Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Chapter 22

The laws continue. Interestingly, the covenant law has no prison system or confinement as a punishment, it always focuses on restitution. There are a number of possible reasons for this. Practically, it could be that they are a travelling group so setting up a permanent prison system might be quarrelsome. However, the Law was always intended to remain with God’s people and He well knew they were heading to a permanent land He promised. So, that isn’t all that compelling of an option.

Why else then? In this setup, compensation to the victim tends to be more generous and immediate than in a prison situation (where any awards or penalties are often not actually paid because the person is in prison making very little). Secondly, it requires the offender to deal with the person they committed the crime against directly and to face the effects of their crime on that person. On the other side, it allows an offender to live a productive life directly upon restoration. Finally, it doesn’t require public funds or effort to retain a system of provision and housing for criminals.

There are drawbacks, though. For one, the system can favor the wealthy as they can often more easily pay the penalties without having to commit to labor (contract out as a servant) to make restitution. Further, being able to lock someone up prohibits them from potentially committing the same crime again after restitution. Conversely, we should recognize that this was a law set that simply did not permit folks to go around doing the types of things we’re worried about people getting out prison to do again. Those folks generally died for their crimes. The risk of recidivism was zero.

In general, the laws point to a principle that says if you lose or by neglect cause someone to lose something, you have to make things right. There is also a recognition of intentionality, meaning the restitution was not as high if there was a sense of mistake or mitigating circumstances vs. something done maliciously, selfishly, or recklessly.

Also, remember that these laws were not intended to be comprehensive, just directional. They applied to men and women, and just because it doesn’t say there are punishments if you steal a donkey it doesn’t mean you skirt the law. The judges would apply principles from the law to the various situations that came about.

So, here we go. Man intentionally, blatantly steals an animal and sells or kills it, he pays back 5 (unless it’s a sheep, then it’s 4. Possibly because either oxen are more important or that sheep are more likely to go wandering and tempt a thief.) Either way, crime was intentional and blatant, 5:1 ratio.

Next, dude breaks into your house and you whack him and he dies. If it’s at night, no penalty. If it’s during the day, it’s a murder. During the day, you know the difference and are expected to cry for help, take evasive measures, talk him out it, whack to wound, all of the above. At night, you’re likely disoriented, can’t cry for help (your neighbors are sleeping), and can’t see very clearly. So, different reactions to the same incident. If the thief succeeds, he’s guilty and has to pay restitution (likely the 5:1 ratio discussed previously). If he can’t pay, he has to put himself into servanthood to get the cash to pay. (This largely only makes sense if the servant contract pays at least the bulk of the funds ahead of time and they are worked off, in effect, over the 6 years). If he hasn’t killed the animal and it can be taken back to its owner, it’s only a 2:1 payment instead of 5:1. Note that much of this is predicated upon the actual “cost” of the crime.

Next, if you can’t control your beast and it eats up another dude’s field, you have to give the best of your field to replenish it. This is 1:1, not the same thing as intentional human on human crime, recognizing the nature that sometimes beasts will be beasts and, although you have to make it right, it’s not a multiplied punishment. If a fire starts (this assumes it’s accidental) and you burn another dude’s grain stash, you have to pay for it.

On v.16, don’t be confused with the location of this one, it’s tied to the ones that follow it (social responsibility issues) not the ones preceding it (property issues). In general, remember that marriage is Biblically a formal covenant, the most important of all covenants between humans. The sign of that covenant is sex. So, if a couple engages in sex, they are basically acting as if they are married and the bride price has to be paid to the woman’s family. Note that this doesn’t mean they couple is required to get married, their “as if” marriage isn’t an actual marriage. Also, the law would be equally applied if a woman seduced a man or if they agreed on it mutually to do the dirty.

Also, don’t over crank on this concept of bride price. Modern ears hear it as something degrading to women, perhaps treating them as property, but an ancient Israelite wouldn’t have understood or thought of it in that way. In fact, it was seen as a protection for the bride, something that required a man to be serious, thoughtful, willing to go through the process of creating a full and formal arrangement that serves his interests, his future wife’s interests, as well as those of his extended family. The price was a sign of the commitment. For the most important of human covenants, it wasn’t to be treated lightly (remember, not only was there a bride price but the engagement was on the same level of commitment as marriage and generally lasted at least a year. They took marriage seriously, as God does.)

The next 3 laws that follow speak to a range of situations that require capital punishment. They aren’t really connected, they are likely to be speaking to a broad range of behavior that deserves punishment because it directs people away from Yahweh. God is always an evangelist, always seeking to rescue people from condemning sin. If you are trying to get in the way of that, expect fierce consequences. In general, sorcery and worship of other gods clearly runs the risk of pointing people to powers other than God. On the beastiality, not only are you someone who has no regard for godliness, but this also sniffs of practices allowed in other cultures fertility rituals. The capital punishment here seems fierce (and is something that is no longer the people of God’s prerogative under the New Covenant, Jesus, as the death penalty decisions now rest with secular government) but note what it is protecting, those who could be directed to worship something other than the true God.

The next set of laws ensure that the entire range of disadvantages, unprotected or easily mistreated folks in society are treated appropriately. Note that Yahweh Himself is the enforcer here, He will hear their cries and His wrath will come upon those who act in a discriminatory way. Sometimes I hear Christians complain that some in the modern church are focusing too much on social justice. I say that when God brings something up and then inserts Himself clearly and personally in the consequence, it seems unlikely that we are over-focusing on said issue (and I might suggest that we all have a ways to move in that direction).

