New Year: Lev 7-9 for Jan 31

So far, if we only saw the "sacrificial part" of sacrifice, and not what sacrifice is to the priests, and even in some sense what sacrifice is to God (9:24) we haven't read these three chapters carefully! Leviticus 9:24 is the apex of the sacrificial system.

New Year: Lev 4-6 for Jan 30

Sometimes what we're talking about is a way to highlight what we're obviously NOT talking about. Maybe some of this is going on here, with "unintentional" sins, or sinning "by mistake."

The obvious unmentioned subject in Lev 4-6 is defiant sin, which is explicitly contrasted with another type of unintentional sin (Nm 15:22, sins of omission), and dealt with separately. The unmentioned subject is mentioned later, and called sinning defiantly, or willfully, or with a high hand, in Nm 15:30ff. The writer of Hebrews knows his readers know that (10:26).

In the narrative form of Lev 4-6 we see principles at work under the surface, namely, first of all, the universality of application. Questions like "what if I didn't know I was sinning at the time?" are answered. Also, like "what if I can't make restitution right now?" Also, "what if I'm a priest myself?" ... or a leader ... or just a common man? There is universality of application, and no "outs" for anyone.

Look at these chapters from the point of view of the priest's job. The cleaning bill, by itself, would bankrupt the city, if the law were completely followed! The laundry bill (6:27) for this work would be big as well, even though very practical counter-measures are in place (6:11).

Let's look once more at the universality. If "a person" does something wrong, sacrifice of an animal (4:1). If the wrong was done by everybody, ("everybody does that ..."), or a priest does something wrong, a bull is sacrificed (4:3,14). Leader, a male goat. Common person, a female goat or a lamb. Public speech or testimony, according to the ability of the person, either goat or bird or grain. Property, a ram, plus restitution.

So, is it what a society might expect are a set of "livable" laws? These laws are prohibitive in both senses, in the sense that they function to prohibit excuses, and that they are onerous. Does the punishment overwhelm the crime? If a person does something unintentionally wrong, does an animal REALLY have to be killed? Wouldn't a child of four in every generation be asking these questions?

The obligations incurred by even unintentional actions far outstrip the performance of worship by the priests. This tension would be obvious, to a priest, and a careful reader. The burden is further explained and resolved in Hebrews 9.

New Year: Lev 1-3 for Jan 29

What about the sacrificial system, people ask, can we gather for today? Read Leviticus and see!

Here in our chapters, there's the heading, Lev 1:1. It's there if you want it to be there, and it's there if you don't want it to be there. The question is worth asking, "how can God Himself, the creator of the zillions of stars and galaxies, specify the treatment of animals in a sacrificial system?" ESPECIALLY since Hollywood constantly is telling us that no animals have been harmed during the making of our movies....

The first answer is, that certainly this question cannot be considered a "modern question," by any means, as if no one could possibly think of it. Gen 14:19-20 sticks it in our face, that the One who has heaven and earth as a possession calls one man from Ur of the Chaldees, ziggurat-land, and blesses him. Interest in the sacrificial system of those whom He has promised descendants to is not as far-fetched as that. So if we squirm at Lev 1-3, we're trying to strain gnats while swallowing camels. Which sounds like it would hurt the camels, too, to me.

There are some questions that Lev 1-3 answers that, if you think about it, might have nagged us from previous chapters. Is God predisposed toward animal, against grain sacrifice, and could that be the reason He rejects Cain's sacrifice in Gen 4? No, and no. Grain sacrifices in Leviticus 2 are perfectly fine sacrifices, and even have that "soothing aroma" attribute that skeptics laugh at (2:9,12).

Another question that might nag us, is, are the Israelites performing copy-cat, culturally learned ritual a la the nations around them, and wouldn't that kind of explanation of the sacrificial system be ipso facto more believable than God's dictation of it?

Again, I want to say "no, and no." Even if we find another culture's contemporary xyz document that says everything in Lev 1:9 except "to the LORD," still "no." The readers of Leviticus are not stupid, and they would not be impressed with attempts to make them stupid, so that the skeptic may seem smart! Namely, it is no less a fact that sticks out, that God specifies these sacrifices, to them, than it is a fact that sticks out, to us. For the opposite reason however: among our contemporaries, we are wont to be blase about God, but furious about animals. They were not sensitive about animals, and completely dumbfounded by the acts of God! That is why this is a fact that sticks out to them!

