This passage was hard to digest on many levels, so I did alot of research into my questions. Most of what is written on this passage is done so from an angry feminist stance, for the purpose of pointing out the anti-feminist agenda of the Bible. And if that is your bias, you can find plenty in Scripture to back it up. But the truth is we are not created equal, at least not in terms of our roles, capabilities and and responsibilities. We are to be help-mates for our husbands. A friend sent me the definition of "helpmate" as taken from the Hebrew word, and it is a military term meaning "in the trenches with someone". We are not of lesser importance than men, but we are referred to as the "weaker vessels". I suppose that might be frustrating if that were a man-made ideal, but since it is the way God created men and women, I don't have a problem with it. Now, the way God created it and the way mankind has implemented it, are two different things. But to God, we are not valued or loved any less, and are made in the image of Him just as man is. However, there will be instances in the Bible where God deals with men and women differently, and unapologetically so because he did not create our differences as "bad" things. When He values women in the census as roughly half that of men, it is done so very matter-of-factly because as laborers, women could do half what men could do. That's true. We are smaller with less muscle mass and have naturally less physical ability. We can't argue that. God would not deem it derogatory to point out such differences, as this is the way He created us! Again, this was a culture, and a God, not bound by political correctness.
That being said, it is difficult to swallow the concept that a man could bring up charges against his wife for suspicion of adultery. No proof needed, and no defense was available to her. To our modern sensibilities, this is oppressive and demeaning and just plain unfair. But is this actually evidence that God intended for men to maintain oppressive dominance over their wives? Remember that this was a law written for Old Testament believers, who, as a matter of fact, lived in a patriarchal society. This bitter water process, bizarre though it seems, actually protected the woman from what might be done to her by a jealous husband existing in a society in which women were thought of as property. Furthermore, the consequences did not involve death, as it did in many societies at that time. According to the Code of Hammurabi ( 1720 BC) a woman in the same predicament was forced to throw herself into the Euphrates River. If she drowned, she was guilty and if not, then she was deemed innocent. In light of what else was going on in the world at this time, drinking the bitter water seems enlightened by comparison. This is another example, much like the laws concerning slavery, of God reforming an entrenched way of thinking as opposed to condemning it, with the understanding that this was written for a specific group of people.
Secondly, does it seem fair that women are not afforded the same opportunity to question the fidelity of their husbands? Again, following the logic of the male-dominated society, men had no need for protection against such allegations from their wives, as they had little power to bring harm, physical or otherwise, to their spouses. Now, if either the husband or the wife was indisputably found to be adulterous (caught in the act), the death penalty applied equally for both men and women.
Thirdly, and most troubling for me, is the odd ritual itself. Obviously the process must have been supernatural, because we know that drinking muddy water cannot cause infertility. However, I read that some think a woman's legitimate fear or guilt about an infidelity being discovered brought on psychosomatic instances of infertility. That is certainly possible. Anxiety about infertility would have been extreme, as barrenness was the ultimate shame for a woman of that time. I know from working in the adoption field that many women become pregnant after beginning the adoption process because the pressure and anxiety is removed and they relax. Our own emotional state can have a direct impact on our physical health. But frankly, the Bible is not clear on how this test worked. And for that audience, it did not need to be. People of this era would not have had any problem agreeing with such a litmus test.
Finally, I add this to clarify what was written about numerous times on-line. This was not a ritual aimed at abortion. Drinking the bitter water was meant to induce infertility, which could be characterized by barrenness (inability to get pregnant) or a miscarrying womb (inability to stay pregnant). The end result is the same...infertility. Pro-choice advocates want to use this passage to sanction abortion, but "swollen abdomen" and "thigh that wastes away" are euphemisms for infertility and do not indicate an immediate miscarriage. We have evidence of the value God places on the pre-born human from the law in Exodus 21:22-25. It outlined the penalty for forcing a premature birth in a fight where a pregnant woman is accidentally struck. There was a lengthy explanation of this verse in the blog titled "Israel Accepts the Covenant".
Tomorrow's reading (please be easier...): Numbers 6 and 10
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Census
The verse "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace" (1 Cor. 14:33) comes to mind today. Why all the specificity regarding where tribes camped and in what order they should march? Because order needed to be established to prevent utter chaos from overtaking this wandering band of 2,000,000 plus Jews!
The first census in chapter one numbered only the males of fighting age. The Levites were excluded from the census because they were set apart for service in the Tabernacle and would not be required to fight. Women were excluded from the count for the same reason. This was essentially a military draft. The second census was taken for the purpose of priestly service. All Levite males over one month of age (apparently specified because of the high infant mortality rate) were counted for service. Because they were set apart for God as substitutes for all the firstborn males in the nation of Israel (who belonged to Him because of the sparing of the firstborns at the Passover), a rendering was made of that population as well. When it was discovered that the number of firstborn males exceeded the number of Levites by 273, the "difference" had to be made up by redeeming those males. Precision! No rounding off. All the firstborns had to be rendered unto God, so if there weren't enough Levites to take care of it, the difference had to be made up in silver.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 4-5
The first census in chapter one numbered only the males of fighting age. The Levites were excluded from the census because they were set apart for service in the Tabernacle and would not be required to fight. Women were excluded from the count for the same reason. This was essentially a military draft. The second census was taken for the purpose of priestly service. All Levite males over one month of age (apparently specified because of the high infant mortality rate) were counted for service. Because they were set apart for God as substitutes for all the firstborn males in the nation of Israel (who belonged to Him because of the sparing of the firstborns at the Passover), a rendering was made of that population as well. When it was discovered that the number of firstborn males exceeded the number of Levites by 273, the "difference" had to be made up by redeeming those males. Precision! No rounding off. All the firstborns had to be rendered unto God, so if there weren't enough Levites to take care of it, the difference had to be made up in silver.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 4-5
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Making Vows to the Lord
This section of Leviticus deals with making vows to the Lord and dedicating people, animals, and property to Him in the process. There are many instances in the Old Testament of people requesting something of God and making a vow to Him contingent upon that request. Later we'll read about the infertile Hannah vowing that if God would give her a child, she would dedicate him to service in the Temple. That child turns out to be Samuel. And another example involves a judge named Jephthah, who vowed to dedicate the first thing he saw upon returning home from battle if the Lord would grant him victory. It turns out to be his daughter. These vows are kind-of like what we sometimes do when we say "Lord if you'll get me out of this mess, I'll __________________ for you." If we get the desired outcome, rarely do we follow through on our end of the desperate vow. These Old Testament regulations ensured that the Israelites did. If they dedicated something to God in a vow, it could be bought back with "interest", which provided money for the operating expenses of the Tabernacle and enabled the Israelites to reclaim the desired person, animal, property.
An itemized accounting of the value of men and women, boys and girls, seems degrading and discriminatory to us, but not so in a culture unconcerned with political correctness. The values were simply based on the estimated amount of work that could be expected from each people group. Children and the elderly could not work as hard and were considered of lesser value. Women could not perform the same degree of physical labor that men could, resulting in their lesser value. It was not a commentary on their worth as human beings but simply a realistic measure of their value as "work-horses".
Finally, what is the difference between dedicating and devoting something or someone? Everything devoted to God was done so as an obligation and could not be redeemed. It had to be either destroyed (as in a sacrifice) or reserved exclusively for sanctuary service. Something dedicated to the Lord could be redeemed, or bought back, for the price of it's value plus 20%.
Tomorrow's reading; Numbers 2-3
An itemized accounting of the value of men and women, boys and girls, seems degrading and discriminatory to us, but not so in a culture unconcerned with political correctness. The values were simply based on the estimated amount of work that could be expected from each people group. Children and the elderly could not work as hard and were considered of lesser value. Women could not perform the same degree of physical labor that men could, resulting in their lesser value. It was not a commentary on their worth as human beings but simply a realistic measure of their value as "work-horses".
Finally, what is the difference between dedicating and devoting something or someone? Everything devoted to God was done so as an obligation and could not be redeemed. It had to be either destroyed (as in a sacrifice) or reserved exclusively for sanctuary service. Something dedicated to the Lord could be redeemed, or bought back, for the price of it's value plus 20%.
Tomorrow's reading; Numbers 2-3
Friday, February 25, 2011
Consequences of Obedience and Disobedience
Since we have already covered the issue of slavery back in Exodus, I'm going to direct you to the post from February 8th if that still gnaws at you. What gnawed at me from today's reading was the harsh consequences for disobedience. Naturally, I have no problem with the lavish blessings bestowed upon the "faithful". We tend to feel entitled to good things from God. But to think that He would quite viciously punish for disobedience seemed unfair. The verbiage is so vindictive that it seems inconsistent with our concept of a loving God. Plus it seems too simplistic a formula. We know from the world around us that the good guys don't always prosper and the bad guys don't always suffer. How do these verses work?
First of all, we have to recognize that these were the consequences for this group of Israelites who had agreed to this covenant relationship with God. There was alot on the line for this newborn nation and God needed to clearly lay down the conditions of the covenant. Some of the references were surely foreshadowing, as Israel would disobey God and plunge into idolatry alongside the surrounding pagan nations. And they would suffer the consequences listed...famine, loss of the land, being scattered among the nations, and finally God "remembering" them while in exile.
As discussed yesterday, it seems that the Israelites ignored the command to observe the Sabbath years and Year of Jubilee, vs. 26:35. The purpose of Jubilee was to remind israel of God's ownership of the land and to encourage them to hold on loosely to it in response to that acknowledgement. It was also intended to teach the Israelites to trust in God's provision during that Sabbath year, in much the same way that they were not to hoard manna in the desert, looking to provide for their own needs. The Sabbath years also provided a means of caring for the poor, as they were permitted to glean what the land produced. Despite all of the positive effects of the Jubilee celebration, we can see how difficult it would have been to actually do. It is difficult for Christians today to even commit to a tithe! Can you imagine how much participation the church would have if Christians were asked to hand over their property, cease the farming industry (their livelihood) and cancel all debts every 50 years, (and to a lesser extent every 7 years in the Sabbath year)? A nation-wide observance of Jubilee was not recorded in the Old Testament. So God had to take it upon Himself to provide the land the rest it needed by removing the people from it. While God says He will directly do such things in response to disobedience, most seem to be the natural consequences of the Israelites own poor choices. If they disobeyed, God would remove his hand of protection and blessing, which would set up the scenarios for famine and domination by other people groups. God cannot be held responsible for the Israelites disobedience, which He foreknew and spoke to in His listing of the consequences. Just because he knows it will happen doesn't make it His fault that it actually does.
Similarly, "living right" doesn't always equate to prosperity, though they were much more closely linked in the Old Testament than in the New. God promises peace, fertility, prosperity, bountiful harvests,and protection to the Israelites if they would keep the covenant. These were cause and effect statements. The progressive revelation of this teaching in the New Testament is that while the faithful may not live the good life now, they will one day in Heaven. And vice versa for the unfaithful.
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 27-Numbers 1
First of all, we have to recognize that these were the consequences for this group of Israelites who had agreed to this covenant relationship with God. There was alot on the line for this newborn nation and God needed to clearly lay down the conditions of the covenant. Some of the references were surely foreshadowing, as Israel would disobey God and plunge into idolatry alongside the surrounding pagan nations. And they would suffer the consequences listed...famine, loss of the land, being scattered among the nations, and finally God "remembering" them while in exile.
As discussed yesterday, it seems that the Israelites ignored the command to observe the Sabbath years and Year of Jubilee, vs. 26:35. The purpose of Jubilee was to remind israel of God's ownership of the land and to encourage them to hold on loosely to it in response to that acknowledgement. It was also intended to teach the Israelites to trust in God's provision during that Sabbath year, in much the same way that they were not to hoard manna in the desert, looking to provide for their own needs. The Sabbath years also provided a means of caring for the poor, as they were permitted to glean what the land produced. Despite all of the positive effects of the Jubilee celebration, we can see how difficult it would have been to actually do. It is difficult for Christians today to even commit to a tithe! Can you imagine how much participation the church would have if Christians were asked to hand over their property, cease the farming industry (their livelihood) and cancel all debts every 50 years, (and to a lesser extent every 7 years in the Sabbath year)? A nation-wide observance of Jubilee was not recorded in the Old Testament. So God had to take it upon Himself to provide the land the rest it needed by removing the people from it. While God says He will directly do such things in response to disobedience, most seem to be the natural consequences of the Israelites own poor choices. If they disobeyed, God would remove his hand of protection and blessing, which would set up the scenarios for famine and domination by other people groups. God cannot be held responsible for the Israelites disobedience, which He foreknew and spoke to in His listing of the consequences. Just because he knows it will happen doesn't make it His fault that it actually does.
Similarly, "living right" doesn't always equate to prosperity, though they were much more closely linked in the Old Testament than in the New. God promises peace, fertility, prosperity, bountiful harvests,and protection to the Israelites if they would keep the covenant. These were cause and effect statements. The progressive revelation of this teaching in the New Testament is that while the faithful may not live the good life now, they will one day in Heaven. And vice versa for the unfaithful.
