Tag Archives: Exodus

Book Review God in Our Midst, Daniel R. Hyde

04 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Book Review, Exodus, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Length, 222 pages (including appendix). Published 2012, Reformation Trust.

In Exodus 35, Moses takes up an offering for property to be used in the building of the wilderness Tabernacle. In chapter 35, we begin the account of the building of the tabernacle. Earlier chapters discuss the lampstand, the bronze altar, the showbread, the courtyard. This description of curtain rings and animal skins and golden vessels can easily be bewildering; and at first seems like a great deal of detail for little purpose.

It is that purpose which Hyde seeks to explain.

In 17 chapters, Hyde methodically works through the details of the tabernacle. The chapters follow a basic plan and are structured like a series of short sermons. Each chapter begins with a quotation of the applicable text. There follows an introductory statement which demonstrates the importance of particular aspect of the tabernacle. In good sermonic fashion, there are three points concerning the item which are detailed, together with application.

By way of illustration, I will take one chapter from the middle of the book. Chapter 7 concerns the Bronze altar. The essential purpose of the altar is to teach us and remind us of our need to resolve our conflict with God on the basis of justice and mercy. Hyde develops this theme through three points: Satisfaction, Confession and Substitution.

 

Satisfaction: There is a conflict between us and God which must be resolved: there must be satisfaction for our sin. Hyde highlights the fire which is to be kept always burning on the altar. That fire was originally started by God.  That fire needed a constant satisfaction, “The fire of the altar needed to be satisfied constantly lest it be extinguished.” Hyde then draws in the observation from Hebrews, “Our God is a consuming fire.” Heb. 12:28.

From that, Hyde applies the doctrine by means of reference to the Heidelberg Catechism. Hyde makes frequent reference to Reformation Confessions and Catechisms.  This makes work constantly practical and applicable.

The reference to confessional documents anchors Hyde’s doctrine and protects against the fear that he is going too far or has become fanciful in his observations about the elements of the Tabernacle. Even if one were to think a particular observation as mistaken (Hyde is quite judicious in his reading; and I never found him outlandish, but some may feel strange thinking that the rim on the table for the bread is an illustration of perseverance by God’s sovereign act), there is never a fear that his doctrine has gone afield.

Next Hyde comes to Confession: When the sacrifice was presented, the one making the offering placed their hands upon the animal’s head. In Leviticus 16:21, we are told that when offering the animal the priest would confess the sins of the people. Wenham also notes that a prayer was offered with the sacrifice.

From this act, Hyde discusses the doctrine of repentance (with reference to the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Book of Common Prayer).

The final section speaks to the substitution of the sacrifice for the sinner offering the animal. At this point, Hyde makes an insightful application:

Do you ever get that nagging feeling that you are just not doing enough? To need to be better person, to be more generous with your time and money, to be more patient, more loving, more forgiving – and the list goes on. You have these feelings because you are guilty. But there is nothing you can do to take away that guilt; there is no point in trying harder. (111).

This gives a fair example of the structure and content of the book. The tone of the book overall is pastoral. It reads like a well-thought-out sermon. The book is not aimed at academics nor is it aimed at those who are seeking Christian pablum and entertainment. It is a serious book; but not a difficult book. It will demand attention, but it is not beyond the average reader.

It also fills a useful need. There are very few mediations nature: it does not seek to explain all of the ANE parallels, but rather seeks to draw out the spiritual lesson of the building. Indeed, I have only one other book in this vein (Soltau’s The Tabernacle, printed in 19th Century). It is ideally structured for personal devotion (indeed, the book should be digested, not merely referenced), small groups or even as a source book for a preacher (he has an appendix for those who may preach Moses’s books).

Recommended.

Pharaoh found in slum.