We should have been complaining, anyhow, back in Exodus, where in 27:8, the altar was specified to be made "as it was shown to you in the mountain." The altar, and everything else: based on a pattern revealed privately by God to Moses on top of Mt. Sinai! We should stop swallowing camels in our attempt to look smart. The Hebrews were copying something else, and it wasn't their neighboring cultures. Hebrews 8:5-6 is sensitive to this.

A few more plugs for the intelligence of the reader of Exodus and Leviticus. It is just as obvious to the early readers, probably more so, since a question would be coming from their own children more quickly and urgently than to ours: 1) why does the bread they use have to be unleavened, daddy (2:11)? 2) what is "the salt of the covenant of your God" in 2:13? Is God particularly specifying some significance to the salt? 3) Why is blood sprinkled, in one scenario (3:8), and completely offered up in another, along with fat, to the Lord, i.e. never eaten (3:17)? This should be thought of as T.B.D. -- to be determined. The readers hear this, and hear that the complete explanation is not given, and know that the text itself is leaving this to us as a question to be pondered.

New Year: Ex 38-40 for Jan 28

The Old Testament idea of "calling by name" (Ex 35:30) applies to Bezalel. However, Bezalel is not God's automaton, but is described in the next verse: "He [God] has filled him [Bezalel] with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding and in knowledge and in all craftsmanship." The calling of a man by name, on God's part, does not empty the man, but fills him with what is needed "to make designs for working ...." (35:32). Bezalel continues in our chapters: starting all the way back from 36:8, he continues without even being mentioned by name through the rest of 36. He is mentioned at 37:1, but not at 38:1, where we begin.... "Then he made ... then he made ...", summarized in 38:22-23.

Oholiab the engraver, workman, and weaver, continues with the priestly garments in 39:2ff. The two work together, presumably, when the text goes from mostly "he made" to mostly "they made." It is eventually broader than that: "the sons of Israel did according to all that the LORD had commanded Moses; so they did." People should remember that verse, Ex. 39:32. In characteristic biblical fashion, the text just says "So Moses blessed them" (39:43).

The sequence that followed everything being set up correctly was the presence of the LORD, continuously, for one time only? No, "throughout all their journeys" (40:38). When things are correctly specified "just as the LORD had commanded," (39:43), not only does the LORD bless them, but the blessing goes on into the years (40:38).

New Year: Ex 35-37 for Jan 27

Look out! You'll miss it if you tend to skip "details!" God and the Israelites start the honeymoon here! (in fact starting with Ex 34:10, including our chapters for today.)

Just as there are "Ten Commandments" in 34:28, refering to the original ones in Ex 20, there are ten "you shall" or "you shall not" sentences in the covenant God makes starting in 34:10. These are 34:14,17,18,20,20,21,22,25,26,26. Moses was commanded to write those down. God, on His part, includes them in a covenant with Moses and Israel (34:27). It's interesting to hear that God makes this covenant with Moses and Israel.

Jeremiah 2:2-3. "The Love of your Betrothals." That's here. Going now from all "the things that the LORD has command you to do," the whole collection (35:1), to specific things (35:4), is a good thing. The people shine here. They get something to do. Something to work on. This is always a good thing in a relationship, rather than staring at each other (35:20).

Not only did things start to work. Things started to work -- from the heart (35:21-29).

Things continued to work (36:3-6). And then, quietly, with little fanfare, the work went on in chapter 36 of building, according to Ex 26 patterns, which the reader notices, but doesn't. When something is going well, according to plan, it's possible to for the reader to read chapter 36 without hardly noticing the correspondence to Ex 26:1-4, 26:15-29, and 26:36-37. Perhaps it was also done so that Bezalel and Oholiab could whistle while they worked. Same with Chapter 37 and Exodus 25 and 30.

One application to our lives could be in this simple observation of the details of these chapters. When something is going wrong, do we not often dwell on all the details of it, even if not trying to fix it? But when something is going right, do we skip the details? Are we a people more enamored with our failings, than when we do well? Why should we be?

New Year: Ex 32-34 for Jan 26

Exodus 32 is one of the most dramatic, in the sense of tension-filled, chapters in the Bible.