If you’re going to lend money to a fellow Israelite, you can’t charge interest, not even a little. If you’re going to take collateral (which was allowed), you can’t take something a man needs to live (like his cloak or his goat or something like that). This is not exhaustive, have to use the sense God gave you. It takes effort to dull the Spirit and squash your conscience to not perceive when you’re turning the screws on a dude for your own gain.

Next, you can’t say whatever you want about God. In our society, we often mistake free speech (as a right) as if it is free from consequence or inconsequential in and of itself. That is untrue. Mind your lips, boys. Do not speak of God lightly or anything that is associated with Him. Same (and this may be even harder) goes for leaders of God’s people or, as Paul’s extension within Romans lays on us, even civil leaders.

Finally, give to God what belongs to Him. The first born’s are his. For humans, it doesn’t mean you are actually handing your son over to God, you have to redeem your boy’s life (generally a cost, monetary). The sheep and oxen, though, those will generally be sacrificed. Finally, don’t eat any scavenged meat.

Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Chapter 21

There are some things at face value that seem troubling in chapter 21 but that I think they are resolved with proper context and understanding of language.

First, on slavery in the Bible. The terms generally in play here have a relatively wide range. There are various Hebrew words for servant, the most common being “‘ebed”. That word can mean worker, employee, servant or slave. All of these fall under the protections of Yahweh’s convenant, and often they all actually do represent the same situation. Similarly, the word for employer, ba’al, can mean boss, employer, master, or owner (and, apparently, foreign god). Even the word for “buy” like in 21:2 (“If you buy a Hebrew servant…”), can refer to any financial transaction related to a contract. For example, if one baseball team exchanges cash for a 3rd baseman named Ted, we might say that they purchased Ted. It doesn’t mean that the new team literally owns Ted and everything about him, but they do have exclusive rights to their employment as a 3rd basemen (and as such, would expect compensation of some sort if Ted were to go to another team or not fulfill his obligations to their team).

So, with that as a foundation, when the law was properly followed, folks who were servants/slaves/workers held their positions based upon a formal contract for a job that they signed up to perform. In return they would get room, board, and some kind of compensation (perhaps all up front, some little by little, or maybe all at the end.) The terms were generally 6 years (think of it like someone signing up for the military).

Other servant/slave situations might be foreign-born servants who were allowed to live indefinitely on the condition that they become permanent workers in Israel. As we’ll note, God’s covenant law often assumes that people knew what they were getting into when they started some kind of trouble (going to war) and so the consequences of coming out on the other side of that trouble with your life spared but your service bound to the man you tried to kill is entirely appropriate.

Also, servants who were born in the household of the boss who perhaps owe the boss something for their room and board who will be permitted to leave when what is owed is paid. Finally, there are various temporary employment situations, think day laborers.

For clarity, it’s worth explicitly stating that under no circumstances when you read “slave” or “slavery” in God’s law should you view it through the lens of people stealing other people out of their homeland and forcing them to do labor permanently. Although it happened in other cultures of that time (ah hem, the Israelites ended up in this position, they just happened to already be on foreign soil), God explicitly puts protections in place to ensure people are not treated like this. No one “belonged” to another person like that. They may have been bound by a debt or a contractual agreement, but it was under their own agreement. And they had the right to gain their freedom.

So, when v.2 says, “If you buy a Hebrew slave…”, don’t think purchase a person, think “when you enter into a contractual agreement with someone for them to serve and work for you at an agreed upon wage for no fewer than six years”. Makes quite a bit of difference, doesn’t it? And after six years he goes frees. Seems easy. But then comes the trouble, when there are a spouse and kids involved (although some of these will be gender specific, don’t get distracted that they use the masculine noun to orient many of these, women could be employers and servants, they could find a husband while a servant and have a similar issue, etc.)

v.4 sounds problematic, then, because it sounds like the owner is using the servant to raise more servants so he can “own” them. Again, we have to shake 18-19th century American issues from our context here. Think about what is happening. Man comes to work for farm owner, agrees to work for 6 years for given wage, etc. Two years later, woman comes to work for farm owner, agrees to work for 6 years for a given wage, etc. Man and woman fall in love, get married, have a baby. Tricky. Farm owner didn’t contract for woman to not work during that time, someone has to compensate farm owner for the lost work. (I know we don’t live in a world that keeps to this kind of consequence, we assume the farm owner should eat the cost because marriage and birth are good things. And they are good, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t cost the farm owner for it to occur).

Now, fast forward 4 years. Man has finished his agreement, he’s free to go. Is it right that the woman, who has two more years on her agreement with the farm owner, should just get to leave free and clear? And the farm owner has been paying the costs of feeding/housing the child. Should that be free too? The law says no, the farm owner needs to be paid back. So, man has a few options. He can wait it out, his wife will finish her contract in two years and everyone can live happily ever after. The bummer of this would be he wouldn’t be with his family or would have to pay room and board at the farm while working somewhere else.

Alternatively, he could find a job somewhere else and try to raise enough money to pay the balance to satisfy his wife’s contract. However, it might be hard to find a situation that pays enough to support himself as well as enough to make progress on buying out what his wife had committed to those fateful 4 years prior. Or, he could agree to continue to work permanently for the farm owner for the rest of his life, stay with his wife and kids, and keep earning wages and living there as he was doing before. And remember, the farm owner isn’t a ruthless plantation owner, he’s providing room, board, and contractual wages. And the law forbids mistreatment otherwise he has to let the servant out of the contract.

Now the second problems arises. Let’s say man agrees to work for farm owner permanently. What’s to keep him from just bailing at any time? This is a voluntary service on the man’s part but still requires a protection for the farm owner. So, they go in front of the town judges and express that they are making this commitment to each other. This is an important step, it protects the man to make sure he does not enter into this agreement rashly. Also, it protects him against an unscrupulous farm owner who might lie and try to keep someone beyond their initial 6 year agreement. On the other side, the action in front of the judges protects the farm owner from someone accusing him of not honoring the 6 year agreement (he’ll have witnesses that the man agreed to say permanently).

