Sailhamer notes that form-critical studies see a lament pattern common in the Psalms as follows: emergency, promise, faith, certainty. He sees the same pattern in the Torah. Genesis 15 and Exodus 3-4 both reveal this pattern. Numbers 14 and 20 also show this pattern but highlight unbelief rather than faith (cf. Numbers 14:11, 20:12). In the Numbers 14 incident almost everything is reversed. For example, the promise is a threat. But for now, let us focus on the contrast being developed between Abraham and Moses: Abraham believed, Moses did not.

This contrast is especially apparent with the theme of land. Abraham believed the promise that he would inherit the land (hence we call it the "Promised Land"). God even gave him a sign to build that faith even more. The sign being the smoking fire pot and flaming torch that passed between the pieces of an animal. God's self-imprecation in word and sign is only surpassed by the curse of the cross of Christ. But Moses did not believe in Him and thus is unable to enter the land. We are not speaking of Moses in order of salvation categories - we know that he is a believer. We are speaking of Moses in history of salvation categories - at this decisive point Moses failed to trust God.

The Abraham faith statement (Genesis 15:6) takes place before the conditional covenant with him. Abraham, God says, "obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Genesis 26:5) before the giving of the written law. He did so walking before God and being blameless (by faith) (cf. Genesis 17:1). Taking Isaac to be sacrificed is a classic story of faith -- God will provide -- and it was the test of the conditional covenant of Genesis 17.

Sailhamer wants to argue that the contrast of Abraham and Moses implies a contrast of covenants. The covenant with Abram had no written stipulations. The covenant with Moses had many. This observation is true -- the unconditional covenant with Abram (Gen 15) had no stipulations and the conditional covenant with Abraham (Gen 17) had few specific stipulations. The covenant with Moses at first also had no written stipulations and later grew to a huge number. Perhaps the fact that there are more and increasingly more written laws is a result of disobedience. That seems to make sense, it even explains why the author made no attempt to harmonize conflicting regulations. I can even agree that the author of the Torah wants you to see the covenant with Abraham as a better way than the covenant with Moses, thus preparing you for the new covenant. Several New Testament authors make similar arguments.

It is interesting though that the one to come was to be a prophet greater than Moses. And that the following comment is made concerning Moses, "Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth" (Num 12:3). This is clearly an aside from the hand of the author of the second edition (as Sailhamer describes our canonical Torah). This is interesting because this contrast between Abraham and Moses did not mean that Moses was to be disparaged or even that we should not admire Moses. Clearly Moses was a type of the one to come.

Moses continues to get this honor in the New Testament - he representing the Torah and Elijah representing the Prophets at the transfiguration (i.e. Matt 17:4, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30). And the gospels like Paul agree that the laws were added because of transgressions (i.e. Matt 19:7ff, Mark 10:4ff). As it is said, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). There is also the contrast like between Abraham and Moses, but now between Jesus and Moses (John 1:17, 6:32). The religious leaders even argued from this contrast (Acts 6:11, 14). And the people of Israel are described as having set their hope upon Moses and being his disciples rather than setting their hope on Jesus and being his disciples (John 5:45, 7:19, 9:28, 29).

But again, if you believed Moses you would believe Jesus, for he wrote of Jesus (John 5:46). It is instructive that the Torah wants people to contrast Abraham and Moses in favor of the former and yet many of the Jewish people at the time of Jesus were favoring Moses over Abraham, with the exception of the early Christians. To be sure Christians still viewed Moses as a type of Christ (i.e. Acts 7:35, 37, Hebrews 3:5-6). But there is also a contrast of covenants (Acts 13:39, Rom 10:5).

Labels: abraham, christ, covenant, faith, moses, promised land, torah, transfiguration

Before moving on to this section, it is worth noting that the incident with striking the rock that is Christ resembles something that took place back in Exodus 17:6 where YHWH said, "Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink." This foreshadows the death of Jesus Christ because the staff of judgment strikes YHWH Himself. And thus Moses in Num 20:8 is to speak to the rock and God will give them drink. Striking the rock again would be like saying Christ would need to die again. Instead, all we need do now is to ask the Rock for our Spiritual food and drink.