Does anything in Aaron's past, or for that matter, in the past of the Israelites, prepare us for 32:1-6? Aaron, no, but the people, yes, back to 15:24-25, if you stick to just times after the redemption of the people from Egypt. Before that, Moses also grumbles (5:22-23).

The sequence of this event in the narrative is significant. The readers have (just) been told in beautiful detail about the priesthood of Aaron and his sons. Now this same Aaron is seen as a weak and pliable (32:2-4), a people-pleaser, idol-maker, liar about God Himself (32:5), and a rationalizer regarding his sin (32:24). There couldn't be a more dramatic picture contrast between Aaron wearing his garments for glory and beauty, and having a breastplate over his heart with the names of the sons of Israel on it, and Aaron with the sons of Israel in 32:1-6.

The dialog between Moses and God in 32:9-14 would be even more dramatic if we hadn't read a similar dialog between Abraham and Moses in Gen 18:22-33. Here, the dialog between Moses and God goes a step further than Abraham's questions. Some people might say that 32:9ff is a way of expressing, in narrative literary form, the inner logic of one side of an issue (32:9-10), followed by the inner logic of another side, and that the statement that the Lord changes His mind describes, in narrative form, one of the major priveleges of being in covenant with God: He listens to Moses, in this case. He listened to Abraham.

New Year: Ex 29-31 for Jan 25

Buried, but not really buried, in the details of Aaron's garments, was the narrative of his priesthood function before God in Ex 28 (28:4,12,29,30,35,36,38,41,43).

Now, if we look at 29:1ff. as the hard part, the skip-over part, we'll miss some of the greatest things the passage has to teach us, even to help understand Christ.

The sprinkling of blood (29:21) on Aaron's garments, which were constructed "for glory, and for beauty" (28:1), is INTENTIONAL. All the gold we read about. All the precious gems and rings and musical sounds on his garment -- sprinkled with blood before any service was done, i.e., in the consecration.

Similarly, the representation of the twelve tribes is described with objects. In the previous chapter, it was "before the LORD," 28:29. Here, regarding the sacrifice, the ram of ordination, "Aaron and his sons shall eat those things by which atonement was made." Let us not squirm at this, because otherwise how can we understand Jn 6:51ff, which in turn made others squirm?

29:42ff. is not only explanatory, but shows the wisdom of the function of the priests, who serve "continuously" (29:38). For God to "dwell" among the sons of Israel (29:45), is due to a meeting. This meeting is described in 29:42, and it is at the place of offering. How incredibly sad that those who were His own did not understand a verse like Mt 12:5, which not only is a good New Testament comment on the work of the Old Testament priest as here, but on Jn 5:16. To work on the Sabbath was the privelege of the priest.

Why so? The sacrificial system had not only a "continual burnt offering," but a reminder of the continual presence of God, in the anointing oil and the incense, which are physical, olfactory reminders the persistence of the presence of God, and the reminder was for the priests alone (30:37-38). The priest alone was the one who bore the anointing oil, and who alone dealt with the incense. The presence of God is mediated by the continuous work of the Priest, who is sprinkled with blood, and has names on His heart.

New Year: Ex 26-28 for Jan 24

Are the details of tabernacle construction (Ex 25-27) of interest to God? Not merely that, but they are specified by God, and He does so by giving a pattern (cf. Heb 8;5). Really!

We could answer a possible objection here. Perhaps an objection might occur to some people, or even ourselves, that religions often try to posture their practices as having been directed by a god, in order to create awe in the communicants, for the purpose of controlling behavior.

The answer to such objections, if they are levelled at Exodus from chapter 12 on, is that such a theory doesn't fit what we read. If the Israelites had an imagined god, and were trying to convince the readers that the Tabernacle was specified by the god, and their rules were specified by the god -- why then, are the rules so helter-skelter? Why are even the main rules so few (ten; Ex 34:28)? Why is the Tabernacle so broadly specified, with provocative annotations like 25:22, that point to something necessarily beyond themselves? Instead of being a concoction, Exodus reads for all the world like what you are doing when you have an ongoing relationship in which the things written down are incomplete, but that's OK, because God's presence is the main thing, directing the incomplete details toward their end.

An analogy would be the difference between following the instructions of an architect who is on the site with us, versus doing things all by ourselves, in the absence of an architect. Exodus shows all the signs of a people who are taking up things under direction, not a people faking being directed! If God says to write this rule down about ascending to the altar by stairs (Ex 20:25ff), in the same instruction set as not to worship other gods (20:23), this is how we would truly expect those who follow a living God to write it down. It bears all the earmarks of people being directed, not people trying to impress you with their organized religion.