10 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by in Apologetics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

JS122942409-reuters-ramses-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqeK8ehqBZJSTiVTgumtathRUrxw2k0v3FIvnVyxhkUuM

“A statue workers say depicts Pharaoh Ramses II who ruled Egypt over 3,000 years was unearthed on Thursday in the Matariya area in Cairo”

“Archaeologists from Egypt and Germany have found a massive eight-metre statue submerged in ground water in a Cairo slum that they say probably depicts revered Pharaoh Ramses II, who ruled Egypt more than 3,000 years ago.” This man was one of the most powerful and consequential human beings to ever live:

One measure of Egypt’s prosperity is the amount of temple building the kings could afford to carry out, and on that basis the reign of Ramses II is the most notable in Egyptian history, even making allowance for its great length. It was that, combined with his prowess in war as depicted in the temples, that led the Egyptologists of the 19th century to dub him “the Great,” and that, in effect, is how his subjects and posterity viewed him; to them he was the king par excellence. Nine kings of the 20th dynasty (1190–1075 bce) called themselves by his name; even in the period of decline that followed, it was an honour to be able to claim descent from him, and his subjects called him by the affectionate abbreviation Sese. (Britannica)

Now his image lies in the working class area of Matariya, among unfinished buildings and mud roads.

egypt_archeology-2

Reminds me a bit of this (different Pharaoh):

1 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. 2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

Exodus 5:1–2 (AV)

Stephan’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part 3 (and a theory of Hebrews)

23 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Acts, Exodus, Hebrews, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The perplexing aspect of Steven’s speech comes in the movement from verse 50 to 51. The entire section reads as follows:

Acts 7:44–53 (ESV)

44 “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. 45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, 46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,

49  “ ‘Heaven is my throne,

and the earth is my footstool.

What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,

or what is the place of my rest?

50  Did not my hand make all these things?’

51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, 53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

The trouble here is not the Temple as an idol per se (see Sweeney, J. (2002), “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-53): Is it as ‘Anti-‘Temple’ as Is Frequently Alleged?”, TrinJ 23, NS, 185-210). I don’t think it lies in attacking the crowd because of the Temple. Jesus nowhere decried the Temple per se. 

When we look at the structure of the speech: proposed savior-rejected savior in the context of the people being returned to the land to worship God, we have to see the temple as somehow aligned with Jesus and also tied to the rejection of Jesus (which Stephen contends — and which leads to him being stoned to death): These people rejected, Jesus just as their fathers had rejected Joseph, Moses, and God (by idol worship).

The accusers draw this precise correlation as quoted in Acts 6:

 

Acts 6:13–14 (ESV)

13 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

This of course seems to derive from John 2:

John 2:18–21 (ESV)

18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

And Mark 14:

Mark 14:57–58 (ESV)

57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ”

So the destruction of Jesus = the destruction of the Temple (in some manner) goes back to Jesus.

Saul was present and the writing of Hebrews:

This leads to something more speculative. The language in this section parallels themes and allusions used in the book of Hebrews. Here are two examples. First Acts 7:44 quotes Exodus 25:40, that the temple was to be built “according to the pattern that he had seen”. This verse is quoted in one other place in the NT, Hebrews 8:5, where the writer draws a connection between the heavenly tabernacle:

Hebrews 8:1–5 (ESV)

8 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Notice also that the heavenly tabernacle is not made by man (which is a point raised by Stephen). In Hebrews 9:11, the heavenly tabernacle is explicitly said to be not “with hands”.

Stephen’s speech also concerns itself with the wilderness rebellion. The accusation of Stephen’s speech is that his audience has not changed from the wilderness rebellion. And, the wilderness rebellion is a constant theme of the Hebrews.

Finally, Hebrews draws an explicit line between Jesus and the Temple, even referring to the veil in the temple as his “flesh” (Hebrews 10:20).

More parallels could be drawn between Acts 7 & Hebrews at the level what was written. But, there was a man Saul (soon to be Paul) who was present at Stephen’s murder. This event must have been formative for Paul, because Luke records it.