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 27-Numbers 1
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Festivals
The observance of these 7 festivals was mandatory but intended to be times of great joy, celebration, remembrance, and community. Each one commemorated something God had done for the Israelites; remembering their deliverance from Egypt (Passover), God's protection over them while living in the wilderness (Feast of Tabernacles), gratitude for the harvest (Firstfruits), Day of Atonement, etc. Two additional celebrations occurred not annually, but regularly. The Sabbath year was observed every 7 years and resulted in the canceling of debts, the freeing of slaves, and the land lying fallow for the year. We will read later that the Israelites never obeyed this command and it led to their deportation to Babylon and Assyria. The land was vacant for 70 years during the babylonian captivity, which corresponds to the 70 Sabbath years that went unobserved between the exodus and captivity.
An even greater celebration occurred every 7th Sabbath year on the Year of Jubilee. During this celebration, slaves were freed and debts were cancelled, but additionally, land ownership was reverted to the original owners. The purpose of this was to teach the Israelites to hold on loosely to their possessions, for none of it actually belonged to them. An Israelite could buy a field, but during the Year of Jubilee it would be taken from him. Verse 25:23 says, "The land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners and tenant farmers working for me". The very same principle applies to us and our worldly possessions, though we hold on to them far too tightly to ever imagine rejoicing at the coming of a Jubilee.
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 25:24-26
An even greater celebration occurred every 7th Sabbath year on the Year of Jubilee. During this celebration, slaves were freed and debts were cancelled, but additionally, land ownership was reverted to the original owners. The purpose of this was to teach the Israelites to hold on loosely to their possessions, for none of it actually belonged to them. An Israelite could buy a field, but during the Year of Jubilee it would be taken from him. Verse 25:23 says, "The land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners and tenant farmers working for me". The very same principle applies to us and our worldly possessions, though we hold on to them far too tightly to ever imagine rejoicing at the coming of a Jubilee.
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 25:24-26
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Various Laws
More of the same today. Some laws that make sense to us, and others, like "do not slaughter a cow or sheep and its young on the same day". What's the difference if it's the next day? However, we must remember that we are over 3000 years removed from the culture that understood these laws. Some have proven to be timeless and others specific to a particular culture and time. But how do we know which ones to continue to uphold? Why is homosexuality still considered wrong but wearing two different fabrics is not? This is similar to the issue of a modern-day Sabbath. How are we able to pick and choose what we keep and what we relegate to antiquity? Some say we should obey everything in the Old Testament, while others say we are freed from all of it's regulations by Jesus' fulfillment of the law. Still others believe that only those regulations reiterated in the New Testament are valid for Christians.
My Quest Bible does a great job pointing out that we should follow Jesus' example of following the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law (legalism). "It's best to assume that within each law is an enduring principle that expresses part of God's will for us. Some details, written for Israel's situation, will not fit ours. But the truths behind them are timeless and can still be applied. For example, the Old Testament rules that seem to defy explanation often concerned Israel's call to be God's distinct people. In the same way, we should resist pressures to conform to the world around us. We can still apply God's standards to the details of our lives within the context of our culture".
One thing that may have bothered you, as it did me at first glance, was the regulation that priests not be handicapped in any way. This sounds unfair and discriminatory, but we should remember that the priests were to come from a very small pool of people ( men of a certain age, from the tribe of Levi, from the line of Aaron, ceremonially clean, and without defect) such that there was "discrimination" going on at several levels. Furthermore, the mandate about being free from defects mirrored what was required of a proper sacrifice. The priests needed to project an image of what God's considered holy, and His standard of holiness, as revealed in the sacrifice, was perfection.
Speaking of perfection, the one common denominator of this collection of rules is the absolute, rigid, unyielding application of stern justice for disobedience. Curse your mother and father...you die. Marry your brother's wife...you will be childless. Have sex during the monthly period...you will be cut off from your people. These were the things God expected of his people and the consequences for disobedience were severe. Yet we know from Israel's history, that they were guilty of breaking all of God's rules. They were incapable of meeting His standards. But the standards were put in place anyway, just as we do with our own children. We tell them not to lie, even though we know they will not be able to perfectly comply. The standard is put in place regardless of the likelihood of it being fully upheld. Whether or not the standards make sense to us is kind-of irrelevant. Many of my rules are completely illogical to my kids, but I expect them to be obeyed nonetheless. I need not concern myself with whether God's instructions make sense. To borrow an age-old parenting truism, "because I said so" is more than fitting!
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 23-25:23
My Quest Bible does a great job pointing out that we should follow Jesus' example of following the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law (legalism). "It's best to assume that within each law is an enduring principle that expresses part of God's will for us. Some details, written for Israel's situation, will not fit ours. But the truths behind them are timeless and can still be applied. For example, the Old Testament rules that seem to defy explanation often concerned Israel's call to be God's distinct people. In the same way, we should resist pressures to conform to the world around us. We can still apply God's standards to the details of our lives within the context of our culture".
One thing that may have bothered you, as it did me at first glance, was the regulation that priests not be handicapped in any way. This sounds unfair and discriminatory, but we should remember that the priests were to come from a very small pool of people ( men of a certain age, from the tribe of Levi, from the line of Aaron, ceremonially clean, and without defect) such that there was "discrimination" going on at several levels. Furthermore, the mandate about being free from defects mirrored what was required of a proper sacrifice. The priests needed to project an image of what God's considered holy, and His standard of holiness, as revealed in the sacrifice, was perfection.
Speaking of perfection, the one common denominator of this collection of rules is the absolute, rigid, unyielding application of stern justice for disobedience. Curse your mother and father...you die. Marry your brother's wife...you will be childless. Have sex during the monthly period...you will be cut off from your people. These were the things God expected of his people and the consequences for disobedience were severe. Yet we know from Israel's history, that they were guilty of breaking all of God's rules. They were incapable of meeting His standards. But the standards were put in place anyway, just as we do with our own children. We tell them not to lie, even though we know they will not be able to perfectly comply. The standard is put in place regardless of the likelihood of it being fully upheld. Whether or not the standards make sense to us is kind-of irrelevant. Many of my rules are completely illogical to my kids, but I expect them to be obeyed nonetheless. I need not concern myself with whether God's instructions make sense. To borrow an age-old parenting truism, "because I said so" is more than fitting!
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 23-25:23
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Laws regarding conduct
Some of these are very puzzling laws. Some are very straightforward... "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge". Got it. "Do not insult the deaf or cause the blind to stumble". Good wisdom. "Do not stand idly by when your neighbor's life is threatened". Agreed. But "don't wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread"? Why not? "Do not trim the hair on your temples or trim your beards". Again, I'd love an explanation! And finally, all the laws about who you can't have sex with! It must have been a rampant problem. But my thought is, why not just say "Do not have sex with anyone except your wife". Maybe that's wishful thinking. God knows the heart of His people too well. He certainly had reason to believe that His instructions would not be taken at face value, yet I find myself wanting a stronger mandate against sex outside of marriage. What is clear, as my husband pointed out, was that God was warning them not to behave as the Egyptians and Canaanites, the cultures they were leaving and entering, respectively. Gross sexual immorality was pervasive in both, and God wanted the Israelites to differentiate themselves. Perhaps the behaviors listed were not so much a catalog of what was going on in the nation of Israel, as it was a warning based on the behavior of those around them.
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 20-22
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 20-22
Monday, February 21, 2011
Day of Atonement
Thank goodness for the section on the Day of Atonement in today's reading, as the discharge laws make for awkward commentary! What is worth pointing out is that these laws were put in place to safeguard the Israelites against the spread of communicable diseases and infections. "Bodily" discharge can mean anything (diarrhea, runny nose, etc.) but likely refers to the reproductive organ, which would indicate gonorrhea or syphillus. In much the same way that we mandate a 24-hour fever-free period before returning a sick child to school or a runny nose with clear instead of yellowed drainage, the Law required a period of quarantine, as well as a sin offering. There were also laws governing natural bodily functions that were not contagious, such as male emissions of semen and female menstruation. For such occurrences, there was no offering for purification required though there was a brief period of uncleanness imposed. Perhaps it was a means of "erring on the side of caution" to have the Israelites avoid contact with all forms of bodily discharge even though not all were contagious or sinful. Additionally, the observance of such laws had other benefits, particularly those governing sexual intercourse. Laws requiring men and women who have had intercourse to be considered unclean for a full day, ensured that all sexual activity was separated from worship. God was not saying that sex was sinful but that it was a "common" and not 'holy" activity that had no place in worship. This ran contrary to the common pagan practices of the time that included orgiastic fertility rites in worship. By saying that sex rendered a person ceremonially unclean for a full day, God safeguarded against the integration of sexual activity into Tabernacle/Temple worship.
The Day of Atonement, known to the Jews as Yom Kippur, is full of symbolism that points toward Jesus' ultimate atonement on the cross. This was a day on which the entire nation of Israel was reconciled to God on the basis of a sin offering and a scapegoat. The sin offering, involving shed blood, paid the price for sin. Thus, the atonement. The scapegoat symbolized a different aspect of the reconciliation. When the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to the goat, the animal was then led deep into the wilderness and set free. The picture here is of the sins being forever cast away and remembered no more. "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us", (Ps. 103:12). The Day of Atonement was unlike any if the other festivals, in that it was not festive! It was somber day wherein the Israelites mourned their sin before the Lord. The High Priest shed his usual grandeur (robes made of opulent fabrics and elaborate jewels and adornment) for simple linen tunics. In the presence of the Lord, he was to humble himself as opposed to commanding the attention and respect befitting his office. Before even making the offering, the high priest was to cover the ark in a thick cloud if incense such that the glory of the Lord would be obscured. The Israelites took this day very seriously and recognized the necessity of reconciliation with God.
Much rather dwell on this than the first part of our reading...
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 17-19
The Day of Atonement, known to the Jews as Yom Kippur, is full of symbolism that points toward Jesus' ultimate atonement on the cross. This was a day on which the entire nation of Israel was reconciled to God on the basis of a sin offering and a scapegoat. The sin offering, involving shed blood, paid the price for sin. Thus, the atonement. The scapegoat symbolized a different aspect of the reconciliation. When the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to the goat, the animal was then led deep into the wilderness and set free. The picture here is of the sins being forever cast away and remembered no more. "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us", (Ps. 103:12). The Day of Atonement was unlike any if the other festivals, in that it was not festive! It was somber day wherein the Israelites mourned their sin before the Lord. The High Priest shed his usual grandeur (robes made of opulent fabrics and elaborate jewels and adornment) for simple linen tunics. In the presence of the Lord, he was to humble himself as opposed to commanding the attention and respect befitting his office. Before even making the offering, the high priest was to cover the ark in a thick cloud if incense such that the glory of the Lord would be obscured. The Israelites took this day very seriously and recognized the necessity of reconciliation with God.
Much rather dwell on this than the first part of our reading...
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 17-19
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Health/Hygiene Laws
Today's readings contain a bunch of unpleasant discussions regarding sores and boils and mildew, oh my. And there is more where this came from! We'll be reading about bodily discharges tomorrow! I'm not able to make a whole lot of sense out of these laws. Clearly, some had practical applications and were intended to prevent the spread of disease to people and property. And in a world before doctors and hospitals, there had to be some means of diagnosing and containing common maladies. The emphasis of each of these laws was on being "clean". Whenever anything happened to make them unclean, they had to be purified. This speaks to the absolute holiness of God and his standards for acceptance. Still, some of the laws, like the one requiring a purification period after childbirth and menstruation, seem odd to me. Those are not contagious conditions, nor are they sinful ones. Why the need for purification? As best I can figure, these laws were given in terms of holiness, not health. He never claims to be instituting these laws for the protection of the people, though we now recognize many of the health benefits of Old Testament regulations. Holiness and health may overlap, but they are not synonymous. There were two situations that caused uncleanness; moral transgression, which caused spiritual uncleanness and required an offering for purification, and ritual uncleanness, which rendered a person ceremonially unclean but required no purification offering. Therefore, whenever the word "unclean" is used, it should not necessarily be read as "sinful".
Tomorrow's reading:Leviticus 14:33-16:34
Tomorrow's reading:Leviticus 14:33-16:34
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Nadab and Abihu
No blog yesterday due to the fact that I combined two blogs into one, since the content of the days' readings were so similar. Today we read the strange and tragic account of Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu. These guys, who were second in rank only to Moses and Aaron, were destroyed by God for a seemingly benign offense just after their ordination as priests. This account lends further credence to the fact that God looks at the heart, not the outward appearance of things. Aaron's sin with the golden calf certainly seemed more serious than this offering of unauthorized fire before the Lord. And yet, Aaron wore the "HOLY TO THE LORD" turban while his sons were consumed by God's wrath. Something else must be going on.