Also, the man is marked (with an awl on the ear lobe, the average 5 year old girl does it to pierce her ears, it’s not a brutal process.) This mark is understood so that if this man were to flee the farm owner for some reason, a future employer would know that this man was supposed to be in permanent employment to the farm owner. Also, it’s a reminder to the farm owner of the commitment he made to care and provide for the man on a permanent basis.

Now, on to v. 7 (sorry, I know these are long, but I’m hoping they will help us digest some of the stuff to come a little easier). Our situation, like Nathaniel noted, is not just a woman entering into a servant contract but one that combines service and marriage. The core issue is the price. The farm owner (we’ll keep him as our example master) would pay both the contract price and the bride price (they didn’t do dowry) with the intention of this woman fulfilling the contract obligations with intentions of also marrying her. Why do that? It’s possibly most relevant to the farm owner who is already married or perhaps widowed who is trying to ensure his estate goes to either the first wife or her kids. Yes, he still must provide and care for the second wife (these complications are why God’s design never was for polygamy. This tolerance comes within the context of toleration of human weakness in a considerable variety of areas. Jesus describes this covenant in those terms in Matthew 19:8. Without some means of accommodation to human frailty in any divine covenant, there can be no hope for humans to find acceptance with God, thus the importance of the forgiveness of sins in the New Covenant of Jesus).

If, for some reason, the farm owner decides he doesn’t want her as a wife (and they don’t consummate the marriage), he must allow her to be redeemed. Meaning, he’s not allowed to keep her around under false circumstances. If he doesn’t intend to keep her as a bride, she must be released at the end of the contract period or allow for the family of the woman to give the money back, redeeming her. He’s not allowed to negotiate a new bride price with someone else, he’s not to be trusted to do that because he didn’t honor his word to marry her or treat her faithfully.

The transfer of property rights notwithstanding, a second wife is not a “second-class” wife. She must be treated equally in the family to the way first wives were treated. Failure to do so would be sufficient grounds for the wife to be freed from her marriage and her service contract.

I won’t belabor the point on the rest of the chapter (unless you have a specific question) but I did have one more thing that jumped out. In v. 20, we have a situation where a man punishes a contracted worker physically. We recoil at this, of course. It’s not stated that the man’s actions are justified (the discussion assumes it isn’t, that’s why there is to be punishment or avenging going on). However, the end of the verse is difficult, “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two since the slave is his property (NIV).” Dang, that doesn’t sound good at all. Part of the confusion is the translation. The ESV is better, “…since the slave is his money.” The point is, for something that wasn’t enough to exact an eye for eye, tooth for tooth kind of thing, the impact is that the worker is down for some small amount of time. There is no point in asking the servant’s boss to compensate himself for the loss of his own servant’s labor. He already paid the price, his laborer can’t work (thus, the slave is his money). Again, the rest of the law protects the servant in excess of whatever this situation was, it’s not open season to be a violent jerk, it’s a recognition of the proper compensation (the assumption being that the laborer still gets paid).

Categories
Study

Biblical Law

Our society, as well as many modern societies, have exhaustive law codes. Basically, if we want to regulate or prohibit something, it must be explicitly stated in separate laws. For this reason, our federal, state and local law codes have thousands and thousands of entries (as well as a relatively high instance of loopholes, or omissions in the laws that allow someone to get away with something that everyone knows is wrong.)

Ancient laws did not work that way. They were what’s called paradigmatic (think paradigms), giving models of behaviors and models of prohibitions/punishments relative to those behaviors but they made no attempt to be exhaustive. Ancient people were expected to be able to extrapolate from what the sampling of laws did say to the general behavior the laws in their totality pointed toward. For example, no Israelite would see the law for providing restitution for stealing an oxen or sheep and believe they didn’t have to provide recompense for a stolen goat. Similarly, the law that says not to attack dear old mom and dad doesn’t mean it’s ok to attack your grandma. Such arguments would have insulted the intelligence of the judges (who were wisely in place prior to the giving of the law to handle such things as these).

The nature of law in this way is why Jesus can sum up the law in the NT as being to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength and love people as yourself and have it still be right. All the laws function this way (not intended to be exhaustive). Now, by the time all is said and done, we’ll have over 600, this is because as situations come up we start to see some more specificity. But all of those 600 laws can be rolled up into the 10 Words and those can be rolled up into those 2 that Jesus said.

Anyway, thought that was a worthwhile distinction and should help with proper context as Exodus moves into its second half, the provision from God to His people on what it looks like to live in covenant with Him.

Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Chapter 17

The people continue the trek through Sin, following cloud and fire as they went (likely how we should understand that “…according to the commandment of the Lord” bit. They camp at Rephidim, just a bit further south and the last stop prior to Mt. Sinai. Wouldn’t you know it, there’s no water there for the people to drink. Given that they followed the fire and cloud to Rephidim and harvested free honey flakes from the heavens every morning since they left, you’d think these fellas would put two and two together and perhaps ask the Lord to provide for water (you know, like He’s already done once.)

But no, instead, they quarrel with Moses and demand to be given water to drink. In this, they ignore not only how God has provided but Moses’ entreaty just days ago that their beef is with YAHWEH, not him and Aaron. They persist nonetheless, once again protesting that they could have died of thirst in Egypt without all this travel and said among themselves, “Is the Lord among us or not?” This is outright foolishness. God’s patience with them is remarkable.