This speech which drew Jesus and the Temple together must have had a profound effect upon Paul. And, while most at present would deny Paul was the author of Hebrews, it is commonly granted that Hebrews was written by someone in Paul’s orbit (I tend toward Luke as the author of Hebrews myself).

Thus, we have a tentative theory of development (and yes, I unquestionably hold to plenary verbal inspiration): Jesus (John 2); false accusation (Mark 14); false accusation (Acts 6); development (Acts 7); unwritten process of development Saul-Paul-Luke (?) – culmination of the doctrine (Hebrews).

Stephen’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part 2

21 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by in Acts, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

THE SAVOIRS/REJECTIONS

At this point, Stephen a series of three saviors who are rejected: Joseph, Moses & and then Jesus. The odd movement here is between the Temple to Jesus

Joseph the Rejected Savior

In verses 9-16, Stephen speaks of Joseph who was sold by his brothers into slavery. From his state of slavery, Joseph rises to ruler and saves the people of Israel. Joseph is then brought back to Shechem and buried in Abraham’s tomb (the only part of the promised land which Abraham obtained was a grave, Gen. 24):

Acts 7:9–16 (ESV)
9 “And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him 10 and rescued him out of all his afflictions and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. 11 Now there came a famine throughout all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction, and our fathers could find no food. 12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers on their first visit. 13 And on the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family became known to Pharaoh. 14 And Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all. 15 And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers, 16 and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.

Thus, the man rejected was their savior.

Moses the Rejected Savior

The story begins with the miraculous salvation of Moses to also rise to a position in Egypt. The story proceeds to Moses:

Acts 7:23–25 (ESV)
23 “When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel. 24 And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian. 25 He supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand.

Moses is rejected as a savior by Israel:

Acts 7:26–29 (ESV)
26 And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers. Why do you wrong each other?’ 27 But the man who was wronging his neighbor thrust him aside, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? 28 Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’ 29 At this retort Moses fled and became an exile in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.

Here it appears that the plan of salvation has failed, but God returns Moses to Egypt as savior:

Acts 7:30–34 (ESV)
30 “Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and as he drew near to look, there came the voice of the Lord: 32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and did not dare to look. 33 Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. 34 I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.’

The Israelites reject Moses who saved them and also reject God:

Acts 7:35–43 (ESV)
35 “This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years. 37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.’ 38 This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us. 39 Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt, 40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ 41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their hands. 42 But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:
“ ‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices,
during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
43  You took up the tent of Moloch
and the star of your god Rephan,
the images that you made to worship;
and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.’

This passage is interesting for many reasons. Here are two. First, Stephen notes the prophecy of Deuteronomy 15:

Deuteronomy 18:15–22 (ESV)

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— 16 just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

The second point of interest is the way in which Stephen uses Amos to tie the Golden Calf to the subsequent history of Israel:

Amos 5:25–27 (ESV)
25 “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26 You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god—your images that you made for yourselves, 27 and I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.

The rejection of Moses was the rejection of their true savior God.

The Temple

At this point, it would seem that Stephen could merely move to Jesus and say, In like manner, you rejected the salvation of God in Jesus Christ. But he does not. Stephen moves to the temple. This is peculiar. The people — who have already and continually rejected God — have brought into the land the Temple (and I don’t see the temple as a negative here):

Acts 7:44–50 (ESV)
44 “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. 45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, 46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
49  “ ‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,
or what is the place of my rest?
50  Did not my hand make all these things?’
The people have come into the land, built a temple to worship — and yet as Stephen has already said they turned back in their hearts to Egypt and have been worshipping false Gods.