New Year: Ex 23-25 for Jan 23

How to predict what it will be like when God comes down to "the top of a mountain": don't try to predict it .... (Ex 19:20).

Don't abridge it. For example, don't have a version of your Bible where you write "skip 20:22 - 23:19."

Don't evolve it. For example, don't say "we call abc in this verse here a primitive form of a'b'c', which is what is really what it is now."

Don't rank it. For example, don't say "this is cultic, this is politic, this is theologic: first, second, and third in importance."

But by all means observe it! We haven't looked at the difference between the famous "And God spoke all these words, saying" section (20:1ff), and how 21:1 starts (and continues in our chapters today): "Now these are the rules."

Rules is rules, as the saying says. We're way out of our league here. If we're at a place where mountains need to be consecrated (19:23), and the angles of eyesight need to be protected (20:26), we're not dealing with the familiar.

If a genre-guess can be permitted, we can guess that the rulings of Ex 18:13ff. are possibly what 21:1ff. includes. They read as an ephemeron of rulings. Thus, one verse passes from what is right for the Lord, to what is right for the pot in the kitchen (23:19). Indeed, this conflation itself may be intentional, to show that the Law is for "top to bottom."

New Year: Ex 19-22 for Jan 22

Sinai (Ex 19-20) is not the reason for which God delivered the Israelites from Egypt.

God delivered the Israelites "to bring them up from that land, to a land flowing with milk and honey" (Ex 3:8). It was all due to the fact that "God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," and that was all about the land farther north. This is repeated in 3:17.

Why then Sinai? There are lots of reasons. One was that it was a personal promise to Moses, way before he even went back to Egypt from Midian (3:12). Moses had been right there (3:1; 3:12). Twice (4:27). He is going back to family and in-laws, as we saw in Ex 18, with a few people for Jethro to meet.

Originally, Moses had proposed a three-days' journey to Pharaoh -- to make sacrifices to God (3:18; 5:3). God, in re-iterating His purposes to Moses, tells him "I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (6:8).

After the first plague, God says to Pharaoh "Let My people go, that they may serve Me in the wilderness." This does not go beyond what 3:18 and 5:3 proposed. Similarly, "that they may serve Me" in 8:1,20; 9:1,13; 10:3. That's how both Pharaoh and Moses understand it in 8:27-28, and how Pharaoh's servants understand it in 10:7,8. When Moses subsequently mentions that "we have a feast to the Lord" in 10:9, Pharaoh, perhaps not comprehending this combination of serving and feasting, makes an off remark (10:11), and it's interesting that of all the events to follow, this event is elaborated on with his most contrite words (10:16-17). After the ninth of the ten plagues, Pharaoh gives what he thought would be Pharaoh's final offer, to let them go without their flocks and herds (10:24).

Ex 12 gives more reason for us to understand God's purposes for redeeming Israel. There, on the eve of the deliverance from Egypt, before the events at Sinai, God institutes the Passover "ordinance" (12:43). in perpetuity for the Israelites, and starts their calendar at month 1 on it (12:2). Symbolic acts, such as eating a meal "in haste," etc. 12:11; rules about how the meal should be made, and who should be and not be there, 12:44-46. The whole of chapter 13 highlights the perpetual (13:10) significance of the Passover and Unleavened Bread week (13:7). No anticipation of Sinai is part of this ordinance.

The same doing things for their own sake occurs in the pivotal events of the crossing of the Red Sea. And so, up through Exodus 15:21, including the redemption from Egypt and the deliverance of the people from Pharaoh's pursuing army, it's all working out what God has done and what is appropriate in response to that.

Enter 15:22ff, in which we see the following: "So the people grumbled at Moses ...." (15:24). In 15:25 we read "there He [God] tested them." That was one test. Then in 16:4, another. We see the reason behind Paul saying "Why the Law, then? It was added because of transgressions (Gal 3:19). Paul had explained "if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise" (Gal 3:18). His summary statement is "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise" (Gal 3:17). It is very important to remember that here, at Sinai, there already is an existing covenant, which the Law does not invalidate. The inheritance -- what the promises promised -- are not invalidated by the Law.