Even Moses gets in the act this round. Note how he protests to the Lord, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me.” He’s losing his nerve a bit. I get it, but he’s not exempt from cloud, fire, honey flakes, magic water log, and free quail. He’s leading this circus, the person leading folks around has to hold the whims back as a good example.

Even in the face of all this, God provides. He instructs Moses to walk in front of the people and the elders of Israel with the same stick that turned the Nile to blood and strike a rock to get water to come out. This is a level up from taking existing water and making it sweet, this is a river flowing from a stone. The people need to see it. The elders need to see it. It goes done as the Lord instructed. Moses, though, doesn’t want them to forget how they’ve behaved and names the place both Massah and Meribah, which means “testing” and “quarreling” respectively.

Directly after this incident, Amalek attacks Israel at Rephidim. Perhaps, word has gotten around that a wandering band of Hebrew malcontents are ripe for the pickin’ on the outskirts of the desert. Moses instructs Joshua to find some fellas to go fight with Amalek (apparently it wasn’t a sneak attack). The sense is, Joshua may have a hard time rousting up qualified folks, but he’s the man to make it happen.

However, it doesn’t particularly matter, this will be God’s victory. Moses goes to the top of the hill at the battle, Nile/water stick in hand. Whenever he holds up the staff, the Israelites win. When he drops the staff down, they start to lose. Understandably, Moses’ arms get tired (he’s a human after all). On the bright side, Aaron and Hur hang around and help him hold up is arms (this has all the makings of a pamphlet for a men’s retreat).

And it works, Joshua overwhelms Amalek. The victory is obviously God’s, but often history attributes it to the leader, thus the attribution to Joshua. Afterwards, God has Moses record the victory for the annals and to keep it in the ears of Joshua. Just like the water from the rock, God’s intervention on His people’s behalf needs to be remembered (especially for a people so prone to forget things that happen right in front of them).

Moses builds an altar to commemorate the victory and proclaims a generational war with Amalek (rough times for him).

Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Chapter 16

Although Elim sounds nice, the travel continues. Why not stay in Elim? Well, it’s neither the mountain of the Lord (Mt. Sinai) nor the promised land of Canaan for starters. More directly, though, the cloud and fire that leads them places ain’t staying in Elim. When the magic cloud and fire move, you pack up your goods and head out as well, twelve springs and seventy palm trees or otherwise.

They keep heading south (towards Sinai) and travel through the wilderness of Sin (Hebrew “Ciyn”, pronounced “seen”, unrelated, and not the same word, as “sin” being a transgression and separation from God). They are back in a desert and it’s been one month since they left Egypt. They have grumbled already against there being a lack of drinkable water, now the same complaint will arise due to lack of food. Before we are too harsh on them, these complaints are not completely without merit. The food and water issues are legitimate (otherwise God wouldn’t step in to remedy them). Even as they were overworked and deprived of the right to worship appropriately, lack of food or water was not mentioned as one of the issues in Egypt. Certainly, there is truth in the change of their situation here.

However, lest we be too easy on them, let’s not forget that they are following the aforementioned magic cloud on the daily. They have seen the mighty hand of Lord against the Egyptians, they have seen their first born spared, the nation that kept them as slaves send them out with jewels, a sea be held back to give them dry land to traverse it, and that same sea fall upon their hapless pursuers to close out God’s judgment against them. They had seen enough to know that Yahweh was the one true God, was more powerful than any ruler or god that might come up against Him, and that this one true God was with them and for them. And yet, here they are, grumbling.

Remember, they are a people in training. God was clear back in Exodus 6 that the Israelites weren’t simply being set free from Egypt, they were being brought to a new situation and identity, one in which they were to be the people of Yahweh, in His service. It is clear that they do not yet know how to do that. These times of testing are necessary so that God may demonstrate His faithfulness to them. Whereas the plagues and wonders in Egypt were aimed to ensure that the Egyptians knew who indeed was the Lord, these tests during the time in the wilderness will do much the same thing for the Israelites. Trust is not just a concept that can live within our mind, it must be acted upon, demonstrated. The Israelites will struggle, as we certainly do today, in putting complete faith in God for provision, trust in His way of doing things. In a nation where we are generally capable of providing for ourselves in almost every way, we must be cautious of not re-defining faith as purely a notional (shadow) concept.

God affirms this notion of testing in v. 4. After the people complain (insinuating that they might as well have died at the hand of the Lord in Egypt around pots of meat than at the hands of Lord’s lack of provision here in the desert), God tells Moses that He personally will provide bread to the people. This is a test as to whether they will walk in His law (torah) or not. Again, they are a people in training. God is showing His faithfulness so they will begin to trust Him in all that He is about to command them (following basic instructions on collections of free honey wafers will pale in comparison to the commands God will give them at Sinai and beyond).

Moses and Aaron receive the word from God and pass it on, but first they make sure it’s clear to the people that they are not worth grumbling at, the complaint is between the people and Yahweh. I don’t think Moses and Aaron are trying to deflect blame, instead they are trying to make sure it is clear that God is about to step in to solve (vs. Moses doing it, as they may have believed after the bitter water incident at Marah). This point is confirmed as Aaron is talking to the people and the “…glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud” in that moment. (The Lord has yet to provide such an exclamation point to any proclamations of mine.) Then God promises that they will eat meat at twilight and then bread in the morning. From this the people will know that Yahweh is the Lord their God. (This is interesting in that, back to chapter 6, God says they will know He is God when He gets them out of Egypt. Now the definition includes the provision action about to take place. There is a lot of grace and patience in this chapter that these people don’t particularly deserve.)