The solution here goes back to Acts 7:7 where Stephen reworks the original material in an interesting way:

The Lukan Stephen also paraphrases the quotation from Exod 3:12. First, note that a quotation from Exodus has been retrojected into the time of Abraham, to explain that the act of Israel’s worship went right back to the time of the Abrahamic covenant. Second, the phrase in Exod 3:12, “on this mountain,” has been replaced with in this place as the site of the returning exiles’ worship (7:7). In the immediate context, “this place” is to be understood as referring to “the land” promised to Abraham (Johnson 1992, 116), but the connection back to the accusation in 6:13–14 (“this man never stops saying things against this holy place”; “we have heard him saying that this Jesus, the Nazarene, will tear down this place”) cannot be missed. First, Stephen again forcefully but indirectly addresses one of the charges against him. He acknowledges that the command to worship in the temple goes back to the very origins of Israelite faith. By making such a positive statement about the temple Stephen creates more tension: “How could the same God command the Israelites to worship Him in this place (indeed, he set them free so that they could do this) and then, at the high point of Israel’s history (in Christian eyes), intend the destruction of the holy place of worship?” (Kilgallen 1976, 39). Stephen’s explanation and resolution of this problem will come later in the speech.

Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, Paideia Commentaries on The New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 92–93.

The coming into the land was for worship which did not happen.

This leads to the question: How does this involve Jesus?

Edward Taylor, Raptures of Glory.7

30 Friday May 2014

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Glory, Literature, Praise

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here:

Having seen the beauty of Christ and the coldness of his heart, Taylor prays that God would stir-up his heart. In this eighth stanza, Taylor uses an image which has no particular place in the Bible, but which would make sense of Taylor’s circumstances. His notebooks date the poem November 1685, in the midst of the Little Ice Age. You can almost feel the frozen poet trying to warm his body as he looks out on the winter snow and ice.

The stanza asks God to row golden oars to warm his heart. He seeks a flame which will melt the frozen lake [of his affections]. He calls God’s love the sun — which Taylor saw all too little in cold November.

Lord may thy priestly golden oars but make
A rowing in my lumpish heart, thou’lt see
My chilly numbed affections charm, and break
Out in rapid flame of love to thee.
Yea, they unto thyself will fly in flocks
When thy warm sun my frozen lake unlocks.

The next stanza requires some knowledge of the High Priest’s clothing. In Exodus 28, God sets out garments for the High Priest. He was required to wear a vestment decorated with precious stones. The names of the tribes of Israel were written on the stones, so that when Aaron (the first High Priest) came before The Lord, he would “bear their names before the Lord”:

9 You shall take two onyx stones, and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel,
10 six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the remaining six on the other stone, in the order of their birth.
11 As a jeweler engraves signets, so shall you engrave the two stones with the names of the sons of Israel. You shall enclose them in settings of gold filigree.
12 And you shall set the two stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephod, as stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel. And Aaron shall bear their names before the LORD on his two shoulders for remembrance.

Jesus, under the New Covenant, is final High Priest:

1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. Hebrews 8:1-2

His name is to be buried in the “pearly rocks” — the jewels upon the ephod. This is a reference to the doctrine that one who comes to true saving faith is counted by God as crucified with Christ (buried) and now alive with Christ:

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:3-4

Be thou my High Priest, Lord; and let my name
Lie in some grave dug in these pearly rocks
Upon thy ephod’s shoulders piece, like flame
Or graved in thy breat plate-gem: brave knops.
Thou’lt then me bear before thy Father’s throne
Rolled up in folds of glory of thine own.

The last stanza picks up another image of the eschatological hope of the Christian. First, he uses the image of a crown, which is a picture of the rewards to be received by those find in Christ (see, e.g., 1 Peter 5:4). He then addresses the glorious praise of those who see Christ in the end:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, Hebrews 12:22

And:

6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
7 And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne.
8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,
12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”
13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. Revelation 5:6-14

One of these gems, I beg, Lord, that so well
Begrace thy breast plat, and thy ephod clever
To stud my crown therewith: or let me dwell
Among the their sparkling, glancing shades forever.
I’st then be decked in glory bright to sing
With angels Hallelujah to my King.

