The Book of Exodus

I finished the book of Exodus this morning. In the grand scheme of things that’s not a big accomplishment. However, there were several things I noticed this time through the book that I had not paid that much attention to before. Things like Israel’s misconception of what it means to have a “god”; Aaron’s escaping punishment for his role in the golden calf episode; the ordination of the priests through killing members of their own family and the incomprehensible weight of the tabernacle constructed in the desert.

In addition, with the closing words of the book, the author is sure to point out that “Moses did everything just as the LORD had commanded him.”  These are strong words and carry a weight of their own that must not be ignored. The people were suspect in their obedience to God, but Moses was in a position to be above suspicion at least up to this point.

Many of us on the pilgrimage called faith struggle mightily to be obedient in most things let alone everything. We find ourselves in the midst of self-imposed floggings for not being in the center of God’s will at all times. We fret over what it is that keeps us from “perfection” and evidencing the fruit of the Spirit. We push ourselves to more and more intricacies of spiritual discipline hoping that the right combination will set us free and allow us to relax in the presence of God – or should I say God’s presence in our lives.

Moses appeared unencumbered by those types of personal devotions and pursuits. He simply obeyed God.  I say “simply” but there is nothing simple about it. He stood in the presence of the Almighty and heard His words and saw His fire. For most rational beings, there would be little else to do except to obey. You don’t willfully disobey that kind of Presence. You may misunderstand things and act impulsively a time or two, but it is not out of disobedience as much as it is zealous faith.

I fear that sometimes we make God too personal. He don’t allow his otherness to permeate our hearts and minds. We often ignore or fail to appreciate His “heaviness.” Moses did not seem to have that shortcoming.  He knew full well the kabod of YHWH.  He did not find speaking of God something to take lightly. He did not see his regular trips to the “tent of meeting” as a ritual or Sunday morning habit. It was personal for him and yet infinitely more about God than about Moses.

I have a tendency to make my faith more about me than about God. It’s more about what I can do for God instead of how God’s presence can transform me. I step almost flippantly into the chamber of the Almighty when I should be treading with special awareness of His glory and come shoe-less for the ground beneath me is holy ground.

Moses did as commanded by God. I do and ask God to bless it.

Yes, there were new insights for me this time around in The Book of Exodus but none more important than those words, “Moses did everything just as the LORD had commanded him.”

Meeting God

Do you remember meeting God?

I suspect that most of us don’t simply because our first and subsequent encounters with the divine are centered on Christ. We may consider meeting Christ, as a mediator between us and God, somewhat equal to meeting God however there may be something more to it than that.

Israel met God. In fact, Moses “brought the people out of the camp (specifically) to meet God (Ex 19:7).” When I read those words I attempted to get my arms around that idea and the significance of that event for the people. After all, they had basically been shunning the idea that a god would deliver them out of Egyptian bondage; then when they did follow this man Moses, they basically bitched the entire way. Now, they are going to meet God and they aren’t very warm to the idea.

In our western culture we view God differently than I suspect they do in other cultures.  We like being chummy with God – “I am a friend of God” can be sung without any thought to what that means – even as spoken by Christ.  We see ourselves as somehow in a unique relationship with God as a country and that somehow His favor and blessing have been reserved for us. We often believe our history of religious freedom in some way sets us apart from other cultures and provides for us a unique relationship to the God we freely worship. But does it?

When Israel met God, they were not all that comfortable with the experience. In fact, they feared if God spoke to them they would die.  The God who had provided for them since leaving Egypt and even before that, was a God they feared. A God they did not understand.

I am under the suspicion that we have lost the fear of God. We are shaping God in our image, through our own understanding to such a degree that it has not only made God familiar, but somewhat impotent. We have so conditioned ourselves to view God through the prism of the suffering servant, come to save all, that we fail to grasp the fullness of God.  We have focused so much on the “good news” that we dismiss the history and the God that made that news good.

We cannot have a right understanding of the God of the New Testament without a right understanding of the God of the Old Testament. They are the same God. He may have changed His mind on a few things, nevertheless, He is the same God.  Coming to terms with that understanding may help us identify a bit more with Israel and their fear of this God they did not fully understand, or embrace except through their intermediary Moses.

Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God. That experience will be a turning  point in Israel’s history just as my initial introduction to God in Christ was a turning point. Having “met” God, the people of Israel struggled with the faithfulness of that relationship. The same is true for me.

I’d like to think I know God better now than I did when we first met. Then again, the more I think I understand God, as presented in scripture, the less I truly know. I suppose that’s as it should be.

A Civilized Society – A Civilized God

What marks a civilized society?  Is it determined by the very act of civility, by moral codes, by economic prowess, by decency?  Can it be measured by miles of  infrastructure or tomes of penal codes?

As I read the beginning chapters of Exodus I asked myself this question, “Was what God perpetrated on Egypt necessary?” It could by no means be considered civilized. Yet, Christians would hesitate to call it barbaric. So was it purely a means to an end for God to call out His people and provide for them a perpetual observance of both death and life?  Was it El Shaddai’s only means or could there have been a better way- a different way? After all, it was not Pharaoh who chose to be stubborn, it was YHWH who hardened his heart.

Now for some this line of thought may be similar to the futility of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But the truth of the matter, it’s a valid discussion for it goes to the idea of God’s civility. Furthermore, as any student of scripture knows, the death acts to preserve a people do not end with the slaughter of every first-born in Egypt, it continues as Israel settles in it’s new land of milk and honey.

Naturally to discuss anything of the ethical nature of God is at the least ludicrous. God is God. He will do what He wants when He wants in any manner He wants. Yet, it might be asked, “If none of that served His ultimate purpose, for the people of Israel that is (and He knew it wouldn’t), then why pursue that course of action?

It appears, at least for the last several thousand years that God has changed his modus operandi. Since his ultimate act of sacrificing His son on the cross of Calvary, God has chosen a different course. It still involves the death of many – those who chose not to believe in Christ. Of course some could argue that that really is no change at all since God has predetermined that outcome from the beginning of time.  Nevertheless, the message of God is love and in a civilized society that makes much more sense. After all, those who perpetrate death and destruction in the name of a religion are swiftly judged by the world’s court – by civilized societies. That kind of behavior is not tolerated.

I like living in a civilized society. I don’t like religious extremists, zealots, or anyone who kills in the name of god – any god. I affirm that Jesus is the only way to God, but I find that uncomfortable at times. Not so much because of its exclusivity, rather because the method by which that concept is communicated at times. The “I’m in – you’re out” mindset can be rather uncivilized when you net it out.

I will confess that I don’t think God is civilized in the way we think of that term. It would be hard to argue that point.  But, as I mentioned earlier, He is God. And yes, it may all make sense some day but now – from an early OT perspective – His behavior seems rather brutish at times. Not only that, in the early going, Israel does not seem all that civilized at times.

Does this mean anything? Perhaps not to you, but to me it does. As best I can I want to come to terms with the civility of God. I want to understand, as much as this feeble mind can, what makes God do what God does. After all, He is God and that means He never changes – at least as represented by Christ – He is “the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8).” Therefore, what He did before He may well do again – in fact, if your one who believes in the great tribulation, He will do it again.

The Book of Genesis

I’ve spent the first few days of the new year reading and contemplating the Book of Genesis. It’s not my first journey down that road, but each time I read the book I come away with a new appreciation for its depth.

Genesis is not so much about man’s beginning relationship to God, although that’s a part of it, rather it is history – Israel’s beginning history. In actuality, very little is said about God comparatively speaking. Out of the over fifteen hundred verses, God (the names of God) appears less than four hundred times. Not four hundred verses, but mentions.  Furthermore, only through chapters 8-35 do we see the mentioning of altars being built to God, the most significant one is the encounter of God with Jacob at the Jabbok (ch 32).  So clearly the emphasis is not on God per se but on His people.