But Moses struck the rock again, and thus God says, "Let Aaron be gathered to his people, for he shall not enter the land that I have given to the people of Israel, because you rebelled against my command at the waters of Meribah" (Num 20:24). And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar his son (Num 20:28).
Iain Duguid also observes that by calling the people "rebels" Moses is setting himself up as their judge when God has told them to extend God's mercy and by striking the rock Moses and Aaron are claiming to be the people's saviors. The judgment: death and being stripped of God's glory-image. This is in contrast to the soon-to-be hero Phineas, son of Eleazar.

We see more grumbling against God and Moses a few verses later and YHWH sent "fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people" and the people repented and Moses interceded and the people in faith looked at a serpent on a pole so that they would live (Num 21:4-9). The apostle John later showed that this was a type of the death of Christ too (John 3:14). Meanwhile, the nations are resisting the coming rule of God. Edom, brother to Israel, had refused to allow Israel through (Num 20:14-21, though Duguid says this is because Moses was trying to take a shortcut), the Canaanite king of Arad fought against Israel and took some of them captive but Israel would destroy him and his cities (Num 21:1-3), and Kings Sihon and Og came out to fight Israel and their people also were destroyed (Num 21:21-35). The land of Arad was devoted to destruction as an offering to God (Num 21:2-3) and the lands of Sihon and Og became the possession of Israel (Num 21:24, 35).

Num 22:1 brings us to a new setting in the plains of Moab "beyond the Jordan" (written from the perspective of being in the Promised Land) opposite from Jericho. King Balak, son of Zippor, of Moab, the descendant of Lot, then joined together with the elders of Midian, either descendants of Abraham by Keturah (Gen 25:1-4) or through Ishmael (Gen 37:28). Moses' father-in-law was also said to be a Midianite (Exo 3:1) and so the only earlier reference in Numbers to Midianites were to this family (Num 10:29). The only previous reference in the Torah to the Midianites who lived in Moab tells us about the Edomite who "defeated Midian in the country of Moab" (Gen 36:35). The response of Balak to seeing the defeat of Sihon and Og gives us a glimpse of the response we will see in Jericho and in the whole of the Promised Land in Joshua (Num 22:2-3).

Thus Balak sent for Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor (Num 22:5). Balak wanted Balaam to curse Israel "for I know," Balak said, "that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed" (Num 22:6). This should remind us of God's words to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3, especially verse 3: "I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 12:3). This is the theme verse, if you will, of this whole story (Num 22:6, 23:11, 23:25, 24:9). And so we have four poetic blessings of Israel (Num 23:7-10, 18-24, 24:3-9, 15-24. Each time saying that Balaam "took up his discourse and said" (Num 23:7, 18, 24:3, 15). Except that the fourth poem has four parts each opening with that phrase (Num 24:15, 20, 21, 23). Four is a very significant number in Scripture where the fourth thing is the punch. That the fourth poem is four small poems means there is a total of seven poetic blessings and curses.

We continue to see then this theme of the nations trying to resist the plan of God but being unable to do so. Even the story line of the negotiations between Balak and Balaam and the story with the donkey have this as the point. Duguid suggests reading what Balaam says carefully and observing where he does not tell the whole story. He neglects to tell God that Balak said these people were "dwelling opposite me" (Num 22:5) and that Balak said that he knew whomever Balaam curses is cursed (Num 22:6). See Num 22:11 for where he leaves those details out when God asks "Who are these men with you?" -- a question meant to see if Balaam will repent. Then when God tells Balaam that the people of Israel are blessed, he neglected to mention that to Balak's messengers (Num 22:13) instead implying that he wants to come but God will not let him yet. Balak takes this as a negotiating posture and sends a bigger bribe.

Balaam sounds good in Num 22:18 saying, "Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of YHWH my God to do less or more" (Num 22:18) but then says to wait to see "what more" YHWH will say (Num 22:19). The reason YHWH becomes angry with Balaam for going is that He had told Balaam only to go if the men call again, but Balaam did not wait (Num 22:20-21) and he did not tell the people that he could not curse those YHWH had blessed and YHWH has blessed Israel -- Balaam is not in charge. The story about the donkey then reminds Balaam that he is not in charge. Ironically, Balaam the seer cannot see the angel of YHWH standing in the road.

