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

In Num 10:11 the people of Israel begin to "set out by stages from the wilderness of Sinai" where they have been since Exodus 19:1. Following the cloud by day first to the wilderness of Paran (Num 10:11, 34). Next, following the quail incident, "the people journeyed to Hazeroth" (Num 11:35). "After that [the seven days Miriam was unclean with a skin disease] the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran" (Num 12:16). So we are still in the same general region where we started. From this wilderness went the spies into the land of Canaan. It looks like the people successfully move again when they "came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh" (Num 20:1). Next they would journey from Kadesh to Mount Hor (Num 20:22), and then on eventually to the plains of Moab (Num 22:1). A more specific account of the places where they stopped is given in Num 33:16-49.

The people left in a particular order -- "the people of Judah set out first" (Num 10:14). Issachar and Zebulun followed (Num 10:15-16). The tabernacle was dismantled and the Gershonites and Merarites set out (Num 10:17). Reuben, Simeon, and Gad followed (Num 10:18-20). Then the Kohathites set out (Num 10:21), followed by Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin (Num 10:22-24). And finally the people of Dan, Asher, and Naphtali set out (Num 10:25-28). The order follows from east, south, west, north through the tribes by prominence as discussed in the previous post. But the order of the Levites does not follow in the same way but seems to be for practical reasons. Then Moses encouraged his father-in-law to come too (Num 10:29-32).

But the next chapter begins ominously, "And the people complained in the hearing of YHWH about their misfortunes [evil], and when YHWH heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of YHWH burned among them and consumed some outlying parts of the camp" (Num 11:1). Moses interceded for the people who had tested God and the fire died down (Num 11:2). Afterwards, they named the place "burning" (Num 11:3). This is the first test of chapter 11.

The second test, as Duguid explains it, begins with verse 4 where the people complained about the manna, which was excellent food (cf. Num 11:7-8). The story begins, "Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving" (Num 11:4) and ends, "Therefore the name of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah [footnote says this means "graves of craving"], because there they buried the people who had the craving" (Num 11:34). In the middle should have been the intercession of Moses to follow the pattern of verses 1-3. But this time Moses complained instead of interceding for the people.

Therefore the second episode is much longer as it tells us about the judgment against Moses. In this judgment, some of the Spirit that was upon him was put on seventy of the elders of Israel (Num 11:16ff). These briefly prophesied (Num 11:25) as a sign that they had received the Spirit including two that remained in the camp (Num 11:25ff). But even though this was a judgment against the leadership of Moses and the people now would ramp up their complaints about the leadership of Moses, he said, "Would that all YHWH's people were prophets, that YHWH would put his Spirit on them!" (Num 11:29). I have referenced this in the past as a text helpful in understanding the Day of Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. The people would then also prophesy briefly (speaking in tongues) as a sign showing they had received the Spirit, but this time the Spirit would be poured out indiscriminately. The basic point here being that Moses learned his lesson and sees that God can turn this curse (like those in Genesis) into a blessing. Thus we have one of the elements of the gospel -- the promise of the giving of the Spirit.

Not surprisingly then, Aaron and Miriam, especially since Aaron had a portion of the Spirit that should have been on Moses, confront Moses "because of the Cushite woman whom he had married" (Num 12:1). We have the interesting aside, "Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth" (Num 12:3). Interesting since the meek will inherit the land (Psa 37:11, Matt 5:5), but Moses does not get to enter it. In any case, Aaron and Miriam also have prophesied and so they resist the leadership of Moses (cf. Num 12:2). And YHWH came down in a pillar of cloud (like the previous judgment against Moses, Num 11:25) to declare His verdict regarding Aaron and Miriam saying, "If there is a prophet among you, I YHWH make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of YHWH. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (Num 12:6-8). And the anger of God was kindled against them and made Miriam unclean for seven days (Num 12:10ff).

In the next wilderness, Moses sent the spies into the land. The order of the spies' tribes (Num 13:4ff) is: Reuben, Simeon, Judah (Caleb), Issachar, Ephraim (Hoshea the son of Nun, otherwise known as Joshua), Benjamin, Zebulun, Manasseh, Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad. There are a total of twelve tribes, Levi is again not included. Joshua's tribe of Ephraim is promoted. The usual order of prominence would continue with the other son of Leah, Zebulun. Instead, Issachar is followed by Ephraim and Zebulun by Manasseh. Thus the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh are split apart. Benjamin, Joseph's little brother, follows Ephraim. A Jewish article observes that they are in chiastic order -- four sons of Leah, two sons of Rachel, son of Leah and son of Rachel (Joseph, that is Manasseh), four sons of maidservants. The sons of Joseph open and close the center of the chiasm. Since it is the tribes of Israel there is still order.