What can be gathered from supporting texts in Leviticus, shows evidence of a lack of reverence for God and a trivialization of that which is holy. Exodus 30:9 stated that no other incense was to be offered on the altar, yet Nadab and Abihu offered some kind of "strange fire". Censers taken from the altar were holy objects and could only burn "holy" fire...that which came from the altar itself, but they put their own coals into the fire. Another clue as to the heart issue underlying the "strange fire" incident, is found later in the book. "Now the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they had approached the presence of the Lord and died. And the Lord said to Moses, 'Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die'" --- Leviticus 16:1-2. This seems to indicate that Nadab and Abihu had attempted to approach God in the Holy of Holies, where only the high priest had access, and even so, only once a year. The verse states that they "approached the presence of the Lord" and in the same sentence, Aaron is instructed never to attempt entrance into the holy place, lest he die. Knowing how stringent the requirements for entrance into the Holy of Holies were, if Nadab and Abihu violated God's standards in this way, it was nothing short of reckless arrogance. The Israelites were so fearful of the presence of God, (and I mean that in a holy, reverent kind of way as opposed to terror), that they tied a rope to the high priest when he went in on the Day of Atonement, so that he could be pulled out in case of death. Nobody could go in to retrieve his body! It was that big of a deal to enter the Holy of Holies.
So, we have the two of them offering the wrong kind of fire in a location that they were forbidden to enter. But there is one more possibility to add to the equation. Immediately following the account of Nadab and Abihu's deaths, the instructions for priestly conduct are given. The very first sentence of that paragraph reads "Then the Lord said to Aaron, 'You and your descendants must never drink wine or any other alcoholic drink before going into the Tabernacle. If you do, you will die". The proximity of this command to the account of Nadab and Abihu's destruction, has led many scholars to assume that the brothers were guilty of drunkenness, which resulted in their poor judgement.
I felt alot better about this passage after spending some time on it. Sometimes at face value, God's actions do not seem "fair" to our human sensibilities. And we won't always be able to rationalize the sovereign will of God. But in this case, I can see how the actions of Nadab and Abihu revealed a dangerous indifference to the role that had been entrusted to them. Because they held such high office, they were doubly accountable and had to be punished for their lack of reverence for God.
The reading goes on to list clean and unclean animals. I have to comment on this because this topic has been of great interest to me recently. I changed my eating habits to a large degree 9 months ago, after reading a book about the dietary laws of the Old Testament and their relevance today. It would take way too long to expound upon, but suffice it to say, these restrictions were not arbitrary and had legitimate health benefits. In fact, their inclusion in the Bible is evidence of scientific foreknowledge, as the regulations confirm much of what we now know to be healthy and unhealthy eating practices. The distinguishing factor between the clean and unclean animals, concerns the diets of the animals themselves. All of the clean animals are herbivores while the unclean animals are carnivores or scavengers. They could not have known then but we know now, that carnivorous animals carry pathogens such as parasites, not found in animals on plant-based diets. Scavenger feeders, like pigs and shellfish, are known to accumulate toxins at dangerous levels for humans. I came across a crazy study conducted on the toilets of kosher Jews and non-Jews. The non-Jew toilets carried eggs of trichonella, schistosoma, wire worm and tape worm, all found in pork, while the toilets of jews were "clean". Ewww. Food for thought...
Tomorrow's reading: Lev. 12:1-14:32
What can be gathered from supporting texts in Leviticus, shows evidence of a lack of reverence for God and a trivialization of that which is holy. Exodus 30:9 stated that no other incense was to be offered on the altar, yet Nadab and Abihu offered some kind of "strange fire". Censers taken from the altar were holy objects and could only burn "holy" fire...that which came from the altar itself, but they put their own coals into the fire. Another clue as to the heart issue underlying the "strange fire" incident, is found later in the book. "Now the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they had approached the presence of the Lord and died. And the Lord said to Moses, 'Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die'" --- Leviticus 16:1-2. This seems to indicate that Nadab and Abihu had attempted to approach God in the Holy of Holies, where only the high priest had access, and even so, only once a year. The verse states that they "approached the presence of the Lord" and in the same sentence, Aaron is instructed never to attempt entrance into the holy place, lest he die. Knowing how stringent the requirements for entrance into the Holy of Holies were, if Nadab and Abihu violated God's standards in this way, it was nothing short of reckless arrogance. The Israelites were so fearful of the presence of God, (and I mean that in a holy, reverent kind of way as opposed to terror), that they tied a rope to the high priest when he went in on the Day of Atonement, so that he could be pulled out in case of death. Nobody could go in to retrieve his body! It was that big of a deal to enter the Holy of Holies.
So, we have the two of them offering the wrong kind of fire in a location that they were forbidden to enter. But there is one more possibility to add to the equation. Immediately following the account of Nadab and Abihu's deaths, the instructions for priestly conduct are given. The very first sentence of that paragraph reads "Then the Lord said to Aaron, 'You and your descendants must never drink wine or any other alcoholic drink before going into the Tabernacle. If you do, you will die". The proximity of this command to the account of Nadab and Abihu's destruction, has led many scholars to assume that the brothers were guilty of drunkenness, which resulted in their poor judgement.
I felt alot better about this passage after spending some time on it. Sometimes at face value, God's actions do not seem "fair" to our human sensibilities. And we won't always be able to rationalize the sovereign will of God. But in this case, I can see how the actions of Nadab and Abihu revealed a dangerous indifference to the role that had been entrusted to them. Because they held such high office, they were doubly accountable and had to be punished for their lack of reverence for God.
The reading goes on to list clean and unclean animals. I have to comment on this because this topic has been of great interest to me recently. I changed my eating habits to a large degree 9 months ago, after reading a book about the dietary laws of the Old Testament and their relevance today. It would take way too long to expound upon, but suffice it to say, these restrictions were not arbitrary and had legitimate health benefits. In fact, their inclusion in the Bible is evidence of scientific foreknowledge, as the regulations confirm much of what we now know to be healthy and unhealthy eating practices. The distinguishing factor between the clean and unclean animals, concerns the diets of the animals themselves. All of the clean animals are herbivores while the unclean animals are carnivores or scavengers. They could not have known then but we know now, that carnivorous animals carry pathogens such as parasites, not found in animals on plant-based diets. Scavenger feeders, like pigs and shellfish, are known to accumulate toxins at dangerous levels for humans. I came across a crazy study conducted on the toilets of kosher Jews and non-Jews. The non-Jew toilets carried eggs of trichonella, schistosoma, wire worm and tape worm, all found in pork, while the toilets of jews were "clean". Ewww. Food for thought...
Tomorrow's reading: Lev. 12:1-14:32
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Burnt Offerings
This post will combine the readings for today and tomorrow, as it is easier to talk about the offerings as a whole. Let me start by outlining the purpose of each of the offerings...
Burnt offering: a blanket sacrifice for wrongdoing in general
Peace offering: voluntary; for thanksgiving, worship, and fellowship
Sin offering: to cover unintentional sin
Guilt Offering: to cover sins requiring restitution
Grain offering: voluntary; for worship and thanksgiving
You have probably heard it said that all of the Old Testament points to Jesus and this is very true of the sacrificial system. It's very existence showed the Israelites that maintaining a "clean slate" with God would require tireless effort. Atonement had to be made even for sins they were unaware of! When I think of the multitude of things that I don't ask forgiveness for... impatience, short temper, unkind words, etc. (things that often do not trip my repentance radar), I can easily understand the need for an unintentional sin offering. The Israelites were being taught that God's standards for holiness were non-negotiable and that falling short of those standards was a matter of life and death. The presence of sin was cause for death and God allowed them to pay for their sin through animal sacrifice. When making their offerings on the altar, the Israelites were to place a hand on the head of the animal before it was slain, thereby symbolically transferring their sin onto the animal. Verse 1:4 says "Lay your hand on the animal's head and the Lord will accept it's death in your place, to purify you, making you right with him". The Israelites clearly understood the concept of substitutionary atonement well before Jesus hung on a cross as payment for the sin of mankind. And they understood that the sacrifice had to mean something to the one offering it. The animal had to be a male with no defects...the best of the flock. They could not offer up an undesirable animal in an effort to atone for their sin, as such an offering would not have "cost" them anything. There needed to be a real investment in the sacrifice for it to be worthy. The parallel to Jesus is obvious. God offered Him as a sacrifice, a "male with no defects", and it was a sacrifice that cost Him dearly. And while the sacrifice of an animal offered reconciliation with God, it was always limited and temporary. It is perfectly logical that if the best livestock could not atone for sin in a permanent way, a "higher" offering would have to be made. There is nothing, no One, higher than the Son of God, and His sacrifice was sufficient in a way that animal sacrifice never would be. His sacrifice atoned for the sins of all mankind, for all time. He is that worthy.
Tomorrow's reading: Lev. 7-8
Reading for the 19th: Lev.9-11
Burnt offering: a blanket sacrifice for wrongdoing in general
Peace offering: voluntary; for thanksgiving, worship, and fellowship
Sin offering: to cover unintentional sin
Guilt Offering: to cover sins requiring restitution
Grain offering: voluntary; for worship and thanksgiving
You have probably heard it said that all of the Old Testament points to Jesus and this is very true of the sacrificial system. It's very existence showed the Israelites that maintaining a "clean slate" with God would require tireless effort. Atonement had to be made even for sins they were unaware of! When I think of the multitude of things that I don't ask forgiveness for... impatience, short temper, unkind words, etc. (things that often do not trip my repentance radar), I can easily understand the need for an unintentional sin offering. The Israelites were being taught that God's standards for holiness were non-negotiable and that falling short of those standards was a matter of life and death. The presence of sin was cause for death and God allowed them to pay for their sin through animal sacrifice. When making their offerings on the altar, the Israelites were to place a hand on the head of the animal before it was slain, thereby symbolically transferring their sin onto the animal. Verse 1:4 says "Lay your hand on the animal's head and the Lord will accept it's death in your place, to purify you, making you right with him". The Israelites clearly understood the concept of substitutionary atonement well before Jesus hung on a cross as payment for the sin of mankind. And they understood that the sacrifice had to mean something to the one offering it. The animal had to be a male with no defects...the best of the flock. They could not offer up an undesirable animal in an effort to atone for their sin, as such an offering would not have "cost" them anything. There needed to be a real investment in the sacrifice for it to be worthy. The parallel to Jesus is obvious. God offered Him as a sacrifice, a "male with no defects", and it was a sacrifice that cost Him dearly. And while the sacrifice of an animal offered reconciliation with God, it was always limited and temporary. It is perfectly logical that if the best livestock could not atone for sin in a permanent way, a "higher" offering would have to be made. There is nothing, no One, higher than the Son of God, and His sacrifice was sufficient in a way that animal sacrifice never would be. His sacrifice atoned for the sins of all mankind, for all time. He is that worthy.
Tomorrow's reading: Lev. 7-8
Reading for the 19th: Lev.9-11
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Leviticus
The book of Exodus contained instructions for building the Tabernacle and the book of Leviticus outlined the standards for worship in the Tabernacle. It is based on the instructions given to Moses on Mount Sinai and in the tent of meeting and were probably written down during the Israelites' 40 years in the wilderness. The book itself can be neatly divided into two sections, with the first 10 chapters describing the way to approach God and the remaining 17 chapters dealing with the way to walk with God. The focus of the first section is on the 5 basic types of offerings that were established to make the people "right" with God. The point was to be cleansed of sin and purified in order to appease God. It will take a few days to get through the readings that cover all of these offerings, so I will wait to address them until then. Note that the Israelites have been in the desert for a year now, as it is already time to celebrate the anniversary of the Passover.
For today, I think it is important to note the role of the Levites. Remember that they were set apart for the Lord when their tribe alone, stood with Moses on "the side of the Lord" after the golden calf fiasco. The Levites did not have any land and served the Lord in the tabernacle. They were provided for through the offerings of the remaining Israelites, who understood that it was their responsibility. In Numbers 8:16-18, it is stated that the Levites took the place of all the firstborn sons of Israel, who were "owed" to the Lord due to his "passing over" them during the final plague in Egypt. Israelite parents paid an offering to redeem their firstborn sons, and as such, they were symbolically dedicated to the Lord. The Levites were the physical fulfillment of the duty to reserve the firstborn of Israel. The firstborn of all the livestock belonged to God as well. Even today, God does not want our left-overs; our after-thoughts. He desires the firstfruits of all that we have. Not the money that we can comfortably give after all other needs and wants have been met, but the firstfruits, such that other spending is secondary.
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 4-6
For today, I think it is important to note the role of the Levites. Remember that they were set apart for the Lord when their tribe alone, stood with Moses on "the side of the Lord" after the golden calf fiasco. The Levites did not have any land and served the Lord in the tabernacle. They were provided for through the offerings of the remaining Israelites, who understood that it was their responsibility. In Numbers 8:16-18, it is stated that the Levites took the place of all the firstborn sons of Israel, who were "owed" to the Lord due to his "passing over" them during the final plague in Egypt. Israelite parents paid an offering to redeem their firstborn sons, and as such, they were symbolically dedicated to the Lord. The Levites were the physical fulfillment of the duty to reserve the firstborn of Israel. The firstborn of all the livestock belonged to God as well. Even today, God does not want our left-overs; our after-thoughts. He desires the firstfruits of all that we have. Not the money that we can comfortably give after all other needs and wants have been met, but the firstfruits, such that other spending is secondary.