Here in Exodus 20:20, is the reason for this meeting at Sinai: "Moses said to the people, 'Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin.'"

New Year: Ex 16-18 for Jan 21

Redeemed people. Exodus 15-18.

God (1): "Let My people go, that they may serve Me." (Ex 8:20).

People (1): "When Israel saw the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they believed in the Lord and in His servant Moses." (14:31)

---
Moses (2): "In Your lovingkindness You have led the people whom You have redeemed; / In Your strength You have guided to Your holy habitation." (15:13)

People [3 days later, 15:22] (2): "The people grumbled at Moses, saying, 'What shall we drink?" (15:24)

---
Flash forward, about six weeks after (16:1).
People (3): "Would that we had died by the LORD's hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, when we ate bread to the full: for you [Moses and Aaron] have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger." (16:3)

God (3): "I have heard the grumblings of the sons of Israel." (16:12)

---

cf. Ex16:27-28, 17:2-7. He tested them (15:25b, 16:4). But when they tested Him, it was Not a Great Idea on their part.

New Year: Ex 13-15 for Jan 20

You can tell if you're in step with Exodus pretty simply by this point: 1) can you sing Exodus 15? (or, to be kinder, could you sing it if you could sing?) or 2) could you attend, at least, Ex 15:20-21?

There are plenty of events/topics to discuss in these three chapters. Where to start? In the previous chapter, Exodus 12, we read something that really hasn't been touched on since the beginning of the Bible. It's all well and good to be against something: the world (Gen 6-8); the tower of Babel (Gen 11); Pharaoh's holding the Egyptians in servitude (Ex 1-12); but NOW, that we are a group ... what are we headed for, when there's nothing against us in sight? What are we supposed to be about, and doing?

Answer 1: go where you're supposed to. In this case, follow the pillar and the cloud.

Answer 2: do what you're supposed to. Ex 12:14-27, for example, teaching yourselves and your children an object lesson based on learning the history that has happened.

Answer 2, to me, is amazing. Well, they both are amazing. Answer 1: At the beginning of their independence, the Israelites had clear guidance of supernatural origin. Answer 2: this is the difference between this religion and all forms of a do-it-yourself religion: the religion that we "do," whatever it is, must be in appropriate response to what has been done (that we didn't do, God did).

Answer 3: Remind yourself what's happened, in case you forget, or conveniently forget, the great beginning, how you got here.

New Year: Ex 10-12 for Jan 19

The redemption of the nation "with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment" (Ex 6:6, RSV) is highlighted by their leaving Egypt as if timed: "at the end of four hundred and thirty years, on that very day" (12:41).

Looking at the subject of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart should wait until Ex 14. Here in 10:1-2, it is put in the strongest possible terms so that no one can miss it. Far from having their God be someone who is dependent upon Pharaoh's heart, their God acts upon Pharaoh's heart, just as He acts in these acts of judgment, and for purposes that are beyond dealing with Pharaoh. Purpose #1: "that I may show these signs of mine among them," (10:1). Purpose #2: "and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and your son's son how I have made sport of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them" (10:2). Purpose #3: "that you may know that I am the LORD" (10:2).

Think of these judgments from the point of view of the Israelites. Don't they already know that God is the LORD? Well, yes, and no. Back in 4:31, they responded well to Moses' and Aaron's signs; they "heard that the LORD had visited the people of Israel." But when Pharaoh did nothing about it but make their lives worse, the people blamed Moses (5:21), and Moses had no one to "ask" but God, telling Him that He has not redeemed His people "at all" (5:23)! So the Israelites, and Moses, and the Egyptians, are still seeing that God is God, which is what God Himself says is happening in 6:1 and 10:1. Because of "their broken spirit, and their cruel bondage," the Israelites would not listen to Moses telling them what God was saying (6:6ff; 6:9). God is showing them, so that they will know it truly enough and well enough for 10:2.