We are not to understand Balaam as a worshiper of YHWH -- Balaam is a polytheist and primarily a worshiper of Baal. And he uses divination, which is forbidden by YHWH, because it is an attempt to manipulate God. But the story shows us that Balaam cannot manipulate God, he cannot use YHWH's name to curse Israel, God is in control. Perhaps Balaam should point us to his god Baal, the chief Baal god being Baalzebul (Beelzebul or Beelzebub, Satan) who also is not able to go beyond what God allows. In any case, the lesson is that God will bless Israel.

We have noted before that the structure of the Pentateuch is narrative, poetry, epilogue. We saw that pattern in Genesis and will see it in Deuteronomy. And we have been saying that this is the case for Exodus-Numbers too. In fact, we have four poems here in Numbers. And thus here is the climax of Exodus-Numbers. Especially the fourth oracle with four parts. Properly speaking it is this fourth poem in four parts that is the climax. It is introduced by Balaam in Num 24:14 as "in the latter days" a phrase associated with the other poems functioning this way in Genesis 49:1 and Deut 31:29 (the Hebrew word "aharith" meaning in "the last days" introduces all three major poems in the Torah). This is a final judgment eschatological word. Jesus is the star of Jacob.

And thus the epilogue of Exo-Num begins with Num 24:25. It does not begin well as the people of Israel became yoked to the daughters of Moab and then they also became yoked to the false god Baal of Peor (Num 25:1-3). Moses does not adequately deal with the sin and remove it from Israel. The discipline was not working, too limited in scope, and one couple even flaunted their rebellion openly. But Phineas, son of Eleazar the priest, became a hero by executing this couple (Num 25:6-18). And thus to him and his descendants was given "a perpetual priesthood" (Num 25:13) "because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel." The next generation is beginning to show signs of their faith. Analysis of the epilogue will continue with the next post.

Labels: Aaron, Aaron's robe, christ, moses, rock

The Hebrew people are the seed of the woman. Pharaoh is the seed of the serpent. This is fitting since you often see the Pharaohs depicted with a serpent's headdress. The new Pharaoh did not have a good relationship with Joseph or his kinsmen (he did not "know" Joseph) but the irony of ironies is that we do not know the name of this Pharaoh. This is surely intentional because Pharaoh defies God and the seed of the woman first by enslaving the Israelites, then by asking the midwives to kill the Hebrew children, and finally by ordering all of the new children to be thrown into the Nile. But it also reveals a tendency of the book to strategically use or leave out names. The threat of drowning in the Nile points us back to creation where the waters separate and dry land comes forth as well as new creation in the Exodus where the waters separate and dry land appears.

Enter Moses (Exodus 2:1ff). We know something special is about to occur because a Levite married a Levite and she conceived and bore him a son (like John the Baptist in Luke 1:5). This child is being depicted as the firstborn son and literally what she sees is new creation language "that it/he was good" (Exo 2:2) like we saw in Genesis 1. And when she could not hide him any longer she put him in an ark (the same word as the ark that Noah built and both have pitch) and placed him among the reeds. This was a traditional way to introduce a hero, like the Legend of King Sargon of Akkad who also was put in a reed basket treated with bitumen and found by a drawer of water who raised him as her own. We know that Moses will do great things. This story points us forward to the Exodus event in the Sea of Reeds. All you have to do to the word reed in Hebrew is move the dot for the vowel and you have the word extinction. This is the threat of the Nile -- extinction for Israel and this is the threat of the Sea of Reeds, the Sea of Extinction, at the Exodus event. But Moses and Israel will come through these waters as new creation.

Then all of the sudden we find out that despite the earlier portrayal Moses has an older sister. He also has an older brother but this information is conveniently left out. In Exodus 7:7, Moses is eighty and Aaron is eighty-three. So there must be a theological reason that Moses is portrayed as the firstborn son (perhaps the same reason that God would call Israel his firstborn son later in this section). And the account does not tell us anyone's names, not Moses' parents, or sister, or the name of Pharaoh's daughter, because it is driving us to the naming of Moses (2:10). And the explanation of the name is "because I drew him out of the water." Moses puts this theological meaning of his name on the lips of Pharaoh's daughter because she unknowingly points to the Exodus event in naming him something that sounds like "draw out" in Hebrew. In reality, the name Moses in Egyptian means "to give birth to" because she was claiming that he was her own son.