Not insignificantly the spies spied for forty days (Num 13:25) and at the end of this time of testing they, with the exception of Caleb (Num 13:30, 14:6) and Joshua (Num 14:6-9), returned demonstrating a lack of faith (Num 13:28-29, 32-33). That the point is about faith is clear in YHWH's question: "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? (Num 14:11). Thus God says that He will make a nation of Moses but Moses interceded for Israel. The judgment: "none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it (Num 14:22-23). The people failed the forty day test of the spies and the number of times the people tested God was full (ten), many followed by plagues (i.e., Exo 32:35, Num 11:33, 14:37). The ten unbelieving spies died in a plague and those twenty years and up in the census besides Caleb and Joshua later died in the wilderness (this would not include the Levites). Some a few verses later as the people presumptuously attacked the Amalekites and Canaanites (Num 14:39ff).

The theme of the gospel going to the nations also is prominent in this text. After all, Aaron and Miriam are complaining because Moses' wife is a Gentile and Moses pleads with his father-in-law to stay with them in the journey of faith. And yet all of the grumbling demonstrated a lack of faith in this generation of Israelites. As of this point in Scripture we still await the one who is the son of the Father spoken of by the servant in His house (Heb 3:5-6).

Labels: Aaron, faith, miriam, moses, numbers, speaking in tongues, spirit

The Book of Leviticus is a book of good news because it teaches the forgiveness of sins through the appointed blood of atonement. Not that the blood of bulls and goats actually takes away sins (cf. Heb 10:4), but it points us to the blood that does -- that of the whole and spotless lamb Jesus Christ. The book shows that your sins cannot be atoned through the shedding of your own blood but only through the shedding of this blood. Offering a sacrifice was not a good work, but an ordinary means of grace. The way of salvation is narrow and it is not people-initiated but comes from God. All ancient peoples knew that they needed atonement, as their sacrificial systems showed, but salvation is from the Jews and in particular is from the priest-sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth. And His sacrifice is applied through faith. Why did the true people of God offer sacrifices? Because they believed the promise of God to forgive sins and now we preach the forgiveness of sins in Jesus' name.

The nation of Israel was to be set apart as a holy nation both morally and outwardly. The distinctions between clean and unclean animals demonstrated the distinction between the nation of Israel and the Gentiles. While election in Christ is still good news, just as this showed the election of Israel among the nations, we are no longer set apart in such external things because forgiveness of sins is now proclaimed to all nations in Jesus Christ. And the elect of every nation have the Spirit, setting us apart starting with our hearts. Demands that Christians preserve a particular culture whether forty years old or four hundred years old or whatever have missed this change in what the good news looks like and because they are a man-made way of salvation are dangerous.

And the Holiness Code consists of two chiasms. The first concentrates on loving your neighbor as yourself and the second on loving God with all of your heart and soul. The fact that the former includes laws about loving God and the latter laws about loving neighbors shows that one cannot separate these ideas. And yet it is very clear that the former section stresses loving neighbors and aliens with Lev 19 at the center and the latter section on loving God with the blasphemy case at the center. And there is a chapter on sacrifices before each chiasm. The first time dealing with sacrifices alone and the second time before the loving God section on sacrifices and priests (where the priests are described as sacrifices -- need to be well and whole). Given these and other regulations that no longer continue in the Holiness Code, the code is a portion of Scripture that is much neglected. And yet this code is incredibly helpful in thinking through how we show our gratitude to God for the forgiveness of our sins due to the work of the priest-sacrifice Jesus Christ. And the appendix on sacrifices and oaths is very helpful for people to contemplate today given that oaths are very lightly taken at present.

Labels: atonement of sins, clean, faith, holiness code, leviticus, ordinary means of grace, priest, sacrifice, thanksgiving, unclean, way of salvation

This post is mostly just an effort to show off a newly learned word - abecedarian. What it means is the elementary things - the ABC's , or if you will, the ABCD's. You can see this just looking at the word: A,Be,Ce,Dar-ian.