God has hardened Pharaoh's heart for those purposes. Is Pharaoh depicted as someone as darkly evil as he can be, then? No. Moses calls it quits with Pharaoh prematurely (10:29; cf. 12:31-32), and certainly both he and we ourselves are unprepared to hear Pharaoh say "and bless me also!" (12:32) when he finally lets the people go! What is going on there? He had said the same kind of thing, regarding himself personally, in 8:28, and in 10:16-17. For the Israelites to know that He is the LORD is also to know that He redeems nations with an outstretched arm, yes, but He deals with individuals as He wills, with no unfairness or injustice. God had hardened Pharaoh's heart, yes, but Pharaoh wasn't the only one showing inability to listen (6:9), and the Israelites were not the only ones who also learned from these events (9:20; 10:7; 12:33-36). Consider that it is very possible, for God to deal with individuals fairly, nations fairly, and accomplish His will, at any and all times.

New Year: Ex 7-9 for Jan 18

Before we say we can't fully understand God's justice, we could say that sometimes we might not grasp it at all.

If we have been reading so far, we have been prepared for these judgments(Gen 15:14; Ex 3:8,19,20). But when we read about these "ten plagues" as they actually come upon Pharaoh's kingdom (7:20; 8:6; 8:17; 8:24; 9:6; 9:10; 9:23; 10:14; 10:22; 12:29) aren't we these days overwhelmed with a sense of overkill, that somehow God surely ran up the score?

How is it then that Gen 19:23-25 is often more easily acceptable? Is it not because of our sense of distributive justice, which is affirmed in Gen 18:32? Hundreds of years before, God had told Abraham what he was about to do in that case, and from that, and with further clarification to Abram, his sense of justice (Gen 18:23-25) was satisfied.

Therefore just as Abraham was told beforehand, these judgments were announcements beforehand as well, but in this case, not only to the children of the covenant, but to Pharaoh himself, even regarding the worst and final one (Ex 4:23).

Not only is this judgment pre-announced, but as with the destruction of Sodom, the justice of it -- its strict "deservedness," if that is a word -- is known to God thoroughly, beforehand. "I will know," God says, then finds out, about the deservedness of one. "I know," He says about the deservedness of the other (Gen 18:21; Ex 3:19). Not only does God know, but we know, that He knows what the recipients deserve. Not only does God know, but Pharaoh knows, that God knows what he and his servants deserve (9:30).

Yet, upon Egypt there is a judgment, not a destruction. Destruction doesn't have as goal, to teach anything further in this life, to those destroyed, but this judgment is full of lessons for Pharaoh and Egypt, those judged (Ex 3:20-22; 7:1,5,12,17; 8:10,19; 9:14-16,19,29,30).

It's not unreasonable to expect that we ourselves are the ones needing (re-)teaching regarding God's fairness and the deservedness of His justice, if we were not taught by Genesis. Assuming, therefore, that we are convinced that God is just, are we then still tripped up by the descriptions of the plagues, because of their -- showiness? Perhaps.

There is a deliberate depiction of God's versus Egypt's power. This goes against our sense of fair play, but should it? We "know," from the perspective of God teaching us in the year 2011, that God is powerful. Do we think it should be a given, and that signs and wonders are overkill? In answer to that, we should recall, what did the Israelites have? They had what Genesis teaches, but Genesis did not depict Abraham's seed as fully in bondage at any time. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob worked miraculously, but had not displayed the power of redeeming a whole nation from bondage. The descendants of Jacob went to Egypt seventy in number. God is shown here to fully teach the Egyptians and ourselves, that His power is in the service of both justice, and redemption.

New Year: Ex 4-6 for Jan 17

When the results are not forthcoming for Moses in Ex 6:9, we can't say that he didn't anticipate the difficulty in the attempt (4:1), and express himself freely to God about the difficulty.

God Himself predicted this; He also furnished helps for Moses: a) signs (4:2-9). The first problem is that the signs fail to convince Moses to use the signs, or do anything (4:13). God accomodates Moses by bringing in b) Moses' older brother's help. There is some irony in the use of this accomodation, since Moses becomes convinced by the promise of a family member's help, after the help of miracles does not do it. After a direct promise does not do it (4:12).

There is another implied miracle in the narrative. Moses is still in Midian. Aaron is back in Egypt. God tells Moses three things about Aaron. First, that Aaron is a good speaker. Second, "behold, he is coming out to meet you." Moses hadn't even gotten on-board with this yet, and Aaron is coming toward Midian (4:19)! Thirdly, something that is just slipped in almost under the radar: Aaron, God says, "when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart" (4:14). So Moses finally gets off the schneid.

That could have been the problem all along. God Himself may appear to you! God Himself may promise you! God Himself may give you signs that would convince Bertrand Russell! But if those you love have rejected you, as far as you know, you may not get going.