Moses through all of this points us forward to Jesus Christ. Jesus was the firstborn son of Mary and Joseph. He was the seed of the woman. And Herod, the new Pharaoh and seed of the serpent, would try to kill the children under two. But Joseph and Mary would flee the new Egypt (literally Israel, see Matthew 2:15). Jesus went through this Exodus from Egypt now as an individual, again at his baptism as an individual, and later would again on behalf of His people. The last time He did so as the ark of salvation for a greater Exodus.

Moses also went through three exodus events. The first was as an individual being drawn out of the water by the daughter of Pharaoh. The last was the Exodus event of his people. But the other time he went through an exodus as an individual was precipitated by a fight between two Hebrew people. First Moses sees an Egyptian beating a Hebrew and Moses acts as the savior of Israel. This was not murder just as what God would do later was not murder. Moses was acting as God's anointed deliverer ahead of time. And then he saw one of the Hebrews doing the same thing to another one of the Hebrews (the word kill in Exo 2:12, NIV is the same as hit in Exo 2:13, NIV -- see Exo 2:12-13, ESV). And we get a preview of Israel's rebellion and rejection of Moses -- two themes that will continue and will recur for Jesus.

So Moses flees (exodus) to the Midianites (remember it was the Midianites who brought Joseph into Egypt at the start of Book Ten of Genesis). It is not accidental that when Moses delivered Israel by killing the Egpytian they grumbled and when he delivered the daughters of Jethro they sing his praises. Jesus would receive the same kinds of reception from Israel and the Gentiles. And the passage ends with God remembering His covenant, God seeing the people, "and God knew." Pharaoh may not have known Joseph but God knew. This is also an allusion to Sodom (Gen 18:21). God saw and God knew. He was going to come down. And ultimately He did in the person of Jesus Christ.

We have stressed the first two chapters in this post to get you to slow down and see the connections. What follows are some notes on the rest of the section to help you do the same with the other chapters.

First note that the burning bush is a suspension of the normal properties of nature. We are going to see creation reversal and other suspensions of normal properties of nature throughout the book of Exodus.

Second, the name of God, YHWH, was undoubtedly already known to the people of Israel. What is new is the theological explanation of the meaning of the name.

Also, Moses acts as a shepherd, which prepares him to be the shepherd of God's people. The first sign is a snake that Moses must grab in faith -- a snake like Pharaoh. The second sign shows that God can make the unclean Hebrews clean. Moses complains that he is not eloquent. No matter what God does, Moses acts like Israel and grumbles. So as a judgment the office is split in two and Moses shares the glory of God with Aaron. The point of all this is that I Am and not Moses will deliver Israel. And all of these things point us to Jesus.

The genealogy is interesting. It slows down for Levi. Again the names mentioned are significant. The women point us to the focus of the genealogy. Moses is not the focus, Aaron is. This is because Aaron has just been chosen to help Moses. And the genealogy points to Aaron's worthiness by showing his Levitical heritage and that he is the grandfather of Phinehas who would be a hero in Numbers (and later in Joshua).

There is also something significant going on with the age of Moses. Moses was probably forty when he fled Egypt the first time (according to tradition he was), He was eighty when he led the Exodus of Israel (Exo 7:7). Thus Moses spent forty years in the wilderness after his own personal exodus and forty years in the wilderness after the Exodus event. He died at 120 years old (40+40+40).

In any case, this section of Exodus foreshadows the plagues and the Exodus event and therefore also foreshadows the work of Jesus climaxing in His exodus. Thus salvation from the land of Egypt, the house of slavery foreshadows salvation from slavery to sin.

All of my posts on Exodus include things that I originally learned from Dr. Peter Enns about four years ago. I highly suggest that you read his commentary on Exodus in the NIV Application Commentary series. They are more immediately based on my notes on Exodus for a class I taught at Roxborough Presbyterian on how Exodus points us to Jesus. Any mistakes are my own.