So what are the elementary things of the faith? If we are doing the elementary things of the faith then we will be able to begin to do some of the more mature things of the faith. Someone once said that the reading, writing and arithmetic of the Christian faith is Scripture reading (~reading), prayer (~writing), and fellowship (~arithmetic). If we are not doing these basics how can we ever grow in maturity in faith?

The church got off to a great start in this regard. The account of Pentecost tells us "So those who received his [Peter's] word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls and they devoted themselves to the apostle's teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:41-42, ESV modified). These three thousand souls were not just added to a church roll, they devoted themselves to the apostle's teaching (reading) and fellowship (arithmetic), to the breaking of bread and the prayers (writing). So the church from the beginning had a sound foundation of reading, writing and arithmetic - Scripture study, prayer and fellowship. Therefore, one of the oaths taken at baptism is a promise to devote yourself to the reading, writing, and arithmetic of the church.

But this was not universally the case among the New Testament churches. Paul tells the Corinthians, "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?" (1 Cor 3:1-3, ESV). The problem here was the arithmetic - fellowship. The problem was not church growth numerically. The problem was that there were fractures in its existing fellowship because they were not getting along with one another. This was also causing problems in the breaking of bread (1 Cor 11).

In all of this it is important to note that the reading, writing, and arithmetic is public. To be sure, Bibles were not available as easily as they are today so to hear the Scriptures you had to hear them in worship. But hearing Scripture and praying publicly was not just for convenience - there are very deep theological reasons for these three cohering together. But today most people have forgotten that the abecedarian things of the faith are done together during Worship on the Lord's Day. Many are content to read and study Scripture on their own, often people who have never stepped foot in a church will protest that they pray often (even daily or more), and they do not see the need at all for fellowship. This is a sad state of affairs. Many in such a situation have not been born again - they are not infants in the faith. This is worse than the Corinthians, who at least gathered together even if they were not ready for solid food due to their bickering.

It is also worth noting that reading, writing, and arithmetic on the Lord's Day should be accompanied by reading, writing and arithmetic on the next six days of the week. In fact, Acts went on to say, "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people" (2:46-47a, ESV).

We can also discuss under the category of "reading" an elementary doctrine of Christ. For example, the author of Hebrews tells us, "Let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instructions about washings [perhaps baptisms], the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits" (6:1-3, ESV). Perhaps this is why Christians have such a hard time with the book of Hebrews as it gets beyond the basics. Some would be content to have a simple evangelistic message every Lord's Day and never go on to maturity in our doctrine of Christ. Thus beyond Hebrews 11, using the chapter to discuss the foundation of repentance and faith, the rest of Hebrews largely goes untouched in preaching. Actually the larger problem is one of biblical literacy. One can begin to understand the complex doctrine of Christ presented in Hebrews only if one has a firm foundation of biblical literacy when it comes to the Old Testament. Thus in most churches preachers know they cannot move beyond the elementary doctrine of Christ until they teach their congregations the basics of how to read the Old Testament in light of Christ.

Let us build upon the elementary practices and doctrine of the Christian faith. This is one of the goals of this blog. I want to get beyond the basics. We can agree with all true churches about repentance from dead works and faith in Christ, the resurrection of the dead, eternal judgment, and a great many other doctrines. The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are good for a summary of what all Christians believe with regard to basic doctrine. The most basic of which is that the Triune God is the true and living God. But if we are going to go on to maturity in our doctrine then we must not only defend the abecedarian things, but also wrestle with the claims of Romanists, Anabaptists, Pentecostals, and dispensationalists, and others. If Presbyterians fail to offer reasons for being Reformed rather than adhering to these or other teachings, then why not join those churches? While they are my brothers and sisters in Christ, I profoundly disagree with those I may agree with on the abecedarian things.

But to bring this discussion around - coming to conclusions subject to further reformation according to Scripture on these mature issues requires reading, writing, and arithmetic on the Lord's Day. Someone once said that the ABC's of Christianity are Admit you're a sinner, Believe in Christ, and Confess it to all with thanksgiving to God. This is only a beginning. Let's build on it.

Labels: abecedarian, arithmetic, faith, pentecost, reading, writing

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