In the evening, quail show up and cover the camp. This is a one-time action that is a direct response to their grumbling about there being no food. And it’s not a meager amount, it covers the camp. The next morning, there is an interesting flaky substance on the ground that God has provided for them. The people see it and ask “what is it?” (Hebrew “man hu”, which is basically what they end up calling it (“manna”). Moses explains to them how it works. The Lord will provide it every morning and each person is supposed to gather what they can eat (an omer per person is the expectation), just enough for one day. Of course, there’s one in every crowd who thinks he is going to take advantage of the situation and tries to take extra, and the next morning it is covered in worms and had a stank on it. This makes Moses angry. As the sun gets hot, the manna melts. (It isn’t clear whether there are piles of manna-lick available for the animals at this point, I’m assuming there are.)

On the sixth day of the week, God provides twice the amount of manna for them (two omers each). He’s giving them the means to be able to rest. Moses tells them that the next day is a Sabbath (means “cease work”) so he gives them double the amount so they don’t have to collect any the next day. Unlike every other day, this double portion can be kept overnight without risk of worms and stank. Of course, there’s one in every crowd who doesn’t pay attention to the situation and some of them head out on day 7 looking to gather manna. God says He will give them rest and make sure provisions exist to ensure it and these wandering goons are out there the next morning trying to do more work. God is not pleased.

I’ll quote this in full as it remains important: “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and laws? See! The Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” So the people rested on the seventh day.”

A few things. The Sabbath is a gift. This day of rest was foreshadowed in the rhythms of God’s creation and He is instilling it in His people now. (Note, this is before the official 10 commandments). Fellas, we need this. If your life does not permit a consistent pattern of rest, you’re taking a gift that God has crafted for you (one that you need) and throwing it back at Him. Not a wise move. Sure, you don’t have to open your birthday presents, but you’d be a damn fool not to. That’s what’s happening when you are rejecting a day of rest. Put the priority on it (I’m guilty as charged on this).

Also, don’t over crank on the “…let no one go out of his place…” business. The context here was the collection of the manna, not a general house arrest because it’s Saturday. The goal was to provide a day of rest that would not require them to do the work they had to every other day.

God commands that some of the manna should be kept over the generations as proof to the Israelites that God has provided for them. Ultimately, it will be placed in the Ark of the Covenant along with the 10 commandments and a stick (yet to come). At the end of the chapter, we’re told that the people of Israel are fed on this manna for 40 years. This is a non-Moses addition to the text, at the time he dies they are still being fed by the manna.

Broadly, I was struck (probably convicted) by a few things. One, God has set them up to have to completely trust in Him day after day after day. The food was there every morning but wouldn’t last the night. You couldn’t horde it, couldn’t keep it to make you more powerful or rich than the next man. You got just enough, the rest went to worms. I’ll reinforce what I said earlier, at our level of wealth our understanding of “trust” runs the risk of being just a thought exercise. What things need to be on the table in your life to truly trust in God with? There’s not a difference here, boys, we’re in training to be the people of God. Let’s not get stuck at the grumbling/hording manna level of maturity.

Also, God’s provision and patience is a mercy that is undeserved yet intentionally and thoroughly provided. He gives what His people need, even in the face of their complaints and accusations. And even the manna itself, in a world where available sweeteners are either dried/condensed fruit or honey (which had to be harvested in the wild, which most folks weren’t doing), what God provides to make daily bread is quite possibly the best thing they’ve ever tasted.

Finally, take the rest.

Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Chapter 11

Things have come to a head, one more plague is to come and Pharaoh will release the Israelites completely. The goal has always been the complete freedom of God’s people (remember, God has promise to keep with these folks and the land of Canaan, which we were reminded of in chapters 3 & 6) and it was always going to be done through the humiliation of Pharaoh and all the so-called gods of Egypt. The power of Yahweh, the one true God, has been clearly demonstrated over and over again. Of course, we know that it was always going to end in 10 plagues, but neither Moses nor Pharaoh knew that. These have likely been occurring over a number of months with the Hail and Locust damage happening February/March based upon the state of the flax and barley at the time.

As part of the groundwork of this exodus action, the people will need some goods. Moses is to speak to the Israelites and have them request that their neighbors hand over some gold and silver jewelry. Again, knowing what is to come, we perhaps shudder at the thought of God providing all these jewels from the hands of the Egyptians as proof of the power of Yahweh when we know those same jewels will be used later to craft a golden idol to be treacherously worshiped in Yahweh’s place by the impatient Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai.

However, it’s also interesting to consider the reactions of the Egyptians in relation to the Pharaoh. They’ve kind of abandoned him. They seem to think highly of Moses (not only Pharaoh’s servants but also the Egyptian people) who are presumably handing over stuff to the Israelites because it’s clear that Yahweh has dominance in the area. Where the Pharaoh remains stubborn, I think we’re getting the impression that the plagues are having the appropriate effect on everyone else.

So Moses takes the final warning to Pharaoh, obviously unconcerned with the previous threat of his death if he were to enter the presence of Pharaoh again. The word is from the Lord so when it says, “About midnight I will go out in the midst of Egypt…”, we should read that as God personally involving Himself in this action. Yes, His hand has caused all the plagues so far, but the major impacts have been third party (hail, locusts, darkness, blood, frogs, etc.) This time, God is doing the work Himself. It’s happening at midnight as a grace, everyone who is going to die will likely die in their sleep. The great cry throughout the land will not be those who are dying, but those who are finding that they have died.

And it’s everyone, from the firstborn of Pharaoh to the slave girl, as well as the…cattle? Have we so quickly forgotten that us humans share a creation day with the animals and are functioning under the same directive to multiply? To include the cattle is to indicate a sense of complete domination and a demonstration of the cascading effects of the sins of Egypt and the power of God. And firstborn isn’t likely limited to sons, the word can be ambiguous, and chapter 12 describes there not being a house in Egypt that wasn’t impacted, so only girl households are apparently touched.