Tomorrow's reading: Leviticus 4-6
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Offerings of Dedication
Well, this was one of those readings that you just have to push through. Very tempting to skim, and I confess I did once I realized that it was twelve identical paragraphs! Moving into the books of Leviticus and Numbers tomorrow. You've now read three books of the Bible in their entirety...Genesis, Exodus, and Job!
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 8-9:14; Leviticus 1-3:17
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 8-9:14; Leviticus 1-3:17
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Glory of the Lord in the Tabernacle
The Israelites had the amazing gift of God's presence. They could visibly see, without seeing God himself, that He was in their midst. And when He moved, they moved. When He stayed put, so did they. For any of us who have ever wondered, "should I take that job or stay here?", "should we move to a bigger house or stay put?", "should I go back to school and change careers or stay where I am?"; the moving cloud would be a welcomed indicator. How easy would that be? If the cloud moves, you move. If not, you don't. That's how the Israelites lived for 40 years...with that kind of certainty. As attractive as burning bushes and pillars of fire are to me, I have to remember that what we have, in the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit in our hearts, is a better arrangement. Now, it's only a better arrangement if we tap into it, by relating with the Holy Spirit and listening for His voice. But if we train our eyes to see and our ears to listen, we can have that same kind of certainty.
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 7
Tomorrow's reading: Numbers 7
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Bezalel gets to work!
Bezalel must have had a very capable committee working beneath him, because he was responsible for everything built in the Tabernacle. In the midst of the descriptions of the construction effort, Moses stops to record the inventory of materials collected for the Tabernacle. Since we are not familiar with the equivalence of sheckels and talents, I thought it would be interesting to know what these numbers meant. Turns out the Israelites gave roughly a ton (2000 lbs.) of gold, 4 tons of silver, and 2 1/2 tons of bronze. Modern day worth of the gold alone would have approached 1 million dollars, and when other materials (fabrics, animal skins, wood, precious stones) are taken into account, the overall cost of the Tabernacle would be equivalent to $5,000,000! This insertion into the construction details seems to be a reminder for all time, that this is what it looks like when people give as God leads them.
Moses finishes off the description with the making of the priestly garments. The final verse read "Finally, they made the sacred medallion- the badge of holiness- of pure gold. They engraved it like a seal with these words: HOLY TO THE LORD. They attached the medallion with a blue cord to Aaron's turban, just as the Lord had commanded Moses. Aaron... Golden calf Aaron! I found myself thinking initially, "he didn't deserve to wear a turban that said HOLY TO THE LORD on it", but then was reminded that truly none of us deserves to be used of God, and yet He chooses to do so. Aaron is no different. So if you've done something in your life that you believe renders you unqualified for any use by God, think again. Could it possibly have been worse than making a golden calf for an entire nation of people to worship in blatant idolatry?! No, it couldn't. And if you've been keeping up with your readings, you know that the heroes of the faith were all broken people. But when broken people dust themselves off and get back in the game, God can do great things through them.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 39:32-40:38 and Numbers 9:15-23
Moses finishes off the description with the making of the priestly garments. The final verse read "Finally, they made the sacred medallion- the badge of holiness- of pure gold. They engraved it like a seal with these words: HOLY TO THE LORD. They attached the medallion with a blue cord to Aaron's turban, just as the Lord had commanded Moses. Aaron... Golden calf Aaron! I found myself thinking initially, "he didn't deserve to wear a turban that said HOLY TO THE LORD on it", but then was reminded that truly none of us deserves to be used of God, and yet He chooses to do so. Aaron is no different. So if you've done something in your life that you believe renders you unqualified for any use by God, think again. Could it possibly have been worse than making a golden calf for an entire nation of people to worship in blatant idolatry?! No, it couldn't. And if you've been keeping up with your readings, you know that the heroes of the faith were all broken people. But when broken people dust themselves off and get back in the game, God can do great things through them.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 39:32-40:38 and Numbers 9:15-23
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Building the Tabernacle
As someone noted in the comments from yesterday, God has said something about the Sabbath every day for the past 5 days! He is clearly driving home the point that the Sabbath regulations are for real! Isn't it funny that we have to be mandated to stop working? Is working really that awesome and resting that unpleasant? I am speaking to myself louder than anyone when I say this, but we need to listen to God when he reiterates something this strongly!
The most striking thing about today's reading for me, was the willingness of the people to give. When it came time to build the Tabernacle, the people supplied the materials. On different occasions, the text speaks of "those whose hearts were willing" and "every man and woman who was eager to help" and "all whose spirits were moved". In fact, God's specific instructions were to "let those with generous hearts present the following gifts..." He does not mandate that every family within the nation of Israel donate a certain percentage of their goods. Remember that they are in possession of all of this finery because the Egyptians gave it to them as they were leaving. Did you think that strange at the time, that the Lord would have prompted the hearts of the Egyptians to hand over their finest jewelry and clothing to the fleeing Israelites? Well in hindsight, how else would the Israelite slaves have had any gold or silver or fine cloth to use for the construction of the Tabernacle??? Nothing is arbitrary. The things that make no sense to us, make sense to God whether we ever get the benefit of understanding it or not.
Back to the Israelites' cheerful giving... We do not see God forcibly requiring the Israelites to provide for the Tabernacle but rather we see him drawing the hearts of those who were willing. This was not a tithe, the 10% given by each family for the care of the Levites (priests who served the Lord in the Tabernacle and earned no income), the funding of religious festivals, and the care of the poor. This was a "love offering" and the people gave above and beyond what was needed. Moses had to ask them to stop bringing gifts for the Tabernacle! What a problem to have and what a foreign concept for the modern-day church. I heard a message over the holidays about giving, and remember it being said that if every Christian tithed, not every person just every Christian, we could end hunger and poverty and the social evils that accompany them. Clearly, we are of a different mindset than the Israelites. Just 3% of Americans give 10% of their income and less than 6% of Christians are regular tithers. Christians spend more in a year on dog food than they do in giving to their churches and Christian ministries. And in these lean times, ministries are down-sizing and even closing their doors due to lack of funding.
The Israelites were pleased to take part in the work of the Lord and the same is expected of us today. We should contribute to the Lord's work gladly and equip the church to minister to God's people as it should. Second Corinthians 9:7 reads "each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver". The tithe is no longer our benchmark, as it is an Old Testament regulation. However, most theologians would agree that the 10% recommendation should be the minimum for today's Christian instead of a mark that few even hit.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 37-39:31
The most striking thing about today's reading for me, was the willingness of the people to give. When it came time to build the Tabernacle, the people supplied the materials. On different occasions, the text speaks of "those whose hearts were willing" and "every man and woman who was eager to help" and "all whose spirits were moved". In fact, God's specific instructions were to "let those with generous hearts present the following gifts..." He does not mandate that every family within the nation of Israel donate a certain percentage of their goods. Remember that they are in possession of all of this finery because the Egyptians gave it to them as they were leaving. Did you think that strange at the time, that the Lord would have prompted the hearts of the Egyptians to hand over their finest jewelry and clothing to the fleeing Israelites? Well in hindsight, how else would the Israelite slaves have had any gold or silver or fine cloth to use for the construction of the Tabernacle??? Nothing is arbitrary. The things that make no sense to us, make sense to God whether we ever get the benefit of understanding it or not.
Back to the Israelites' cheerful giving... We do not see God forcibly requiring the Israelites to provide for the Tabernacle but rather we see him drawing the hearts of those who were willing. This was not a tithe, the 10% given by each family for the care of the Levites (priests who served the Lord in the Tabernacle and earned no income), the funding of religious festivals, and the care of the poor. This was a "love offering" and the people gave above and beyond what was needed. Moses had to ask them to stop bringing gifts for the Tabernacle! What a problem to have and what a foreign concept for the modern-day church. I heard a message over the holidays about giving, and remember it being said that if every Christian tithed, not every person just every Christian, we could end hunger and poverty and the social evils that accompany them. Clearly, we are of a different mindset than the Israelites. Just 3% of Americans give 10% of their income and less than 6% of Christians are regular tithers. Christians spend more in a year on dog food than they do in giving to their churches and Christian ministries. And in these lean times, ministries are down-sizing and even closing their doors due to lack of funding.
The Israelites were pleased to take part in the work of the Lord and the same is expected of us today. We should contribute to the Lord's work gladly and equip the church to minister to God's people as it should. Second Corinthians 9:7 reads "each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver". The tithe is no longer our benchmark, as it is an Old Testament regulation. However, most theologians would agree that the 10% recommendation should be the minimum for today's Christian instead of a mark that few even hit.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 37-39:31
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Golden Calf
It's amazing how short our attention spans can be. I have definitely experienced this in my own walk with the Lord, so have no right to judge, but this rush to "make for themselves an idol" so soon after the miracles of the Exodus, is stunning. And that Aaron would go along with it, is even more stunning! We must remember though, that the Israelites had been living in a pagan culture for hundreds of years and we do not know to what extent they worshipped the Lord; i.e. how much of Jacob's example had survived the generations. So idolatrous thinking and worship would have been second nature. his is no excuse but certainly helps to put the behavior in context. I was amazed that God did not kill Aaron for his disobedience, especially since so many others died for theirs. Later on we will read that God only spared Aaron's life because Moses interceded for him in prayer.
In today's passage, we also read that Moses' intercession saved the entire nation from suffering God's wrath. In fact, the text says that "the Lord changed his mind about the terrible disaster he had threatened to bring on His people". This brings up an interesting theological discussion. Does God change his mind? The Bible clearly says that "I, the Lord, do not change" (Malachi 3:6), but is that the same thing as changing His mind? Certainly his character and nature do not change. And neither does He change His mind, though it is often described as such for the purpose of human understanding. Since God has foreknowledge of how we will react in our circumstances, it can appear that we have changed His mind when really He simply knew how we would react and set up the situation accordingly. For example, it was not God's desire to destroy His people but it was his plan to prompt Moses' prayer on their behalf. He foreknew that Moses would intercede and therefore knew that He would not wipe out the entire nation. It was not God who changed but the circumstances. Initially, God was reacting to the disobedience of the people. But after Moses' intercession, God was reacting to the heart of Moses. His prayer did make a difference, but only because God knew that it would. Confusing. Another Biblical example of this concept lies in the story of Solomon's ruling between the two mothers. We'll be reading this account in a few months, but you may recall the story of the two women who were both claiming ownership of one baby. Solomon's solution was to cut the baby in half, giving each woman an equal share. This was intended to reveal the real mother, who immediately begged Solomon to give the baby to the other woman instead of hurting him. Did her plea change his mind? No! He was never going to harm the baby. He knew how the mother would react and knew that the situation would never come to such a conclusion. In similar fashion, God "changed His mind" about destroying the Israelites. It was never His intention to do so, but to elicit a desired response in Moses. This is described as "changing God's mind" for our benefit, because it is a concept with which we can relate. One of my books offerred a good analogy of a chess match between an expert and a novice. The expert modifies his strategy in response to the moves of the novice, but he anticipates them, such that the game is never out of his control.
While on the topic of heavy theological pondering, did Moses see God, "face to face as a man speaks with a friend?" In many places, the Bible speaks of no man having seen the face of God. This came up a few days ago when Moses and Aaron saw the feet of God and the place where he stood. This passage refers to Moses meeting with God inside the Tabernacle, but just a few verses later, Moses asks to see His "glorious presence". So something was different about the two references. If Moses had truly seen God face to face as mentioned in verse 33:11, then he would have already seen His glorious presence. It seems that this "face to face" meeting involved some kind of representation of God, maybe the pillar of cloud, but not the full glory of God. And this is what Moses wanted to see. He knew he had not yet truly seen God. Because no one could see God and live, God would not allow Moses to look at His face. The description of Moses hiding in the cleft of the rock while the Lord covered his face with His hand, is anthropomorphic, as is the description of seeing the Lord's "back". Scholars suspect that what Moses actually saw was the afterglow of the Lord's passing by. Knowing that Moses' face was "brilliant" when he descended the mountain days later, gives a impression of how luminous the afterglow would have been. And later, whenever Moses would speak with the Lord in the tent of meeting, his face would be radiant. So much so that he kept his face veiled in between meetings. It was apparently too much for the people to look upon. They could see God all over him.
I can't help but equate this with the notion that we are to be "light" in this dark world and that we are to "let our light so shine before men that they may see our good deeds and praise our Father in heaven..." Is God all over us? Is his light shining through us such that others would take notice, much less be taken aback?