There seems to me to be a correlation of that concept in today’s church.  It appears that the primary emphasis is on God and not on his people. Most of what is said or taught seems focused on knowing God/Christ with sometimes casual reference to God’s people – who we are and what kind of persons we should be. The relational nature of God/Christ is referred to yet with little emphasis on what that relationship entails.  For many evangelicals, the idea centers more on coming to know Christ, with minimal availability for discipleship – what it means to know Christ and follow Christ.

Progressively, from the Old Testament to the New, God’s relationship to man is the emphasis. However, that relationship is characterized by who we become in Christ, not that we are in Christ. Certainly, being in Christ is the beginning, but fleshing that out is the emphasis.  Genesis is a decent reflection of that idea.

It is GOD who takes the initiative to repair the relationship marred by the sin of His creation. It is God that acts, God that calls, God that rescues, God that redeems. None of it is initiated by people. We are the responder, not the initiator. However, once we respond, there is an inherent obligation that comes along with our response.  Genesis sets that up in order for the remaining books of the Pentateuch to make sense.

“Absolute” Truth

Recently, I was involved in a conversation with a friend of mine over certain biblical truths; creation, one man – one woman, the virgin birth, etc.  The whole event boiled down to the issue of absolute truth as it relates to scripture. In other words, the Bible is true in what it says on all counts or it may not be true at all.

Many folks like to use the slippery slope argument when it comes to challenging certain aspects of scripture. If one piece of the puzzle is determined to be questionable, then the whole puzzle is questionable.  I suspect if one holds to the Bible is true in all that it addresses then one might find comfort in that premise. However, I am not at all certain the Bible addresses the issue of absolute truth.  Now I make that observation not as a theologian or a philosopher but as a student of scripture.  Let me explain.

Does it matter in the grand scheme of things whether or not creation was done in seven, twenty-four hour days, or seven centuries? The world can still be a product of creation.  Is it critical to one’s belief system whether Adam and Eve were a representation of humankind or two individuals? Either way, by choice, sin became a stumbling block between man and God.   Regarding the virgin birth, as stated in an earlier post, as incredible as it seems on the surface, is it essential that one believe the virgin birth account in order to be “saved.”  Can Christ still be God if he was not virgin born? (Sinless is not the issue here, although it could be.)

If two people are students of scripture and come to opposing views on subjects as noted above, does that make one right and the other wrong? If so, does that rightness or wrongness hinge on the issue of truth – truth either couched in personal belief or truth as it relates to the scriptural record?

Let’s look at a simple premise: We know that God cannot lie (Titus 1:12, Heb 6:18). Further more, God’s expectation of His people both in the OT and NT is that they be people of truth both as it relates to the Law and their conduct/character.  Nevertheless, for whatever reason, God chooses to establish the people of Israel on what I might call a foundation of characters who lie – and lie a lot. Jacob is probably the best example of that. This, in my opinion, does not seem to fit the character of God. So does that impugn the integrity of God?

Now, having said that, I am not proposing that because people like Jacob lied, what they did was not believable. It simply presents a question; If God, a God who cannot lie, chooses to establish His people and eventually the Messiah, through a series of events that are deceitful, then doesn’t that seem incongruent with who God is? After all, he is God, he could have very well established the lineage of His people through anyone He desired even Esau. Hence, deceit would have been less obvious.

Before anyone plays the “Esau sold his birthright” card, let’s be clear that if that was significant to the overall story, all Jacob would have had to do is tell Abraham, “Look, Esau sold his birthright to me, so the blessing rightfully belongs to me and not to him.”  There would have been no need for deceit or trickery either on Rebekah or Jacob’s part.

Back to the issue of “absolute truth.”  Perhaps we can say that absolute truth is apparent in gravity, the rising and setting of the sun, and death but beyond that, is it not fair to look at other major issues in scripture and confess there may be an alternate understanding? If not, then don’t we as individuals become arbitrators of what truth is regardless of what people in the past have established as truth? If so, truth then becomes relative to the individual or certain situations.

This brings me full circle to the idea that perhaps the Bible does not address the issue of absolute truth. It does establish the history of Israel as told through the eyes of the people of Israel and Christianity through the eyes of those who are Christians. It establishes certain moral codes and theological premises, but not absolute truth. That is something we as believers bring to the table.