But for the people of Israel, there shall be no trouble, not even barked at by a dog (think of a dog as on the same level as a rat in that time, a dirty nuisance). How this will be true will be shown in the next chapter. The result of this will be the final humiliation of Pharaoh, the death of his son and all of those most loyal to him turning to Moses and begging for the Israelites to leave. Then Moses leaves in hot anger (presumably he was mad the whole time and probably tied to the death threat from earlier).

And yet Pharaoh will not listen. This final demonstration must be completed in service of God’s promises to His people and in service to the revelation of the truth to those who falsely worship the gods of Egypt.

Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Chapter 6

As chapter 6 starts, we find a Moses who seems a bit disoriented. He knew enough from what God has previously said that there would be reluctance on the part of Pharaoh to just let the people split (God gave him signs and wonders for a reason specifically to combat doubt). However, the impact this had on the Israelites and their subsequent rejection of Moses doesn’t appear to have been anticipated. This conflict between our expectations and God’s execution isn’t specific to their time. God’s timing only sometimes coincides with our expectations and his idea of the hardships we need to go through only sometimes coincides with our idea of how much we can take.

In response to Moses’ exasperation of God not delivering His people as expected, God largely ignores the protest and reminds him of what he said back in chapter 3, that it will take a mighty hand to change Pharaoh’s heart and that many wonders must be done in the land to get that to happen. We must not forget that this isn’t a battle between Moses and Pharaoh, or even Israel and Egypt, it’s between Yahweh and the so-called gods of Egypt.

We should likely see the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, when it occurs, as part of this same battle. The Pharaoh was considered a pure person, a manifestation of the gods themselves. For Yahweh to be able to do whatever he wanted with Pharaoh’s heart shows a domination over those gods already. This is temporary, not an indication of God’s permanent or eternal judgment upon the man himself, but a demonstration of God’s power to communicate a truth and make a point. This shouldn’t be a surprise, every time we pray for something we’re generally asking for God to suspend someone’s free will or a natural process and to intervene in a supernatural way. The broad question is, do we trust God to suspend free will in the appropriate times for the right reasons? Well, if we can’t trust God to be just, we can’t trust him with anything. So, generally I’d say that it must be able to be done in a just and fair way.

The promise remains the same. Who are they dealing with? Yahweh (the same Yahweh that makes promises of land to Abraham, et al). Further, He has heard their groaning, has been with them in it, and now the time has come for that His faithfulness in this promise will be demonstrated to not only the Israelites but to those who have oppressed them as well. Even more, there is a unique connection between Yahweh and these folks that no one else has. They will be liberated for a special relationship where He will be their God and they will be His people. When would this happen? v. 7 answers. They will know for certain the truth of this when they have been delivered out of Egypt.

Moses pulls all this together…and the Israelites don’t want to hear it. From their perspective, they got burned the last time they put their hope in this deliverance. No thanks, this brick load burden leaves us no time for these promises anymore. Interestingly, Pharaoh wanted to work them harder to keep them from following lies. It’s working, but instead they’re missing the truth. Pessimism will do that, especially pessimism that is comes from being let down when your expectations, unreasonable or otherwise, weren’t met. Just something to watch, boys.

Still, God’s faithfulness doesn’t wane even when folk be stubborn about it. So, he sends Moses to talk to Pharaoh anyway. Moses tries to bail again, this time claiming that disbelief that Pharaoh will listen when his own people will not (this seems reasonable) and further by claiming that he has “uncircumcised lips”, meaning that he isn’t ready, things aren’t in order on his end to go and convince Pharaoh of this thing. Granted, we get that Moses remains a little disoriented and disenfranchised by the relative lack of success so far. Yet, when God says it’s the thing then it’s the thing. So, He insists that Moses and Aaron are the right fellas to get this promise delivered.

Now we run into a genealogy out here in the middle of everywhere like a pair of undies on the lawn. You wonder why it’s there? Why is this happening and who thought it was a good idea? Well, if we look, it’s focused on tracing the connections between the lineage of the man Israel through to Aaron’s grandson Phinehas. Notice it’s a selective genealogy. We only get the first 3 sons of Israel, for example. When we hit Levi, we then start following him because it’s his line that produces Amram, the father of Aaron and Moses. The level of detail for those that follow that line also varies. This is not unusual, Biblical writers use genealogies for specific connections or to reinforce specific narratives and will skip generations or bail on tracing certain branches because it’s not important to the point of the story.

So why is this here? Multiple reasons. It provides an affirmation that these leaders, Moses and Aaron, are legit and their line can be traced back from Levi all the way through Phinehas (who is a priest during the time of the Judges). Their future priestly duties are understandable given that lineage. Also, that the Israelites aren’t ethnically pure as the genealogy points out connections to a Canaanite woman in v. 15. This isn’t a surprise, really, the group that leaves Egypt was likely a pretty mixed bag and probably includes Egyptians who wanted to leave with them. The initial recipients of these writings from Moses could see a bit of themselves in the genealogy. We also see quite a few ladies, highlighting the importance of proper marriages for priests, something that will show up later in the laws that God gives them.

The end of chapter 6 resumes where the lawn undies interrupted but makes reference that one of the points of the genealogy was to orient how readers/hearers of this story were to understand Moses and Aaron. Now we’re back to the question again of Moses’ ability to do this thing on God’s behalf. This leads to a chapter 7 where, as expected, God will largely again ignore this protest and affirm His commitment to what is to go down.