A Sphinx Found in Canaan

09 Tuesday Jul 2013

Posted by in Exodus, OT Background

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

A granite sphinx dedicated to Mycerinus, the ruler of Egypt in about 2500 BC has been uncovered in Tel Hazor, in Galilee:

City in northern Palestine in the territory of Naphtali, called “head of all those kingdoms (of Canaan)” in Joshua 11:10 and Asher in Tobit 1:2. Located 5 miles southwest of Lake Huleh and 10 miles north of the Sea of Galilee, it is known as Tell el-Qedah (or Tell Waggas) today. At its peak it numbered 40,000 inhabitants and was by far the largest Canaanite city in area and population. It was a great commercial center on the trade routes between Egypt and Babylon.

Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 934. Photographs and a description of Tel Hazor can be found here: http://www.bibleplaces.com/hazor.htm).  The location is mentioned in Joshua 11:10, “And Joshua turned back at that time and captured Hazor and struck its king with the sword, for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. ”

Amnon Ben Tor, Professor at Hebrew University gave some possible scenarios as to how  the discusses the possible sphinx wound up so far away from home.  (A friend pursuing a ThD in OT suggested a Babylonian soldier growing tired of his plunder on the way back from sacking Eygpt: ‘It would have made pretty cool lawn ornament…I’m going with Babylonian soldier who got tired of carrying it, or by the time he got to Israel, he had heard back from his wife saying “thanks for the thought, but Sphinx’ are no longer in vogue in Babylon”‘).

The article ends with this hopeful bit:

To Ben-Tor, however, the true coveted find would be archives buried somewhere on Tel Hazor that could serve as an inventory to the ancient city’s content.

“I know there are two archives,” he said. “We already have 18 documents from two periods, the 17th and 14th century BC. If I found those archives, people would come running here.”

Unique Egyptian sphinx unearthed in north Israel – FRANCE 24

Photo of Tel Hazor:

The Plagues of Exodus and the Gods of Egypt

27 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Apologetics, Exodus, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The plagues of Exodus correspond to the gods of Egypt: each plague (with the possible exception of lice) demonstrated the impotence of an Egyptian god. For example:

Nile River (Ex 7:14–25): Changed to Blood. This plague was against the god Hapi, spirit of the Nile in flood and “giver of life to all men.” The annual innundation was called “the arrival of Hapi” (57). He was especially worshipped at Gebel Silsileh and Elephantine. The Nile water was the transformed life-blood of Osiris. The fact that the Nile turned to blood, which was abominable to Egyptians, was a direct affront to one of their chief gods. Although the fish-goddess was Hatmeyt, all the fish in the Nile River died!

David Livingston’s Article, The Plagues and the Exodus, The Bible and Spade 1991 (vol. 4) sets out the plagues and the corresponding god — including the incident involving the staffs and the serpents. The purpose of the plagues thus demonstrates the absurdity of those who trust in false gods. This same pattern runs through out the OT. Thus, God brings a drought upon Israel for worshipping Baal, the storm god (1 Kings 17).

An interesting take on the plagues was quoted in the Livingston article. Personally, I found the “natural” explanations seem like a long way to go to deny the existence of God:

The first plague, blood, is the red clay swept down into the Nile from the Ethiopian highlands. The mud then choked the fish in the area inhabited by the Israelites. The fish clogged the swamps where the frogs lived; the fish, soon infected with anthrax, caused the frogs (the second plague) to leave the Nile for cool areas, taking refuge in people’s houses. But, since the frogs were already infected with the disease, they died in their new habitats. As a consequence, lice, the third plague, and flies, the fourth plague, began to multiply, feeding off the dead frogs. This gave rise to a pestilence that attacked animals, the fifth plague, because the cattle were feeding on grass which by then had also become infected. In man, the symptom of the same disease was boils, the sixth plague (pages 5-6).