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 35-36
In today's passage, we also read that Moses' intercession saved the entire nation from suffering God's wrath. In fact, the text says that "the Lord changed his mind about the terrible disaster he had threatened to bring on His people". This brings up an interesting theological discussion. Does God change his mind? The Bible clearly says that "I, the Lord, do not change" (Malachi 3:6), but is that the same thing as changing His mind? Certainly his character and nature do not change. And neither does He change His mind, though it is often described as such for the purpose of human understanding. Since God has foreknowledge of how we will react in our circumstances, it can appear that we have changed His mind when really He simply knew how we would react and set up the situation accordingly. For example, it was not God's desire to destroy His people but it was his plan to prompt Moses' prayer on their behalf. He foreknew that Moses would intercede and therefore knew that He would not wipe out the entire nation. It was not God who changed but the circumstances. Initially, God was reacting to the disobedience of the people. But after Moses' intercession, God was reacting to the heart of Moses. His prayer did make a difference, but only because God knew that it would. Confusing. Another Biblical example of this concept lies in the story of Solomon's ruling between the two mothers. We'll be reading this account in a few months, but you may recall the story of the two women who were both claiming ownership of one baby. Solomon's solution was to cut the baby in half, giving each woman an equal share. This was intended to reveal the real mother, who immediately begged Solomon to give the baby to the other woman instead of hurting him. Did her plea change his mind? No! He was never going to harm the baby. He knew how the mother would react and knew that the situation would never come to such a conclusion. In similar fashion, God "changed His mind" about destroying the Israelites. It was never His intention to do so, but to elicit a desired response in Moses. This is described as "changing God's mind" for our benefit, because it is a concept with which we can relate. One of my books offerred a good analogy of a chess match between an expert and a novice. The expert modifies his strategy in response to the moves of the novice, but he anticipates them, such that the game is never out of his control.
While on the topic of heavy theological pondering, did Moses see God, "face to face as a man speaks with a friend?" In many places, the Bible speaks of no man having seen the face of God. This came up a few days ago when Moses and Aaron saw the feet of God and the place where he stood. This passage refers to Moses meeting with God inside the Tabernacle, but just a few verses later, Moses asks to see His "glorious presence". So something was different about the two references. If Moses had truly seen God face to face as mentioned in verse 33:11, then he would have already seen His glorious presence. It seems that this "face to face" meeting involved some kind of representation of God, maybe the pillar of cloud, but not the full glory of God. And this is what Moses wanted to see. He knew he had not yet truly seen God. Because no one could see God and live, God would not allow Moses to look at His face. The description of Moses hiding in the cleft of the rock while the Lord covered his face with His hand, is anthropomorphic, as is the description of seeing the Lord's "back". Scholars suspect that what Moses actually saw was the afterglow of the Lord's passing by. Knowing that Moses' face was "brilliant" when he descended the mountain days later, gives a impression of how luminous the afterglow would have been. And later, whenever Moses would speak with the Lord in the tent of meeting, his face would be radiant. So much so that he kept his face veiled in between meetings. It was apparently too much for the people to look upon. They could see God all over him.
I can't help but equate this with the notion that we are to be "light" in this dark world and that we are to "let our light so shine before men that they may see our good deeds and praise our Father in heaven..." Is God all over us? Is his light shining through us such that others would take notice, much less be taken aback?
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 35-36
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Instructions for Tabernacle Worship
In reading over some of the passages from yesterday's reading, I realized I neglected to mention something of interest to me. In the description of the priestly garments, verse 28:30 speaks of the "Urim and Thummim" in the breastpiece such that Aaron would "always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the Lord". I wondered, "what are the Urim and Thummim and how do they help Aaron make decisions before the Lord"? Unfortunately, the answer is that no one really knows. It must have been common knowledge to the ancient Hebrews, but modern-day scholars can only surmise that they were stones or dice used to determine God's will. Some of the hypotheses as to how they may have worked range from sounding like a Magic 8-Ball to a Ouija board, both of which I initially found ridiculous. Why on earth would God communicate with His people in such a way? And then it hit me. Because the people of that time had no written Word to consult, no Holy Spirit to offer internal guidance, and no living example (Jesus) of how to approach God in relationship. As difficult as it is for us, who have access to all of the forementioned, to discern God's will, imagine what it must have been like for them??? So things like "casting lots" and using the "Urim and Thummim", whatever they may have been, were temporary means of seeking God's will until He provided direct access to His throne through Jesus. This may also explain why there seem to be more uses of audible voices and visible manifestations of God in the Old Testament. The people had nothing else at that time. But given what we have at our fingertips, we should have no need for the same dramatic appearances from God. Regardless of how the Urim and Thummin worked, it is clear that the outcome was always ordained by God. Note Proverbs 16:33, "The lot is cast into the lap but its every decision is from the Lord".
In chapter 31 we are introduced to Bezalel and Oholiab, the men God had appointed to oversee the construction of the Tabernacle. Bezalel was "filled with the Spirit of God with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts". This is not to be confused with an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, since this did not occur until Pentecost, after Jesus ascended to Heaven. But rather this is a special anointing specific to a particular task. In essence, God gave Bezalel the ability to complete the job He set before him. Very cool, as this should reassure us that when God asks us to do something, He will equip us as well!
My final observation, and definitely a case of "saved the best for last". A few days ago, I wrote about my own questions about the Sabbath, as to whether or not it was a regulation from which we are released by the new covenant of grace or whether it was to be a lasting ordinance. Well, it was very clearly spelled out in verse 31:16 and 17. The observance of the Sabbath was to be a covenant obligation for all time. Now what that should look like in my life or in yours may be debatable, but there should clearly be something about the Sabbath that sets it apart for the Lord. Now I just have to figure out how to do that! I know that I'll never have all my questions about God and the Bible answered in this lifetime, but I sure do appreciate a quick and authoritative response, such as I received today!
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 32-34
In chapter 31 we are introduced to Bezalel and Oholiab, the men God had appointed to oversee the construction of the Tabernacle. Bezalel was "filled with the Spirit of God with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts". This is not to be confused with an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, since this did not occur until Pentecost, after Jesus ascended to Heaven. But rather this is a special anointing specific to a particular task. In essence, God gave Bezalel the ability to complete the job He set before him. Very cool, as this should reassure us that when God asks us to do something, He will equip us as well!
My final observation, and definitely a case of "saved the best for last". A few days ago, I wrote about my own questions about the Sabbath, as to whether or not it was a regulation from which we are released by the new covenant of grace or whether it was to be a lasting ordinance. Well, it was very clearly spelled out in verse 31:16 and 17. The observance of the Sabbath was to be a covenant obligation for all time. Now what that should look like in my life or in yours may be debatable, but there should clearly be something about the Sabbath that sets it apart for the Lord. Now I just have to figure out how to do that! I know that I'll never have all my questions about God and the Bible answered in this lifetime, but I sure do appreciate a quick and authoritative response, such as I received today!
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 32-34
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Plans for the Tabernacle
This may have made for some dull reading, but you've got to know that something so detailed and specific, had meaning to God. He went to great lengths to outline the exact template and materials for the Tabernacle, and not surprisingly, there is a great deal of symbolism to be found in the plan. Parallels to Christ can be found in many of the elements including the lampstand (Jesus is the light of the world) and the showbread (Jesus is the bread of life), and in details as small as the colors chosen for the embroidery and the numbers used for the measurements. The most striking relationship of the Tabernacle to Jesus, is not in the materials or elements, but in the layout itself. The Tabernacle contained an outer courtyard, which anyone could enter who was ceremonially clean. The Holy Place could be accessed only by the Levitical priests and the Holy of Holies, God's dwelling place, could be accessed just once a year by one man...the High Priest, for the purpose of making atonement for the sins of the Israelites. A thick veil walled off the Holy of Holies, reminding all of Israel that there was something separating them from God. We know that "something" to be sin, as God in His Holiness cannot be in the presence of it.
When Jesus was crucified and uttered his last words, "It is finished", the temple veil separating the Holy of Holies was torn in two. His death had made a way for man to be cleansed of his sin and approach a Holy God. The sacrificial system was instantly obsolete, as man had no further need to offer continual sacrifices for sin. Jesus death paid the price once and for all...for all sins past, present and future of anyone who would claim it. The Jews spent a few thousand years offering sacrifices and still not being able to approach God. Jesus accomplished in one act what they had not been able to. And that was the point of the sacrificial system, of the Tabernacle, of all Old Testament history...to show mankind that he could not be good enough to enter the presence of God on his own. Jesus now serves as our High Priest...One who is able to enter the Holy of Holies and tear down the curtain that separated us.
If you would like to see a visual representation of the Tabernacle, I am attaching a link. It really helps to get a visual of what all those details translated into. You will probably have to copy and paste, but it's worth doing! A Dutch man built a life-size model and it's incredible. http://www.bibleplaces.com/tabernacle.htm
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 29-31
When Jesus was crucified and uttered his last words, "It is finished", the temple veil separating the Holy of Holies was torn in two. His death had made a way for man to be cleansed of his sin and approach a Holy God. The sacrificial system was instantly obsolete, as man had no further need to offer continual sacrifices for sin. Jesus death paid the price once and for all...for all sins past, present and future of anyone who would claim it. The Jews spent a few thousand years offering sacrifices and still not being able to approach God. Jesus accomplished in one act what they had not been able to. And that was the point of the sacrificial system, of the Tabernacle, of all Old Testament history...to show mankind that he could not be good enough to enter the presence of God on his own. Jesus now serves as our High Priest...One who is able to enter the Holy of Holies and tear down the curtain that separated us.
If you would like to see a visual representation of the Tabernacle, I am attaching a link. It really helps to get a visual of what all those details translated into. You will probably have to copy and paste, but it's worth doing! A Dutch man built a life-size model and it's incredible. http://www.bibleplaces.com/tabernacle.htm
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 29-31
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Israel accepts the Covenant
I have been asked to provide the titles of the resource books I use, all of which were recommended by my pastor at Life Fellowship. I'll list them in order of greatest use...
"Hard Sayings of the Bible" by Walter Kaiser jr. and several others
"Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason Archer
"Big Book of Bible Difficulties" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe
"Popular Survey of the Old Testament" (also a NT version I'll use later) by Norman Geisler
"What the Bible is All About" by Henrietta Mears
After Moses gives the Israelites the Ten Commandments, some other regulations are added. I'm going to comment on the ones that jumped out at me, beginning with the treatment of slaves. The idea that the Bible would provide rules for the fair treatment of slaves seemed odd, as I would think God would condemn the practice as opposed to regulating it. But what is very important to note, is that slavery in this time period was nothing like the form of slavery our country practiced a few hundred years ago. There were only two types of slaves at this time in history...those who voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to get out of debt, and prisoners of war. Israel did not capture and sell humans as the Philistene and Phoenician slave traders did. So the institution of slavery provided a means of lessening two social problems...what to do with "bankrupt" people and what to do with prisoners of war. The regulations put in place to protect these vulnerable populations were revolutionary for their time. For example, someone who sold themselves into slavery had to be set free after 6 years, along with his wife.
Secondly, the regulations for personal injury sparked some interesting research. From verse 21:12, it is clear that God condoned capital punishment in cases of murder. But the next verse, "but if it was simply an accident permitted by God..." caught my eye because of the phrase "accident permitted by God". Accidents are neither caused nor overlooked by God. They are permitted by Him. Of course there are many other potential accidents that God does not permit and we never have any inkling of, but the ones that do cross our paths, are permitted by our Heavenly Father. Now, an accident resulting in death must be punished, but it was weighted on a scale much differently than murder. Another interesting passage outlines the consequences of a pregnant woman accidentally being struck resulting in premature birth. The word used for premature birth clearly describes a live birth and is not a word used for miscarriage, a word which existed in the Hebrew language. Pro-choice advocates have tried to use this verse as proof that God does not consider a baby in-utero as a person, by translating the word as "miscarriage". This changes the meaning of the text in that if a woman miscarries but no further injury (to the woman) results, then a simple fine was sufficient. Naturally this way of thinking devalues the life of the baby. The baby dies, but no big deal. But since the word cannot logically be translated as "miscarriage", the meaning of the text is that if the baby and mother are unharmed due to the premature delivery, a simple fine would be required. If either is injured as a result of the premature delivery, payment along the lines of "eye for an eye" would be required. Mother and baby were therefore given equal value. This expression, "eye for an eye", did not literally describe physical mutilation (as in some cultures then and now), but metaphorically outlined the concept that the punishment must fit the crime.
In the section on social responsibility, the law requiring a man to marry a virgin he seduced, is put in place to protect the woman. A woman's only financial security came from getting married and producing children . If men were allowed to have sex with virgins (making them undesirable as marriage material) without marrying them, such women would have no hope of securing a mate. It forced men to take responsibility for their actions.
Finally, the Lord promises his blessing on Israel if they would serve Him only, make no treaties with the pagan people of the land, and not allow the pagan peoples to live among them. The blessing specified having plenty of food and water, protection from illness, no miscarriage or infertility, and protection from their enemies. Naturally, this sounded like a great deal and the Israelites agreed to the covenant relationship with God. Moses wrote down the laws and made a sacrifice on the altar. Then he, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Aaron's sons) went up the mountain where it says they saw God. This is interesting because the Bible is clear that no one can see God and live. Moses seemed surprised himself, as he marvelled that God did not destroy them for seeing Him. The translation of the text is tricky, indicating that they saw His "form or likeness" which may imply something other than God Himself. Additionally, they describe only His feet and they place where He stood. It is quite possible that they did not see the Lord in his fullness because no man can see God and live...