God may be merciful to you and get you going, yet He will also teach you the pre-eminence of Himself -- watch for Him to (4:24-26)! -- along the way.

New Year: Ex 1-3 for Jan 16

Moses is hard to introduce. Time has passed, an indeterminate amount of it (Ex 1:8). It is a different environment for the "people of the sons of Israel" (1:9), and Moses, while growing up in it, regarding the Pharoah's daughter, the text says "he became her son" (2:10). Yet God tells him after many years "'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'" (3:6). We could say that while Joseph was nurtured in Jacob, and became great in Egypt, Moses was nurtured in Egypt, and became great in Israel (Dt 33:10). Joseph was buried in a coffin in Egypt (Gen 50:26). No man knows Moses' burial place in Israel (Dt 34:6). Joseph knew Pharaoh face to face (Gen 47:5-7). God knew Moses face to face.

The conversation between Moses and God takes two chapters of prepation of the reader, we might say. Why? Just how is Moses "Egyptian" (2:19) and how was he one of the "brethren" (2:11) centers around his infancy (2:5). But Moses tried to answer that question definitely, by striking down someone who was beating "a Hebrew" (2:11), and yet his zeal backfired on him (2:14). His attempt to self-identify had backfired, so neither was he accepted in Pharaoh's court (Pharaoh "tried to kill Moses," 2:15), nor evidently among his people, so he became a stranger in a strange land (2:22), an "Egyptian" (2:19) who was a Hebrew, who had moved to Midian, and married into that nation (3:21). He was "far off" (naturally speaking) from Israel and Egypt both.

New Year: Gen 48-50 for Jan 15

Families are awkward and messy, and things are left unfinished and unresolved as often as not.

This passage, which is most centered on Jacob's gathering to his fathers until the last two paragraphs (50:15ff) of Genesis, is not different. There are great moments, when three generations are together, Jacob, Joseph, and his two sons, at Jacob's bedside when he is ill. Yet what is to Joseph a wrong on Jacob's part (48:13-14,17), and displeased him (48:17) is deliberate on Jacob's part, and due to foresight (48:19), not bad eyesight (48:10).

Again, in the scene in which Jacob pronounces to his sons the foresight of "what shall happen to you in days to come" (49:1), the pronouncements are uneven, as is what shall happen to them each, uneven: some cryptic (49:19), some metaphorical (49:21), some straightforward (49:13), and for two, for Joseph and Judah, very extensive: 5 verses for Joseph, and 5 for Judah.

At the last, at the end of this book, when Joseph himself dies, although he had "made the sons of Israel swear, saying, 'God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here,'" (50:25) yet the end of the story leaves that task undone, and with no explanation why (50:26). Such is the unevenness of families, even of this one, blessed "up to the bounties of the everlasting hills" (49:26).

Joseph taught his brothers about God's ways, unforced, when he could have said things to his own advantage, about their past. What did Joseph tell them? "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.' Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them." (50:19-21). And to us.

New Year: Gen 44-47 for Jan 14

To give these chapters their due would take the skill of everyone on this planet who has ever missed their father, and anyone who has ever missed a son, and anyone who has had love for a brother, and any family member who has missed another, put together -- and then they could not come up with such a tremendous story, even if they had the freedom to make up fiction. For one simple reason: we know that through this story blessing has in reality come to the world, and will come.

There is humor here, when the brothers of Joseph, who were clever enough when they were younger to fake story after story, prove embarassingly stupid before Pharaoh in 47:3, after being coached in 46:34, how to speak to Pharaoh.

Another interesting issue is how the Lord's use of history and "the big picture" is undoubtably emphasized, but the specifically religious piety of either Joseph, or his brothers, or Jacob, is minimal. 46:1-4 is the sum of God's direct and explicit intervention in the events of this story. Is this saying something? I do believe so. In modern terms, we could say that it is not necessary for God to micromanage, for His will to occur.

The climax of the narrative of Genesis is 45:1-13. God, however, has foreseen and planned, and the reader knows or remembers, more: what God said hundreds of years before to Abraham: "Know for certain that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years" (15:13). We haven't reached the end of this history, which was always known to God and originally told to Abraham long before.

New Year: Gen 41-43 for Jan 13

Ancient narrative form was never greater than in this story, for pure human interest.