Categories
Study

Angel of the Lord

The phrase that is usually translated “the Angel of the Lord” shows up in in the Old Testament 67 times (including the description of the character in the burning bush). It is a curious phrase considering what it leads us to ask about the identify of this angel and its relationship to God. The Hebrew here is “mal’ak yahweh”, and because of how its constructed must be a specific definition (THE angel of the Lord) as opposed to something more broad (AN angel of the Lord). Think similarly of how we might see the phrase “the River Euphrates”. We recognize that this is a specific river called the Euphrates, not a river in or of Euphrates. The second word is used to provide clarity on how to understand the specificity or use of the first one. (This is coming to a point, I promise).

So, given those rules, it’s possible we could read the phrase “mal’ak yahweh” as “the angel that is Yahweh” or “the Angel Yahweh”. But this seems problematic. We know that God is not an angel, per se, or is at least not limited to that distinction in a moment in time. The other option is some kind of impostor angel who takes on God’s identity in certain situations.

Complicating this further is the number of Old Testament passages where “mal’ak yahweh” is either called or recognized as the Lord. Remember in Genesis 16, we have an Angel of the Lord (v.11) who talks to Hagar and promises she will be safe. In response, it says, “…she called on the name of the Lord who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing.” Who spoke to her? The Angel of the Lord…who she just called God (or at least attributed God qualities to.) Or Genesis 31, when the Angel of God shows up to Jacob to tell him to leave Laban and go home. In v.13, the angel says about itself, “I am the God of Bethel…”

The strongest of all these connections happens in Exodus 3, within that burning bush. In v. 2, it is the Angel of the Lord who first appears in the burning bush. When Moses turns to see, in v. 4 it says that the “Lord” saw and that “God” called out to him from the bush. Unless there’s a switcheroo happening that is omitted from the text, it sure seems like the Angel of the Lord is indeed God Himself.

That leaves a reasonable question as to why. Why not show up as “God” instead of an Angel of the Lord? To a certain extent, trying to nail down the motivations of God and, the human rendering of their interaction with God, will often feel unsatisfactory. Often, we can’t really know, we can just speculate. But I have two thoughts. One, the identification seems to progress. We start with a description of a messenger/angel/being who is acting on the Lord’s behalf. And then as the narrative progresses the true identity is realized. Further, given how we understand the nature of God, specifically his omnipresence, it’s difficult to conceive that He can be represented at a specific moment/location in time, especially embodied in something that appears human (not necessarily the bush here, think about the Hagar interaction, wrestling with Jacob, etc.)

So how to think about it? It think it’s pretty this is the presence of God vs. some sort of other being acting on His behalf. In resolution of the representation a specific moment/location in time vs. omnipresence, think of it like a video-conference. You get the sense of the presence of someone in a room through a video screen and speaker, even though they are not fully present.

Alternatively, this is where we find the thought that this is a pre-birth (or pre-incarnate) Jesus. We have experience in Jesus understanding a God who can be physically manifested in tandem with retaining all the attributes and authority of God (being still God, of course). Thus, when we see the phrase “the Angel of the Lord”, we can think of it as God, but specifically Jesus.

It’s not a slam dunk for me that we are to see that as always specifically Jesus. But given that we should rightly see the Angel of the Lord as God Himself in some form or another, I’m not sure it particularly matters.

Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Chapter 3

Click on the link to view the image of the Sinai Peninsula. Notice the mountains in the middle of peninsula in the middle of the picture. Mount Sinai (and perhaps Mount Horeb) is located here.

Also shown is the northern portion of the Red Sea, as this satellite picture is taken looking from the Southeast. There are two “bunny ears” on this northern portion of the Red Sea that create the Sinai Peninsula. These two are the larger Gulf of Suez to the left (and you can barely see the Suez Canal which connects to the Mediterranean Sea at the very very top) and then the Gulf of Aqaba, the smaller “ear” to the right.

Back in Genesis, after Sarah died, Abraham married Keturah, and they had several children, including Midian. Midian is the patriarch of the Midianites, who began dwelling on the coasts of the Gulf of Aqaba. So, the west side of Aqaba (Sinai) and the east side (Arabia) saw the Midians hanging out. So since Jethro is a Midianite, and a priest, perhaps it’s possible that he serves God, since his great—great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents were Abraham and Keturah. Dunno.

Now, we pick up chapter 3 with Moses and his new family. Jethro has entrusted Moses to watch his flock o’ sheep, and Moses and his flock meander to Mount Horeb (some say that this is Mount Sinai). Exodus calls this the mountain of God. Moses comes across the burning bush, which is described as the angel of God who has appeared as fire inside a bush. Growing up, I recall the burning bush, but never remembered the fire actually being the angel of God. So that’s new to me.

When Moses sees that the bush isn’t consumed, God calls out to him. Moses takes off his sandals as ordered, and God reveals himself as the God of the Patriarchs, whom we know all about from Genesis.

Overwhelmed, Moses hides his face. This comes at a time when God hasn’t spoken directly to anyone since Jacob, so it’s been a long time. I would hide my face too.

The Word of the Lord:
“7 The Lord said, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings.
8 So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.
9 Now, behold, the cry of the sons of Israel has come to Me; furthermore, I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them.”

Having said that, God orders Moses to Egypt.
Moses: Who am I to do this task?
God: I’m with you. That’s all you need. Also, you’re going return to this mountain to worship Me.
Moses: Who do I say sent me?
God: I AM THAT I AM. I AM has sent you. Tell them that this is My Name…forever. They will listen.
Moses: (continues listening)
God: Say this: What we wish to do is go into the wild for three days, to worship our God. But I know that Pharaoh isn’t going to let you go, unless forced. So I’m going to force him using plagues and miracles. You’ll be leaving Egypt soon.”