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 25-28
"Hard Sayings of the Bible" by Walter Kaiser jr. and several others
"Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason Archer
"Big Book of Bible Difficulties" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe
"Popular Survey of the Old Testament" (also a NT version I'll use later) by Norman Geisler
"What the Bible is All About" by Henrietta Mears
After Moses gives the Israelites the Ten Commandments, some other regulations are added. I'm going to comment on the ones that jumped out at me, beginning with the treatment of slaves. The idea that the Bible would provide rules for the fair treatment of slaves seemed odd, as I would think God would condemn the practice as opposed to regulating it. But what is very important to note, is that slavery in this time period was nothing like the form of slavery our country practiced a few hundred years ago. There were only two types of slaves at this time in history...those who voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to get out of debt, and prisoners of war. Israel did not capture and sell humans as the Philistene and Phoenician slave traders did. So the institution of slavery provided a means of lessening two social problems...what to do with "bankrupt" people and what to do with prisoners of war. The regulations put in place to protect these vulnerable populations were revolutionary for their time. For example, someone who sold themselves into slavery had to be set free after 6 years, along with his wife.
Secondly, the regulations for personal injury sparked some interesting research. From verse 21:12, it is clear that God condoned capital punishment in cases of murder. But the next verse, "but if it was simply an accident permitted by God..." caught my eye because of the phrase "accident permitted by God". Accidents are neither caused nor overlooked by God. They are permitted by Him. Of course there are many other potential accidents that God does not permit and we never have any inkling of, but the ones that do cross our paths, are permitted by our Heavenly Father. Now, an accident resulting in death must be punished, but it was weighted on a scale much differently than murder. Another interesting passage outlines the consequences of a pregnant woman accidentally being struck resulting in premature birth. The word used for premature birth clearly describes a live birth and is not a word used for miscarriage, a word which existed in the Hebrew language. Pro-choice advocates have tried to use this verse as proof that God does not consider a baby in-utero as a person, by translating the word as "miscarriage". This changes the meaning of the text in that if a woman miscarries but no further injury (to the woman) results, then a simple fine was sufficient. Naturally this way of thinking devalues the life of the baby. The baby dies, but no big deal. But since the word cannot logically be translated as "miscarriage", the meaning of the text is that if the baby and mother are unharmed due to the premature delivery, a simple fine would be required. If either is injured as a result of the premature delivery, payment along the lines of "eye for an eye" would be required. Mother and baby were therefore given equal value. This expression, "eye for an eye", did not literally describe physical mutilation (as in some cultures then and now), but metaphorically outlined the concept that the punishment must fit the crime.
In the section on social responsibility, the law requiring a man to marry a virgin he seduced, is put in place to protect the woman. A woman's only financial security came from getting married and producing children . If men were allowed to have sex with virgins (making them undesirable as marriage material) without marrying them, such women would have no hope of securing a mate. It forced men to take responsibility for their actions.
Finally, the Lord promises his blessing on Israel if they would serve Him only, make no treaties with the pagan people of the land, and not allow the pagan peoples to live among them. The blessing specified having plenty of food and water, protection from illness, no miscarriage or infertility, and protection from their enemies. Naturally, this sounded like a great deal and the Israelites agreed to the covenant relationship with God. Moses wrote down the laws and made a sacrifice on the altar. Then he, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Aaron's sons) went up the mountain where it says they saw God. This is interesting because the Bible is clear that no one can see God and live. Moses seemed surprised himself, as he marvelled that God did not destroy them for seeing Him. The translation of the text is tricky, indicating that they saw His "form or likeness" which may imply something other than God Himself. Additionally, they describe only His feet and they place where He stood. It is quite possible that they did not see the Lord in his fullness because no man can see God and live...
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 25-28
Monday, February 7, 2011
Ten Commandments
No doubt the highlight to pull out today is the listing of the Ten Commandments. The first four of the ten commandments deal with man's relationship to God. We must have no other God but Him and must not worship any graven image. We tend to think think of this commandment as an "easy" one. We don't believe in Buddha or any of the Hindu gods and we don't have statues in our homes that we bow before. But an idol in our day and time, is anything that is put before God. Modern idols include money, possessions, career, children, status, physical appearance, youth, etc. All the worldly things we chase at the expense of our relationship with God. Idolatry is very much alive and well.
The third commandment, not to misuse the name of the Lord, is one that is routinely abused, even by Christians. The ancient Jews, and many to this day, so revere the name of the Lord, that they would not speak it or write it. You may have seen Jews type the letters YHWH or G_d, because they consider God's name too holy to spell out in it's entirety. We have lost that sense of reverence. The New Testament presents Jesus as such an approachable Friend, that we have forgotten the holiness of God. The careless use of His name is one symptom of that lack of respect. And by careless, I don't just mean profanity. The thoughtless utterance "OMG" carries the same weight.
The observance of the Sabbath is a subject I'd like to do some more research on. New Testament believers worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, but that is the least of our differences as it regards the Sabbath observance. The Hebrews did no work on the Sabbath, and prided themselves on the strict observance of that rule. In addition to the Scriptues, the Hebrews developed a collection of oral traditions detailing the minutiae of the Law and codified into a book in the 2nd century AD, called the Mishnah. These traditions were man-made extrapolations of the written Law. The fourth commandment had stipulations attached to it that regulated how much weight could be lifted (nothing heavier than a dried fig), what could be saved in a house fire, and what could be eaten (not an egg laid on the Sabbath!) The common man did not pay much heed to these restrictions in Jesus' day, but the Pharisees did. It was this group that criticized Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, and His disciples for picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus was quick to point out that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", (Mark 2:27). So it is clearly wrong to obey the letter of the law above the intent, but in our day, we really don't do either. Sure we go to church, but do we set aside our regular work and activities on Sunday? Speaking for myself, I still throw in a load of clothes, cook dinner, and go to one of my son's basketball games in the evenings. Furthermore, my husband works in NASCAR and is at work almost every Sunday. Jesus' death and resurrection freed us from the legalism of the Jewish religion, but are we to throw out the baby with the bath water? Please weigh in on this discussion if this is an area in which you have some insight.
The remaining 6 commandments deal with man's relationship to each other and they are pretty straight-forward. We are to honor our parents. This was largely abandoned by my generation, reared by the parents of the late 60s and 70s who wanted to be our friends and who didn't want to create negative energy or suppress our creativity or self-confidence through discipline. How many of you heard your parents say "I would never have spoken to my mother the way you are speaking to me!" And it is worse now than it was then. Teachers, police officers, and authority figures in general do not command the respect of today's youth. So, the summation of my soapbox, is that we are not doing so well with this commandment either.
"You must not murder". No problem, but what about war and capital punishment? I'm not saying I'm for it, but the word used for "kill" is better translated "murder" and implies a criminal act...predatory killing if you will. This verb is never used in regard to war or capital punishment, both of which the Old Testament endorses (for lack of a better word).
"You must not commit adultery". Obvious in this context and illuminated later by Jesus statement that if a man looks upon a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery. The OT gives the Law, and the NT gives the spirit of the Law.
"You must not steal", "you must not testify falsely", and "you must not covet". These are all pretty self-explanatory, but tougher to live by when the "spirit of the Law" is taken into account. Sure, we don't rob banks, but do we make photocopies at work for personal use? Do we return to the grocery store an item for which we weren't charged on our receipt? Do we "round up" our charitable contributions estimate on our income taxes? That's stealing. We may not testify falsely under oath in a courtroom, but do we lie? White lies or otherwise? And we may not think we covet anything our neighbor has, but are we envious of how nicely her husband treats her? Or how amazing his new car is? At times, of course.
As we read in the New Testament, the Law can be summed up in two phrases..."love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (commandments 1-4) and "love your neighbor as yourself" (commandments 5-10). Sounds pretty simple, but the Israelites would soon find out that these two things are completely unattainable for sinful man.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 22:16-24
The third commandment, not to misuse the name of the Lord, is one that is routinely abused, even by Christians. The ancient Jews, and many to this day, so revere the name of the Lord, that they would not speak it or write it. You may have seen Jews type the letters YHWH or G_d, because they consider God's name too holy to spell out in it's entirety. We have lost that sense of reverence. The New Testament presents Jesus as such an approachable Friend, that we have forgotten the holiness of God. The careless use of His name is one symptom of that lack of respect. And by careless, I don't just mean profanity. The thoughtless utterance "OMG" carries the same weight.
The observance of the Sabbath is a subject I'd like to do some more research on. New Testament believers worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, but that is the least of our differences as it regards the Sabbath observance. The Hebrews did no work on the Sabbath, and prided themselves on the strict observance of that rule. In addition to the Scriptues, the Hebrews developed a collection of oral traditions detailing the minutiae of the Law and codified into a book in the 2nd century AD, called the Mishnah. These traditions were man-made extrapolations of the written Law. The fourth commandment had stipulations attached to it that regulated how much weight could be lifted (nothing heavier than a dried fig), what could be saved in a house fire, and what could be eaten (not an egg laid on the Sabbath!) The common man did not pay much heed to these restrictions in Jesus' day, but the Pharisees did. It was this group that criticized Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, and His disciples for picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus was quick to point out that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", (Mark 2:27). So it is clearly wrong to obey the letter of the law above the intent, but in our day, we really don't do either. Sure we go to church, but do we set aside our regular work and activities on Sunday? Speaking for myself, I still throw in a load of clothes, cook dinner, and go to one of my son's basketball games in the evenings. Furthermore, my husband works in NASCAR and is at work almost every Sunday. Jesus' death and resurrection freed us from the legalism of the Jewish religion, but are we to throw out the baby with the bath water? Please weigh in on this discussion if this is an area in which you have some insight.
The remaining 6 commandments deal with man's relationship to each other and they are pretty straight-forward. We are to honor our parents. This was largely abandoned by my generation, reared by the parents of the late 60s and 70s who wanted to be our friends and who didn't want to create negative energy or suppress our creativity or self-confidence through discipline. How many of you heard your parents say "I would never have spoken to my mother the way you are speaking to me!" And it is worse now than it was then. Teachers, police officers, and authority figures in general do not command the respect of today's youth. So, the summation of my soapbox, is that we are not doing so well with this commandment either.
"You must not murder". No problem, but what about war and capital punishment? I'm not saying I'm for it, but the word used for "kill" is better translated "murder" and implies a criminal act...predatory killing if you will. This verb is never used in regard to war or capital punishment, both of which the Old Testament endorses (for lack of a better word).
"You must not commit adultery". Obvious in this context and illuminated later by Jesus statement that if a man looks upon a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery. The OT gives the Law, and the NT gives the spirit of the Law.
"You must not steal", "you must not testify falsely", and "you must not covet". These are all pretty self-explanatory, but tougher to live by when the "spirit of the Law" is taken into account. Sure, we don't rob banks, but do we make photocopies at work for personal use? Do we return to the grocery store an item for which we weren't charged on our receipt? Do we "round up" our charitable contributions estimate on our income taxes? That's stealing. We may not testify falsely under oath in a courtroom, but do we lie? White lies or otherwise? And we may not think we covet anything our neighbor has, but are we envious of how nicely her husband treats her? Or how amazing his new car is? At times, of course.
As we read in the New Testament, the Law can be summed up in two phrases..."love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (commandments 1-4) and "love your neighbor as yourself" (commandments 5-10). Sounds pretty simple, but the Israelites would soon find out that these two things are completely unattainable for sinful man.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 22:16-24
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Manna, Quail, and Water from a rock
As if parting the Red Sea were not enough, God had several other miracles in store for His people...the daily provision of manna and quail. The key thing about this provision, is that the Israelites were to take only what they needed for that day's sustenance (daily bread) and to trust God to provide for the future. To hoard the food was to reveal a heart that was self-reliant instead of God-dependent. Supernatural provision would have been the only possible means of sustaining two million people in the desert for 40 years.
The next section of our reading was a brief description of the Israelites first battle with the people inhabiting the Promised Land. Remember, the Hebrews were former slaves, only very recently gaining their freedom and having no idea how to engage in battle. But Moses and his staff had taken part in some amazing miracles, so it must have been a natural course of action to raise the staff in battle. The cool part of this anecdote is the illustration of a leader being supported by those around him so that the work of the Lord would be carried out. Whenever Moses got tired of holding up his arms, Aaron and Hur held his arms up for him. We all need people like that in our lives..people who help us stay in the battle when our strength is gone. And just as importantly, we need to be such a person for others.
Next, Jethro shows up with Moses wife and sons. Though the Bible does not mention it, it is presumed that they were sent back home immediately after Zipporah performed the circumcision on their son, as he would have needed time to recuperate which traveling would not allow. I hadn't noticed they were missing, had you?
Hope you guys are sticking with it. I've heard it takes 30 days to form a habit, so we should be there!