Labels: christ, exodus, moses, new creation, pharaoh, seed, serpent

Apparently there has been a debate lately on the question of whether the Reformation is over. I heard Carl Trueman speak eloquently about how it most certainly is not. Let me add the following observations to the debate (though I suspect I am saying nothing especially new and this should complement my earlier post about what it means to be "Reformed"):

1. The Reformation was a recovery of the centrality of Christ. This recovery can never be complete in this life because we constantly have to remind ourselves that Jesus Christ is our Savior and not we ourselves. I recently heard someone make the preposterous claim to be "really Reformed" because they held that God could save those whom He chose to save no matter what religion they professed. This is in desperate need of reformation according to Scripture - Christ alone is the way, the truth, and the life and not just because one verse says so but because the entire Bible says so. This missing emphasis on Christ alone is also what sets us apart from most monotheists - mosques and synagogues do not proclaim the divinity of Christ or that He is the way. Grace cannot be separated from Christ.

2. The Reformation was a recovery of the gospel of grace. This recovery can never be complete in this life because we constantly have to remind ourselves that we cannot earn our salvation but that it is a free gift from God. All too often I hear people say that Christianity is all about rules, the people who say this are often conservative Christians themselves and they see this as a good thing. The problem is that we must keep things in their proper place - grace and then thanksgiving. Jesus Christ has done everything necessary for our salvation and if that salvation has been applied to us by the Holy Spirit we should respond with thanksgiving in everything we do. The problem is especially acute when it comes to how the church treats children outside of the covenant community. We assume they should be able to be good, which they can formally, and we demand that kind of obedience instead of sharing the gospel and leading them to obedience from the heart. It is one thing to know this intellectually and another thing altogether to actually do. And part of the problem is the necessity for some formal obedience so that they can even hear the gospel in the first place.

3. The Reformation was a recovery of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This again can never be complete in this life because we too often find ourselves telling others that they must do what we did in order to be saved rather than presenting the gospel of justification by faith alone. Some want to add to faith some of these things: cultural trappings (regulations on clothing, hair, make-up, no automobiles, no electronics, etc. - all depending on what culture they are trying to preserve), speaking in tongues, good works, responding to an altar call, etc. In other words, you have to do something in addition to faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone for salvation - you cannot be a Christian until you do these things. One of our youth recently said she has not been saved. I asked if she trusted in Christ for her salvation, she said yes. Why the discrepancy? Because too many people in our area believe you must have some kind of religious experience during a hymn that drives you forward for the "altar call." She may well already be a Christian but has been told something else is necessary for her to be a Christian. This is typical.

4. The Reformation was a recovery of the importance of Scripture. This again can never be complete in this life because if it were up to us Scripture would have disappeared long ago. We often believe the latest fads in psychology or other fields to be more important than Scripture in helping others (and I am talking here about even those who hold to the sufficiency of Scripture). We are more likely to read books about Scripture than to read the actual text of Scripture (and skim or skip the quotes included in them). And many conservatives hold to notions about Scripture that come more from their personal biases and from modernism than from Scripture itself. A helpful book in this regard is Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. If conservatives were to embrace the incarnational analogy this would go a long ways in helping moderates on Scripture. When I tell theological liberals that I believe that Scripture is fully the Word of God and fully the words of its human authors (the incarnational analogy), they have to stop and think because they have always thought it must be one or the other. Many of the moderates are also confused - they believe the Bible is the Word of God (the Spirit even is testifying in them that this is the case) they just see things they would not expect and that shakes their confidence on Scripture being the only rule of life and faith. The problem is that too often conservatives, moderates, and liberals all have the same presuppositions as they approach Scripture - such as, that it be precise like a science textbook, that it be fair and balanced like a history textbook (in theory, but never in reality) rather than ideological, etc. The point is they expect that an ancient book be a modern book rather than going to Scripture alone to discover what it is doing or even hide behind the motto 'Scripture alone' to avoid seeing it in the context of the ancient world and its human authors.

The point is that the solas are always in need of recovery and no church can go without continual Reformation according to Scripture alone and its message of Christ Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone.

Labels: christ, faith, grace, justification, reformation, reformed theology, scripture