In many ways, this is a straightforward chapter. It’s a pretty famous one too. The burning bush, mentions of the land flowing in milk and honey, and discussions of the name “I AM.”

I Am that I Am (Hebrew: Hayah) means “existed” in Hebrew; it’s usually translated in English Bibles as “I am” or “I will be” (or “I shall be”). It is literally translated as “I Am Who I Am.”

The ancient Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 lacks a future tense such as modern English has, yet a few translations render this name as “I Will Be What I Will Be,” given the context of Yahweh’s promising to be with his people through their future troubles.

This promise portends that God is going to be more active among the children of Israel. We have God specifically choosing Moses for an important task involving the liberation of the descendants of Abraham.

God declares his goodwill for these people also, a goodwill which exists because of Abraham.

God then tells Moses exactly how the children of Israel are going to be delivered from Pharaoh. He tells Moses that the time to fulfill promises has come. Moses is going to try to wriggle out of this a bit (he is human of course). However, God (of course) has an answer to his lame objections every time. You’ll see more wrigglings in coming chapters.

God also reveals himself to a Hebrew for the first time in over a century, and he does so in miraculous fashion. No one else sees this, however. Moses has no way to prove this to Jethro or his wife at this exact time. It speaks to the great faith of Moses that he’s going to leave his safe house in Midian, and head down to Egypt nonetheless, where’s probably wanted for murder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7tgX_Uaqs

Important note for all of us. How many times does God tell us to do something, but we come up with our own lame excuses? Moses is going to go back to where he’ll likely be executed, but he goes with the protection of God, having seen a miracle that no one else has.

Finally, 20 years ago, the Prince of Egypt came out. I was always a big fan of the film. It wasn’t scripturally perfect by any means, but the story of the Exodus remains an epic one that God orchestrated. I always enjoyed the burning bush scene. Here’s that scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZr9HjMizQ&app=desktop

End of Chapter 3

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gulf_of_Suez_from_orbit_2007.JPG

Categories
Bible Study Numbers

Numbers | Chapter 19

Whereas chapter 18 focused on the priests and the Levites and their role in keeping the Tabernacle (YHWH’s place of residence among the people) from becoming unclean, there were still risks that came from the ordinary people. Specifically, this chapter focuses on how to restore cleanliness in the presence of death.

The book of Leviticus addressed options for dealing with uncleanliness. Minor cases required a washing and waiting a day. Major cases involved waiting seven days and then offering a sacrifice. In the presence of human death, which is a major case of uncleanliness, offering a sacrifice was often a cumbersome and expensive measure. Chapter 19 provided an alternative way to deal with human death that allows for proper cleansing while not adding to the burden that is likely already on the family when someone has died.

Before we talk about the details, we should call out up front that this process, not unlike some already detailed in the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament) seems odd and a bit magicky. Just because we are wary of rituals (especially physical ones that represent spiritual postures) and of symbolic use of earthly items within those rituals, doesn’t mean that the people doing them believe that they are somehow dealing with magic cows and wizard’s water. These ceremonies are intended to take what is tangible and use it to reflect deep realities. We need to take these kinds of things in without judging them against our own comfort level on ceremonies and rituals.

YHWH tells Moses and Aaron to bring a red cow and hand it over to the priest, who is going to slaughter it outside the camp (which is a clue something unique is happening, sin offerings and other sacrifices generally happen at the altar within the tabernacle.) The blood of the cow gets sprinkled on the tent of meeting (tabernacle). This is a purification action, although not explicitly a sacrifice. More cleansing agents (hyssop, cedarwood, and scarlet yarn) get tossed into the fire along with the burning cow remnants.

Now, since we’re in the presence of a death of the cow, folks become unclean. The priest has to wash himself and his clothes and wait until the end of the evening before he’s clean again. The person who helped burn the cow must do the same thing. A person who is still clean gathers up the ashes of the cow and puts them in a clean place outside the camp. The dude who hauled the ashes out is now also unclean and must wash his clothes and wait out the evening.

What’s all of this for? The situation is reiterated in v.11. A person who touches a dead body is unclean 7 days. Instead of the sacrifice discussed earlier, YHWH will accept someone cleansing themselves with the water mixed with clean cow ash on the 3rd and 7th days. If they don’t do that, they remain unclean, and the impact of not being clean and defiles the tabernacle and could lead to immediate judgment upon them.

The cow ash water can be deployed in other situations as well. If someone dies in a tent, the tent is unclean as is any open container (vessels without lids on them). Also if someone touches a person either killed with a sword or who died naturally, or touches a grave or a human bone (the selection of what to include in these examples is interesting), they are unclean. Same procedure applies here, mix the ash with water, and spread it on the tent or the person on the 3rd and 7th days. At the end of the 7th day, everything is clean.

As noted earlier, a person who refuses to clean themselves runs the risk of immediate judgment. And whatever they touch also becomes unclean and shall remain that way until evening. Similarly, the person who helped sprinkle the water is also unclean and must wash his clothes and wait out the evening.

Broadly, this chapter tucks up a conversation on the nation’s mistakes related to trying to bring their uncleanliness into contact with YHWH’s holiness. Although this was already covered in Leviticus, the timely reminder was necessary given their recent attempts at rebellion. They have been reminded who is actually allowed in the presence of YHWH and His holy things (priests), who is responsible for guarding uncleanliness from physically coming into contact with those things at the tent of meeting (Levites) and how the average person can combat uncleanliness from the predicable circumstance of human death. YHWH’s holiness is nothing to mess around with and His people must be reminded of the privilege and the danger that comes with a holy God living within their presence.