Tomorrow's reading; Exodus 20-22:15
The next section of our reading was a brief description of the Israelites first battle with the people inhabiting the Promised Land. Remember, the Hebrews were former slaves, only very recently gaining their freedom and having no idea how to engage in battle. But Moses and his staff had taken part in some amazing miracles, so it must have been a natural course of action to raise the staff in battle. The cool part of this anecdote is the illustration of a leader being supported by those around him so that the work of the Lord would be carried out. Whenever Moses got tired of holding up his arms, Aaron and Hur held his arms up for him. We all need people like that in our lives..people who help us stay in the battle when our strength is gone. And just as importantly, we need to be such a person for others.
Next, Jethro shows up with Moses wife and sons. Though the Bible does not mention it, it is presumed that they were sent back home immediately after Zipporah performed the circumcision on their son, as he would have needed time to recuperate which traveling would not allow. I hadn't noticed they were missing, had you?
Hope you guys are sticking with it. I've heard it takes 30 days to form a habit, so we should be there!
Tomorrow's reading; Exodus 20-22:15
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Crossing the Red Sea
God laid out the ten plagues in Egypt so that the Israelites would know that He was Lord. Interestingly, verse 13:4 sets up God's plan for the defeat of the pursuing Egyptian army via the parting of the Red Sea, and ends with "after this the Egyptians will know that I am Lord". No doubt God has His eye on Israel at this point in time, but He is always working in the world at large. Many Egyptians actually did end up believing and left with the Israelites in the Exodus. Verse 12:38 describes "a rabble of non-Israelites" who went with them.
Just before the Red Sea is parted, God tells Moses to raise his hand over the sea and divide the water so that the Israelites could walk through on dry ground. What I like about this, is that God requests Moses' participation, not because He needed help but because Moses' leadership needed to be solidified... in his own heart and in the hearts of the people. This is the way God continues to work today. He does not need our help to accomplish His purposes, but He chooses to use us for our benefit. We get the privilege of partnering with God when we allow ourselves to be used by Him.
God knew that Pharoah would be so full of pride and rage at the thought of the escaping Israelites, (his former slaves and the source of the recent plagues), that he would pursue them. Again, the text reads "I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians", but remember that this indicates responsibility only to the extent that God set up the situation that brought about the hardening. In other words, He set the ball in motion.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 16-19
Just before the Red Sea is parted, God tells Moses to raise his hand over the sea and divide the water so that the Israelites could walk through on dry ground. What I like about this, is that God requests Moses' participation, not because He needed help but because Moses' leadership needed to be solidified... in his own heart and in the hearts of the people. This is the way God continues to work today. He does not need our help to accomplish His purposes, but He chooses to use us for our benefit. We get the privilege of partnering with God when we allow ourselves to be used by Him.
God knew that Pharoah would be so full of pride and rage at the thought of the escaping Israelites, (his former slaves and the source of the recent plagues), that he would pursue them. Again, the text reads "I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians", but remember that this indicates responsibility only to the extent that God set up the situation that brought about the hardening. In other words, He set the ball in motion.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 16-19
Friday, February 4, 2011
The Passover
Here come the remaining four plagues...
Hail: against the sky goddess Nut (mother of the sun god Ra)
Locusts: against Seth, the god of storms and disaster
Darkness: against the sun god, Ra
Firstborn: against Pharoah himself, revered as the greatest of all Egyptian gods
I was intrigued by the description of the "shifting wind" in regard to the plague of locusts. The Lord caused the wind to blow the locusts in, and caused that same wind to blow the locusts out. He is in control of the shifting of the wind...in control over whether a tornado or hurricane hits land or doesn't. In control of the shifting of the earth's plates that cause earthquakes and tidal waves. Certainly far more of these natural disasters miss us than hit us, but when they do hit, we can be sure God intended it as such. Some like to think that God could never authorize such destruction and suffering, but if we get our eyes off of this life, (which is hard because it is all we know), we can see the uses for suffering in the big picture of eternity. Did you know that it is estimated that roughly half of the US adult population attended church the Sunday following the 911 terrorist attacks? Suffering draws us closer to God, and it is a price worth paying if it results in an eternity in Heaven. Remember that God's purpose in orchestrating the ten plagues was that His people "would know that I am the Lord". In the big picture, with Israel being the line through which the Savior of the world would come and the Old Testament traditions be handed down, it was imperative that they KNOW that God was who He said He was. In an unmistakable way through these miraculous signs, God "proved" Himself to the Israelites and caused them to put their trust in Him.
Up until the last plague, Pharoah allowed his pride (remember he was revered as the greatest of all gods and probably didn't take kindly to being bossed around by Moses' God), to cloud his judgement. But after the plague that killed the firstborns, he was eager to be rid of the Israelites. He seethed with rage as he commanded Moses to leave, but said "bless me as you leave". It is clear that Pharoah knew that he was dealing with God Almighty.
The most important part of this entire reading was the description of the Passover. The Old Testament, in its' entirety, points to Jesus. Sometimes the prophetic references are obscure, but the parallels between Jesus and the Passover are not at all unclear. The Israelites are instructed to choose a lamb with no defects (think Lamb of God who was without sin), sacrifice it on an altar, (think crucifixion), and cover themselves in the blood figuratively, by smearing it on the doorframes of their houses, (think of figuratively taking in the blood of Jesus in the rite of Communion). And then God would "pass over" the houses on which he found the blood of the sacrifice, such that "this plague of death will not touch you". The obvious correlation is that when we identify ourselves with the blood of The Lamb, when we have in essence covered ourselves with his blood as our hope for salvation, we do not experience eternal death. It is no coincidence that Jesus was crucified during the Passover celebration. This was a well-orchestrated plan, put in place thousands of years before Jesus walked this earth.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 13-15:21
Hail: against the sky goddess Nut (mother of the sun god Ra)
Locusts: against Seth, the god of storms and disaster
Darkness: against the sun god, Ra
Firstborn: against Pharoah himself, revered as the greatest of all Egyptian gods
I was intrigued by the description of the "shifting wind" in regard to the plague of locusts. The Lord caused the wind to blow the locusts in, and caused that same wind to blow the locusts out. He is in control of the shifting of the wind...in control over whether a tornado or hurricane hits land or doesn't. In control of the shifting of the earth's plates that cause earthquakes and tidal waves. Certainly far more of these natural disasters miss us than hit us, but when they do hit, we can be sure God intended it as such. Some like to think that God could never authorize such destruction and suffering, but if we get our eyes off of this life, (which is hard because it is all we know), we can see the uses for suffering in the big picture of eternity. Did you know that it is estimated that roughly half of the US adult population attended church the Sunday following the 911 terrorist attacks? Suffering draws us closer to God, and it is a price worth paying if it results in an eternity in Heaven. Remember that God's purpose in orchestrating the ten plagues was that His people "would know that I am the Lord". In the big picture, with Israel being the line through which the Savior of the world would come and the Old Testament traditions be handed down, it was imperative that they KNOW that God was who He said He was. In an unmistakable way through these miraculous signs, God "proved" Himself to the Israelites and caused them to put their trust in Him.
Up until the last plague, Pharoah allowed his pride (remember he was revered as the greatest of all gods and probably didn't take kindly to being bossed around by Moses' God), to cloud his judgement. But after the plague that killed the firstborns, he was eager to be rid of the Israelites. He seethed with rage as he commanded Moses to leave, but said "bless me as you leave". It is clear that Pharoah knew that he was dealing with God Almighty.
The most important part of this entire reading was the description of the Passover. The Old Testament, in its' entirety, points to Jesus. Sometimes the prophetic references are obscure, but the parallels between Jesus and the Passover are not at all unclear. The Israelites are instructed to choose a lamb with no defects (think Lamb of God who was without sin), sacrifice it on an altar, (think crucifixion), and cover themselves in the blood figuratively, by smearing it on the doorframes of their houses, (think of figuratively taking in the blood of Jesus in the rite of Communion). And then God would "pass over" the houses on which he found the blood of the sacrifice, such that "this plague of death will not touch you". The obvious correlation is that when we identify ourselves with the blood of The Lamb, when we have in essence covered ourselves with his blood as our hope for salvation, we do not experience eternal death. It is no coincidence that Jesus was crucified during the Passover celebration. This was a well-orchestrated plan, put in place thousands of years before Jesus walked this earth.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 13-15:21
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Plagues begin
Though these plagues seem somewhat arbitrary, each one is directed at one of the Egyptian gods, as though to challenge one of these non-entities to prove their power. A later verse reads "Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgements" (Ex. 12:12). These plagues were designed to show the Egyptians that their gods were not real, all the while authenticating the realness of the one true God to His people, the Israelites.
The first plague turned the Nile river into blood and was directed against Hapi, the god of the Nile.
The second plague of frogs was targeted at Heqt, the god of frogs, and Isis, a fertility god (somehow frogs were associated with fertility in that culture)
The third plague of gnats (sometimes translated "lice") fell to Kheper, the god of beetles and flies
The fourth plague of flies was another attack on Kheper
The fifth plague which killed all of the livestock, was meant for Apis, an image of a sacred bull
The sixth plague of boils challenged Imhotep, the physician god, and Thoth, the god of magic and healing
Notice that the first grouping of three plagues affected all of the people, while the next three spared the Israelites. Additionally, the first three plagues were initiated by Moses or Aaron raising their staff, while in the next three, they were simply messengers of what God would do. Once God had authenticated Moses and Aaron as his agents, He worked the remainder of the plagues without their participation, lest the people think that the power came from them instead of God. Notice also that Pharoah's magicians were able to replicate the first two plagues, though not able to reverse them, which would naturally have been preferable to creating more of the same malady! Though their powers were limited, and even they recognized that fact, we must acknowledge that they possessed supernatural abilities. We know that their power did not come from God, and we know that one of Satan's best tools is the counterfeiting of what God does. Many people have been fooled by false prophets and cult religions because of Satan's ability to mimic, (in a cheap unsatisfying kind of way), the one true God.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 10-12
The first plague turned the Nile river into blood and was directed against Hapi, the god of the Nile.
The second plague of frogs was targeted at Heqt, the god of frogs, and Isis, a fertility god (somehow frogs were associated with fertility in that culture)
The third plague of gnats (sometimes translated "lice") fell to Kheper, the god of beetles and flies
The fourth plague of flies was another attack on Kheper
The fifth plague which killed all of the livestock, was meant for Apis, an image of a sacred bull
The sixth plague of boils challenged Imhotep, the physician god, and Thoth, the god of magic and healing
Notice that the first grouping of three plagues affected all of the people, while the next three spared the Israelites. Additionally, the first three plagues were initiated by Moses or Aaron raising their staff, while in the next three, they were simply messengers of what God would do. Once God had authenticated Moses and Aaron as his agents, He worked the remainder of the plagues without their participation, lest the people think that the power came from them instead of God. Notice also that Pharoah's magicians were able to replicate the first two plagues, though not able to reverse them, which would naturally have been preferable to creating more of the same malady! Though their powers were limited, and even they recognized that fact, we must acknowledge that they possessed supernatural abilities. We know that their power did not come from God, and we know that one of Satan's best tools is the counterfeiting of what God does. Many people have been fooled by false prophets and cult religions because of Satan's ability to mimic, (in a cheap unsatisfying kind of way), the one true God.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 10-12
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Egypt
Right off the bat we have a bizarre encounter with God wanting to kill Moses because of his disobedience. The covenant of circumcision was a symbol of faith in God, much like our baptism. According to Genesis chapter 17, an uncircumcised male could be cut off from his people for breaking the covenant. It was a big deal. Maybe Moses' wife was opposed to it, which would be a reasonable emotion, or maybe Moses was simply lax. Either way, God would not have wanted to use a man who was not fully committed, and this oversight may have been seen as just that. In this incredibly abrupt passage, we learn only that God confronts Moses and was about to kill him. We don't know if this was an encounter similar to what Jacob experienced at Bethel (when he wrestled the angel of the Lord), or if it means something less tangible, like that God afflicted Moses with an illness so severe that he nearly died. Moses and Zipporah must have been having recent discussions about circumcision and God's requirement, because she instantly knew what the trouble was and rectified the situation.
When Moses and Aaron arrive in Egypt, they are welcomed as heroes. But when they didn't immediately "deliver" (pun intended), the people become too discouraged to even hear what the Lord was saying to them. There is definitely a lesson in there for us. God was speaking, but because He wasn't acting the way they thought best, the Israelites closed their ears to Him. Though he no longer has the support of his people, Moses continues to move forward as God leads. When God tells him to appear before Pharoah, he tells him not to worry because "I will make Pharoah's heart stubborn so that I can multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in the land of Egypt". Two things to notice here. The first is that God can use ungodly people and actions to accomplish godly purposes. The Israelites had already been so discouraged that they no longer listened to Moses and Aaron, or God for that matter. If they were going to be inspired to make a break for the Promised Land and escape the bondage of their captors, they would need to have absolute confidence in Moses and in their God. He needed to work some miracles in order to authenticate Himself and His servants Moses and Aaron. Pharoah had to continue to refuse Moses' requests so that God could send the plagues and solidify the loyalty of His people.