Holiness in the OT.2

12 Wednesday Sep 2012

Posted by in 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Exodus, Leviticus

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a “holy place”:

The phrase “in a holy place” is used in various places in the OT: Exodus 29:31; Leviticus 6:9, 19, 20; 7:6; 10:13; 16:24; 24:9. As a prima facie matter, “holy” in this instances cannot morally correct, because locations cannot have moral qualities or character. Rather, the place, like many items of the tabernacle (and later temple) are holy because they have been set apart for use for ritual relationship with God. Exodus 40:9 provides an interesting understanding of this process:

Then you shall take the anointing oil and anoint the tabernacle and all that is in it, and consecrate it and all its furniture, so that it may become holy. Exodus 40:9 (ESV)

Stuart comments:

The need to anoint and the process of anointing the tabernacle and its furniture was already adumbrated in 29:36; 30 and especially 30:25–29, so the fulfillment of that command can be reviewed here succinctly as finally completed at the occasion of the first erection of the tabernacle. Anointing symbolizes cleanness and purity, as discussed already in chap. 29. These items of furniture had a sacred purpose; their proximity to Yahweh’s symbolized presence in the holy of holies reflected that sacredness and required recognition by the anointing ceremony that they were part of the holiest place in the nation.

Douglas K. Stuart, vol. 2, Exodus, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 787. Stuart’s comment is interesting in tying the relationship of anointing with oil to the sacrificial purification of Exodus 29:33-36:

Thus you shall do to Aaron and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded you. Through seven days shall you ordain them, 36 and every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement. Also you shall purify the altar, when you make atonement for it, and shall anoint it to consecrate it. Exodus 29:35–36 (ESV)

The consecration was made by way of blood and sacrifice. Later, the anointing oil is to be made “it shall be a holy oil” (Exod. 30:26). The command continues:

29 You shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy. Whatever touches them will become holy. 30 You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests. 31 And you shall say to the people of Israel, ‘This shall be my holy anointing oil throughout your generations. 32 It shall not be poured on the body of an ordinary person, and you shall make no other like it in composition. It is holy, and it shall be holy to you. 33 Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it on an outsider shall be cut off from his people.’  Exodus 30:29–33 (ESV)

Von Rad comments on holy objects:

The Nazirite was “one set apart for Jahweh”: indeed, whatever in the sphere of worship men, animals, or objects were taken out of daily, secular life, they were “holy for Jahweh”. And right at the very heart of it all were the sacrifices, with or without blood, where the same stereotyped phraseology is to be found. The inference to be drawn from this way of speaking is it, which is both widespread and fixed, is that Israel regarded the cult as the place where pre-eminently  it was incumbent upon her to make room for Jahweh’s right and claim which he made. Thus, what took place in the cult can also be designed as the (Hebrew, “justice” “judgment” misphat) of God. This “right” of God’s inhuman life was therefore the primary and constitutive factor – it was the foundation-stone of the cult, and everything else followed from it. No cultic celebration was solemnized fro Israel, but they were all “for Jahweh”. But the sphere in which that right of God (which nullified all human claims) had to be respected was not an ideal one: on the contrary, it was very realistically demarcated by means of a holy place, holy men and women, holy things, and holy seasons. And the holiness of all these stood or fell with the belief in his present there from time to time. The coming of Jahweh – it might be to the sacrifices – was a moment of the highest solemnity, for which the congregation was made ready by the cultic cry, “Silence at the present of Jahweh!” “Slience at the present of Jahweh! He rouses himself from his holy dwelling” (Zeph. 1:7; Zech. 2:17). Finally, it is this presence which imposes upon man a quite definitive behavior, and this behavior is one which, out of consideration of God’s holiness, was subjected to particular rules and regulations demanding careful observance. Wherever we meet this phenomenon we have a right to say that we are in the sphere of the cult (Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, 241-242).

Paul picks up this line of thinking repeatedly in his letters, particularly in Corinthians. Two references are particularly apt. First, the reference to perfume making something “holy”:

14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ. 2 Corinthians 2:14–17 (ESV)

Having been set aside for the work of God, perfumed as it were, the proclamation of the Gospel gives off the same perfume.  Paul actually refers to the saints as “the aroma of Christ”.  This is not out of line with the rest of his theology. In First Corinthians Paul sets aside the believer’s body as the holy place of God:

19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 (ESV)

This usage and parallel gives a means to study and profit from meditation upon the “holy place” as described in the OT.