"After two whole years" (41:1) directly recalls Joseph's request of 40:14, for us to consider, and ask ourselves what is being said about the events in the lives of those God leads.

How is it that the two years are passed in silence, without comment on Joseph's state of mind? We learn well enough about that in 41:16. But indeed, the story abbreviates from all that could be said. It summarizes (41:37). It gives the conclusions of events that it does not describe (41:39-45).

There is also a "point of theology," if we could call it that, regarding God's provision for Egypt. God is not "tribal" like the other gods. If it suits Him, he tells Pharaoh life-saving things (41:25), and Joseph is very plain about it (41:28), even to the detail of why Pharoah had two dreams (41:32). In the process, the reader might even recall that Joseph's dream came twice (37:6-9). The last verse of chapter 41 extends this theme of God's provision, to the whole world, almost as an extra thought (41:57).

When Joseph, while disguised from his brothers, tells them "for I fear God" (42:18), the reader understands this as a meaning two distinct things. Joseph is saying that in disguise, and the brothers take it that he is vowing his honesty in that way, and it is understood by them as so. However, But since the reader knows it is Joseph, then Joseph's piety comes out there. Also, in the story of the explanation of the "steward of Joseph's house" (43:19) there is an even stranger example of reference to The God of Jacob given -- by an Egyptian! He says "Your God and the God of your father has put treasure in your sacks for you. I received your money" (43:23). Perhaps Joseph gave him those exact words to use regarding the incident. But the text has it coming out of his mouth. In any case, in Abraham's seed that nation was blessed.

New Year: Gen 38-40 for Jan 12

The art of teaching by telling a story is contained in Genesis.

In our chapters today, there is nothing asking us to compare and contrast Judah (Gen 38) with Joseph (Gen 39ff). Yet -- how could we miss it! Judah is an unprincipled, almost totally pragmatic thinker, in ethics. The possible results of an action are the determinative thing that sway him.

We saw this yesterday in 37:26-27. Here, he's a "buyer," assessing the price and agreeing to it, not thinking ontologically about the item, just about the moment. Giving Judah's reasons, "he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law" (38:16), the text is screaming at us, saying 'see how he thinks about things?' !

Judah's comments in 38:23, "otherwise we will become a laughingstock" are not only further evidence of his thinking, but hints that the text is telling us: 'Judah, you are a laughingstock.' This type of life, that doesn't act on principle, but tries to fix things as they come up, is being commented on from 38:1 throughout this chapter. We should watch for ethical systems that invite us wing-it after bad choices have been made.

In the story of Judah in Gen 38, indeed from Gen 36-38 we can't help but notice that God, either by the names "God" (Elohim) or "LORD" (Yahweh) or Lord (Adonai) is only mentioned in his providential judgment upon Judah's sons (38:7-10). Judah is mindless of the spiritual aspect of this judgment, thinking only of consequences and fixing them (38:11). This stretch of time, from Joseph's boyhood to becoming grown up (39:6), describes in narrative form what we, using a modern term, could describe as "secular" life. Relativistic morality. Same-O events and issues (38:27-30). Pre-occupation with one's own state (37:35).

Regarding Joseph, however, we see that God's constructive activity is brought in very dramatically again: "the LORD was with Joseph, so he became a successful man." (39:2) Again, this is the narrative form inviting us to contrast Joseph with the others ... more precisely, God-with-Joseph, compared to God with Judah and the fam, during this period.

The story of Joseph follows that of Judah. Not only is there a contrast between the sexual behavior of Joseph and Judah, but there is also a contrast in a teaching about right behavior and its results. Things go well for Joseph, but all the good is taken away, not once (39:20), but twice (40:23). In its place, there are circumstances of severe restriction.

Then why the adversity for Joseph? Joseph's adversity was coterminous with his moral battles, which he is successful in. This is another contrast between Joseph and Judah. The judgment upon Judah's sons was from God (38:7-10). Joseph, by contrast, has blessing from God. The adversity in Joseph's life comes through family disputes, or from evil agents 39:17-19, or from the ignorant application of justice (39:20) or by the forgetfulness of people (40:23), but the blessings from God are interwoven with all of these things, and will bring these things to a narrative conclusion, which we have already heard the hint of (37:4-11). Like Jacob then, we should in our own day keep these hints in mind.