Now secondly, and more tricky, is the fact that God says He will harden Pharoah's heart. Twenty times in these first few chapters of Exodus, Pharoah's heart is said to be hardened. Throughout the first 5 plagues, he hardens his own heart and in the following plagues, God hardens his heart. And there are a few more occasions where the verbiage is vague about who does the hardening of Pharoah's heart. The difficulty with these references, is that we reject the thought that God would force anyone to to turn away from Him, and furthermore to make a decision that would bring on such suffering and evil.
After doing some online research, I found out that the Hebrew language has idioms and colloquialisms just as we do. When we say that someone has a "chip on their shoulder" or that someone "bit their head off", we understand the meaning. But these types of phrases will be very difficult to translate 2000 years from now, I guarantee. The Hebrews had a figure of speech that allowed actions to be attributed to a person who merely set up the circumstances for that action to take place. A good example is that David is said to have "killed Uriah with the sword". In fact, Uriah was killed in battle, but it was David who ensured that he was put in harm's way and is therefore credited with the action itself. There are many other examples to be found of the same type of expression, but it is after 1:00 AM and I'm sure you catch my drift (another idiom, difficult to translate in 2000 years)! I am going to copy and paste what I read from a Christian apologetics website, as they explained how this figure of speech applies to the hardening of Pharoah's heart.
In the case of Pharaoh, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” in the sense that God provided the circumstances and the occasion for Pharaoh to be forced to make a decision. God sent Moses to place His demands before Pharaoh. Moses merely announced God’s instructions. God even accompanied His Word with miracles—to confirm the divine origin of the message (cf. Mark 16:20). Pharaoh made up his own mind to resist God’s demands. Of his own accord, he stubbornly refused to comply. Of course, God provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. If God had not sent Moses, Pharaoh would not have been faced with the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. So God was certainly the instigator and initiator. But He was not the author of Pharaoh’s defiance.
Notice that in a very real sense, all four of the following statements are true: (1) God hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (2) Moses hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (3) the words that Moses spoke hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (4) Pharaoh hardened his own heart. All four of these observations are accurate, depicting the same truth from different perspectives. In this sense, God is responsible for everything in the Universe, i.e., He has provided the occasion, the circumstances, and the environment in which all things (including people) operate. But He is not guilty of wrong in so doing. From a quick look at a simple Hebrew idiom, it is clear that God did not unjustly or directly harden Pharaoh’s heart. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), He does not act unjustly (Psalms 33:5), and He has always allowed humans to exercise their free moral agency (Deuteronomy 30:19). God, however, does use the wrong, stubborn decisions committed by rebellious sinners to further His causes (Isaiah 10:5-11). In the case of Pharaoh’s hardened heart, God can be charged with no injustice, and the Bible can be charged with no contradiction. Humans were created with free moral agency and are culpable for their own actions.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 7:14-9:35
When Moses and Aaron arrive in Egypt, they are welcomed as heroes. But when they didn't immediately "deliver" (pun intended), the people become too discouraged to even hear what the Lord was saying to them. There is definitely a lesson in there for us. God was speaking, but because He wasn't acting the way they thought best, the Israelites closed their ears to Him. Though he no longer has the support of his people, Moses continues to move forward as God leads. When God tells him to appear before Pharoah, he tells him not to worry because "I will make Pharoah's heart stubborn so that I can multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in the land of Egypt". Two things to notice here. The first is that God can use ungodly people and actions to accomplish godly purposes. The Israelites had already been so discouraged that they no longer listened to Moses and Aaron, or God for that matter. If they were going to be inspired to make a break for the Promised Land and escape the bondage of their captors, they would need to have absolute confidence in Moses and in their God. He needed to work some miracles in order to authenticate Himself and His servants Moses and Aaron. Pharoah had to continue to refuse Moses' requests so that God could send the plagues and solidify the loyalty of His people.
Now secondly, and more tricky, is the fact that God says He will harden Pharoah's heart. Twenty times in these first few chapters of Exodus, Pharoah's heart is said to be hardened. Throughout the first 5 plagues, he hardens his own heart and in the following plagues, God hardens his heart. And there are a few more occasions where the verbiage is vague about who does the hardening of Pharoah's heart. The difficulty with these references, is that we reject the thought that God would force anyone to to turn away from Him, and furthermore to make a decision that would bring on such suffering and evil.
After doing some online research, I found out that the Hebrew language has idioms and colloquialisms just as we do. When we say that someone has a "chip on their shoulder" or that someone "bit their head off", we understand the meaning. But these types of phrases will be very difficult to translate 2000 years from now, I guarantee. The Hebrews had a figure of speech that allowed actions to be attributed to a person who merely set up the circumstances for that action to take place. A good example is that David is said to have "killed Uriah with the sword". In fact, Uriah was killed in battle, but it was David who ensured that he was put in harm's way and is therefore credited with the action itself. There are many other examples to be found of the same type of expression, but it is after 1:00 AM and I'm sure you catch my drift (another idiom, difficult to translate in 2000 years)! I am going to copy and paste what I read from a Christian apologetics website, as they explained how this figure of speech applies to the hardening of Pharoah's heart.
In the case of Pharaoh, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” in the sense that God provided the circumstances and the occasion for Pharaoh to be forced to make a decision. God sent Moses to place His demands before Pharaoh. Moses merely announced God’s instructions. God even accompanied His Word with miracles—to confirm the divine origin of the message (cf. Mark 16:20). Pharaoh made up his own mind to resist God’s demands. Of his own accord, he stubbornly refused to comply. Of course, God provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. If God had not sent Moses, Pharaoh would not have been faced with the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. So God was certainly the instigator and initiator. But He was not the author of Pharaoh’s defiance.
Notice that in a very real sense, all four of the following statements are true: (1) God hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (2) Moses hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (3) the words that Moses spoke hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (4) Pharaoh hardened his own heart. All four of these observations are accurate, depicting the same truth from different perspectives. In this sense, God is responsible for everything in the Universe, i.e., He has provided the occasion, the circumstances, and the environment in which all things (including people) operate. But He is not guilty of wrong in so doing. From a quick look at a simple Hebrew idiom, it is clear that God did not unjustly or directly harden Pharaoh’s heart. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), He does not act unjustly (Psalms 33:5), and He has always allowed humans to exercise their free moral agency (Deuteronomy 30:19). God, however, does use the wrong, stubborn decisions committed by rebellious sinners to further His causes (Isaiah 10:5-11). In the case of Pharaoh’s hardened heart, God can be charged with no injustice, and the Bible can be charged with no contradiction. Humans were created with free moral agency and are culpable for their own actions.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 7:14-9:35
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Moses
Some days, I will struggle to think of something to pull from the days reading, and other days, I will struggle to condense what should be 3 or 4 days worth of blog entries into one post. This is one of those days! We are back into the narrative history of the nation of Israel, picking up roughly 300 years after the end of Genesis. The Israelites have multiplied from a group of about 70, to a nation of about 2,000,000 (number based on the census taken after the Exodus). And no matter how Pharoah tried to oppress them, they continued to multiply. God still works that way today. Wherever Christians are persecuted or oppressed, the Gospel flourishes! So Pharoah intended to stop population growth and limit the strength of the nation by eliminating all of the baby boys born to the Hebrew women. But the two midwives who received his orders (who were obviously representatives of a much larger contingent of midwives), disobeyed and then lied to him. The Bible says that God blessed the midwives, which may seem strange given that they disobeyed an authority figure and also lied about it. But God did not reward them for lying, He rewarded them because they feared Him. God is always more interested in our hearts than in our actions. And furthermore, while we are instructed to obey our authorities, God's moral law is a higher authority. We are not expected to obey laws that contradict God's laws. The Egyptian midwives had a very difficult decision to make, knowing that disobedience of this kind could result in their own deaths, but they feared God over man, and were blessed for it.
Into this setting, Moses is born but must be hidden from Egyptian soldiers. The familiar picture of Moses floating down the Nile in a basket, which seems pretty reckless, is an exaggeration of what the text actually says. "She put the baby in the basket and laid it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile River. The baby's sister then stood at a distance to see what would happen to him." Much better. The hope was that someone would find him and take him in, and as God would have it, that someone is Pharoah's daughter, who has the power to spare his life. And as a bonus, Moses' Mom gets to raise/nurse him for a few years AND get paid for it! Moses is then raised as the Prince of Egypt, learning all kinds of things about their language and culture that would come in handy years later. As an adult, he begins to reconnect with his people, the Hebrews. His heart as their potential deliverer is revealed when he "takes the law into his own hands" and kills an Egyptian soldier guilty of beating a Hebrew slave. Moses was passionate about bringing justice to the Hebrews, but his methodology was all wrong. He wasn't acting as an agent of God, but a vigilante renegade. So he is removed from the scene for 40 years and given time to mature. He marries, starts a family, and tends sheep for his father-in-law Reuel (also called Jethro).
And then he sees the burning bush. I recently completed a Bible study by Priscilla Shirer called Discerning the Voice of God. She went into great detail about this episode. Apparently, bushes burn all the time in the desert, which actually makes sense when you think about it. The fact that this one wasn't consumed is what drew Moses attention, but he could have missed it. If burning bushes were a common sight, he could easily have passed right over it in his busyness or apathy. Priscilla used that illustration to parallel the way we often miss the ways that God is trying to speak to us. We may have burning bushes around us right now that we are not taking the time or interest to investigate. But Moses does investigate and is addressed by God Almighty. As we all learned as children, Moses is asked to present himself to Pharoah and demand the release of the Israelites. I can't imagine how daunting that assignment would have been and am pretty sure my response would have been just as "underwhelming" as Moses' was. Basically, Moses presents 5 different levels of resistence to God's command, and we can identify with every one of them...
1) Who am I? ( I am not good enough)
2) Is this really you? (did I hear that right or am I making it up?; tell me it's really you)
3) What will others say? (I'll be humiliated or ostracized or teased)
4) I can't do it ( this job is too hard; you are asking too much)
5) I don't want to do it
God patiently responds to each one, even giving Moses several "signs and wonders" to authenticate Himself. Because we now have the Holy Spirit and the written Word, God does not need to speak to us in such flashy ways. He speaks directly to our hearts. And while we may think a burning bush preferable to the still, small voice of the Spirit, the ancient Hebrews would gladly have traded places for the privilege of being able to hear from and speak to God at any time. God still places "burning bushes" in our lives if we will just take the time to notice them.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 4:18-7:13
Into this setting, Moses is born but must be hidden from Egyptian soldiers. The familiar picture of Moses floating down the Nile in a basket, which seems pretty reckless, is an exaggeration of what the text actually says. "She put the baby in the basket and laid it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile River. The baby's sister then stood at a distance to see what would happen to him." Much better. The hope was that someone would find him and take him in, and as God would have it, that someone is Pharoah's daughter, who has the power to spare his life. And as a bonus, Moses' Mom gets to raise/nurse him for a few years AND get paid for it! Moses is then raised as the Prince of Egypt, learning all kinds of things about their language and culture that would come in handy years later. As an adult, he begins to reconnect with his people, the Hebrews. His heart as their potential deliverer is revealed when he "takes the law into his own hands" and kills an Egyptian soldier guilty of beating a Hebrew slave. Moses was passionate about bringing justice to the Hebrews, but his methodology was all wrong. He wasn't acting as an agent of God, but a vigilante renegade. So he is removed from the scene for 40 years and given time to mature. He marries, starts a family, and tends sheep for his father-in-law Reuel (also called Jethro).
And then he sees the burning bush. I recently completed a Bible study by Priscilla Shirer called Discerning the Voice of God. She went into great detail about this episode. Apparently, bushes burn all the time in the desert, which actually makes sense when you think about it. The fact that this one wasn't consumed is what drew Moses attention, but he could have missed it. If burning bushes were a common sight, he could easily have passed right over it in his busyness or apathy. Priscilla used that illustration to parallel the way we often miss the ways that God is trying to speak to us. We may have burning bushes around us right now that we are not taking the time or interest to investigate. But Moses does investigate and is addressed by God Almighty. As we all learned as children, Moses is asked to present himself to Pharoah and demand the release of the Israelites. I can't imagine how daunting that assignment would have been and am pretty sure my response would have been just as "underwhelming" as Moses' was. Basically, Moses presents 5 different levels of resistence to God's command, and we can identify with every one of them...
1) Who am I? ( I am not good enough)
2) Is this really you? (did I hear that right or am I making it up?; tell me it's really you)
3) What will others say? (I'll be humiliated or ostracized or teased)
4) I can't do it ( this job is too hard; you are asking too much)
5) I don't want to do it
God patiently responds to each one, even giving Moses several "signs and wonders" to authenticate Himself. Because we now have the Holy Spirit and the written Word, God does not need to speak to us in such flashy ways. He speaks directly to our hearts. And while we may think a burning bush preferable to the still, small voice of the Spirit, the ancient Hebrews would gladly have traded places for the privilege of being able to hear from and speak to God at any time. God still places "burning bushes" in our lives if we will just take the time to notice them.
Tomorrow's reading: Exodus 4:18-7:13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
