unprecedented economic growth, but also to social and political instability. The brief reign of Oliver Cromwell, after all, was followed by the restoration to the English throne of Charles II, not by a Puritan republic. Yet economic growth continued to disrupt traditional social class relationships in Puritan New England.”

Modern Church Debt and Building

And then I’ll read his conclusion of this section. My last quote from North for now:

“Local churches should embody visible elements of personal sacrifice. Modern concepts of long-term debt have reduced the psychological burden of present sacrifice. You know, [we] got to presently sacrifice [or] just do it on time and do it slowly, but rather long-term uncertainty and the threat of debt servitude have accompanied the increase in church indebtedness.

The medieval churches sometimes took centuries to construct, calling forth the sacrifices and talents of many generations. Modern congregations build smaller, less beautiful, more efficient structures, borrow heavily from fractional reserve banks to do so, and sell usurious long-term bonds to church members, and then take a generation to pay off the debt. The medieval Christians were closer to the truth in this area of worship. They understood the Old Testament Hebrews—have been told by God that holy wastefulness has its place in godly worship as the tithe of celebration indicates, that’s a rejoicing tithe.

Construction cost per square foot should not be the primary factor for constructing every place of worship. An eschatology of victory should be reflected in an architecture of majesty and permanence.”

And I would say in the context, the application to us: An eschatology of victory should find itself taking form in some form of architectural structure.

For twelve years, we’ve avoided the idolatry of debt for construction, which we will not enter into. We’ve avoided idolatry of the building being the central aspect of the church and what holds it together. But on the other hand, it may well be time in the providence of God for us to build the house of God for Reformation Covenant Church.

Buildings are not bad. What is bad is to be perpetually in a state of servitude to men that own buildings that we don’t own. We rent our house. We’ve talked about this before. Some of you have chosen to buy houses and try to pay them off quickly. The goal should be debt-free living. And if you’ve got a vision ahead of you that involves long-term debt the rest of your life, I believe you’re in contradiction to the scriptures.

We don’t want to do that personally. We don’t want to do that corporately. It’s real easy to sin as a renter and just lay back and say, “Well, I’m not in long-term debt. I’m okay.” No, you’re not okay, because God doesn’t want you just not being in debt. He wants you owning property. And he wants the institutional church as well to be established as an embassy in the context of a city such as Portland—an embassy that indicates to us that we believe that the gospel, the preaching of the gospel through that church, with its symbolic architecture, will indeed be efficacious to the conquering of that city for the Lord Jesus Christ.

We want to set ourselves in place—visibly in place, as well as in place for the preaching of God’s word. And of course, such a structure would provide tremendous uses to continue to manifest the truth of that word as well. We wouldn’t have to cast about as we’re doing now for a place for our Genevan conference in May. We’d have a place, an established place for the library that we have, that other people would use certainly, and the word of God would affect those people as they read these tremendous collection of books that we’ve collected over a decade now.

Many other things could take place: community activities, instruction. We could have a day or two a week, perhaps, when we gather the children together from the four corners of the earth—or so it seems to us at times—for instruction in particular subjects together into a kind of combination between home and private school. Lots of things could be done. And I think that it’s time for us to consider whether or not this is what we want to do.

If we believe in the providence of God that its timing is correct, we want to avoid the idolatry of no building as well as the idolatry of the building being the central point in our thinking, then I think it’s time for us to look at these texts and start to apply them to ourselves.

Okay. I believe that the scriptures point out that real property is important. First of all, it’s important. It can be idolatrous. Calvin, you know, he preaches to the left, he preaches to the right, because if you go over here, then people become idolatrous over here. And we’re all tempted. You know which way you’re tempted. You know which way—if you’re tempted more to the idolatry of a building or more to the idolatry of no building. And I think both can be idolatrous to us.

Buildings are important in the providence of God. He paid a great deal of attention to them in the context of the Old Testament. And I think we should today as well in the context of the church. And those buildings are financed by the offerings of the people.

We scheduled a head of household meeting for March 3rd. I hope you can be there. If you can’t, please be in communication with myself or one of your prayer group leaders, Reverend Maier, etc., in terms of your input. And so, this is what we’re going to be talking about, among other things, is this very issue.

Maintenance of Buildings Through Offerings

Let’s move on though and talk briefly about the third point. I’ve made the first two points I wanted to make to you: Buildings are important. Buildings can be idolatrous. In the context of that, they’re financed through the offerings of the people.

And then the third and final point I want to make is that the maintenance for these structures also is not financed through the tithe but rather through offerings.

Exodus 30

Here we look at Exodus 30 as the first text. The Lord spake unto Moses, saying: “When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord when thou numberest them, that there be no plague among them when thou numberest them.

This they shall give—everyone that passeth among them that are numbered—half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary. A shekel is twenty gerahs, and half a shekel shall be the offering of the Lord. Everyone that passeth among them that are numbered from twenty years old and above shall give an offering unto the Lord. The rich shall not give more. The poor shall not give less than half a shekel. When they give an offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for their souls.

And thou shalt take the covenant—the atonement money, rather—of the children of Israel and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.”

Now, this is called the atonement offering, and this is Exodus 30. There’s a lot of discussion about this and a lot of difference of opinion. This is the offering that Reverend Rushdoony believes is the source of civil maintenance. He thinks that the tabernacle is not simply the institutional structure. It’s rather also the law center of the people of Israel.

Reverend Rushdoony believes from this text that the way civil government should be financed is a head tax. In other words, not a fixed percentage but an actual amount—in this case, half a shekel—that every man twenty years and older would pay to the civil government for the maintenance of the civil government.

Now, others don’t agree with this. But let me just mention this. Reverend Rushdoony has written on this, discussed it, and some of you may remember a few years back when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in England that she instituted or attempted to institute a head tax of just this type in England, and there were riots as a result.

What you may not know is that one of her chief advisors at that time was very much influenced by Reverend Rushdoony, and indeed it appears that much of his thinking became the basis for that head tax proposal in England. Now I don’t know if that’s correct or not. I know that other good men—Jim Jordan, Gary North, and others—disagree with him here. And they say, well, this is particularly an offering for the army.

It’s men twenty years old and up. That would be the age of subscription to the army. And this is when they were going to go out into battle. And as they killed people in battle, this would provide an atonement for them, this offering of half a shekel. And so they think it’s particularly restricted.

But in any event, what we do know from this is that there is here an offering spoken of. As your outline points out, it is a fixed amount. It’s not a flat percentage. You understand? It’s a fixed amount. You know, we could say $20 for every man twenty years old and up, whatever it is. And this was given, we’re told in verse 16, for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. That’s what we know from this text. Confusing text, but let’s look at one that helps clear up some of this for us.

2 Chronicles 24

In 2 Chronicles 24:4 and following, there is a need to repair the house of the Lord. That’s what’s going on here. And they need to have money to effect the repair of the house of the Lord—the temple. And what do we read?

We read this: “And it came to pass, that Joash was minded to repair the house of the Lord. He gathered together the priests and the Levites, and said unto them, ‘Go out unto the cities of Judah, and gather of all Israel money to repair the house of your God from year to year.’”

And see, it’s from year to year as well. This is a perpetual maintenance now for the temple.

And then verse six: “And the king called for Jehoida, the chief priest, and said unto him, ‘Why hast thou not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the collection according to the commandment of Moses the servant of the Lord, and of the congregation of Israel, for the tabernacle of the testimony?’”