Holiness in the OT.1

06 Thursday Sep 2012

Posted by in Exodus

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

David Peterson has written Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness for the IVP NSBT series.  Peterson’s analysis of holiness and sanctification was thorough, biblical and useful.  In the book, he seeks to correct certain aspect of evangelical theology respecting sanctification and holiness: not by abandoning the desire for holy conduct, but by placing holiness pursued in its proper context. To do this, he undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the NT instruction on the topic – which analysis he anchors in an OT survey.  I found the book useful, and thus I want to make sure that I digest it thoroughly.

He begins his analysis with the proposition that holiness is not a characteristic which human beings acquire by means of their behavior, rather it derives from God:

It is a status or condition which God imparts to those whom he chooses to bring into a special relationship with himself through covenant and redemption. But it is a status that carries with it particular responsibilities (23).

He therefore concludes:

With regard to God’s people, holiness means being set apart for a relationship the Holy One, to display his character in every aspect of life( 24).

How does this proposition hold up? An early use of “holy” (qadosh) in the Bible comes at Exodus 19:6. The children of Israel have escaped Egypt and have come to Mt. Sinai. There, at the mountain, God gives the following message to Moses:

3 while Moses went up to God. The Lord called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” 7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the Lord had commanded him. Exodus 19:3–7 (ESV)

It must be noted that holiness here does derive from a status conferred by God. Holiness is a status:

you shall be my treasured possession

and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests

and a holy nation

 

Holiness as a nation stands in parallel to being a treasured possession & a kingdom of priests.  Thus, holiness does seem to entail a valuation by God & an interaction with God.   However, that status does entail a behavioral condition:

if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant

Therefore, we cannot divorce holiness from conduct. Yet, there is no basis here for finding holiness as something the human being can entail aside from God’s provision:  Holiness derives from the covenant.

In addition, the basis of the covenant rests earlier in the unilateral work of God in rescuing the people:

You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore,

This verse summarizes the preamble and prologue components of the Sinai covenant. It identifies the parties to the covenant (“I” and “you”) as Yahweh and Israel and briefly reminds the recipients of how they came to be united with their God. The words “you yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt” encapsulate the entire story of the humiliation of Pharaoh and Egypt and the Egyptians through the plagues. “I carried you on eagles’ wings” encapsulates the exodus itself, metaphorically describing the flight from Egypt as a soaring flight carried by an eagle. The words “and brought you to myself” express not merely the arrival at Sinai but the entering into covenant relationship (which is ultimately a family relationship) with the only true God.

Douglas K. Stuart, vol. 2, Exodus, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 422. It is interesting that the first use of “holy” occurs here, because this is the point of redemptive history where Israel would transcend a mere biological grouping to become something new, a community in unique relationship to God:

An affirmative response to Yahweh’s “if” on the part of the people of Israel will mean the birth of “Israel” as Yahweh’s people. Without that affirmative response, indeed, there would have been only “sons of Israel,” the descendants of Jacob. With the affirmative response, “Israel,” a community of faith transcending biological descendancy, could come into being. That community, an entity new to the narrative of Exodus in its sequential development to this point, but the entity all the same because of whom and in a sense from whom Exodus originated, is described here by three separate but interrelated images. Israel’s affirmative response will first of all mean the genesis of a people who will be Yahweh’s own סגלה “special treasure.” Greenberg (JAOS 71 [1951] 172–74) has linked this word to an Akkadian term, sikiltu, which refers to a personal collection or hoard. The image presented is that of the unique and exclusive possession, and that image is expanded by what appears to be an addition (“for to me belongs the whole earth”) to suggest the “crown jewel” of a large collection, the masterwork, the one-of-a-kind piece.

John I. Durham, vol. 3, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 262.