11:3–6 Do the Camel, the Coney and the Rabbit Chew the Cud?
It must be stated clearly that Abraham and Isaac both practiced deception. The Bible merely reports that they did so, without approving of it. God preserved the purity of Sarai and Rebekah in spite of all the maneuverings of their husbands. No one can make a case for lying based on these passages. It will always be wrong to lie, since God is truth.
What about half lies? Wasn’t it true that Sarai was Abraham’s half sister? Was it not also true that the Hurrian society, in such centers as Haran, where Abraham had stayed on his way to Canaan, had a special legal fiction in which the bonds of marriage were strengthened when the groom adopted his wife as his “sister” in a legal document parallel to the marriage contract?
Yes, both are true. Sarai was Abraham’s half sister (Gen 11:29). And there was the Hurrian legal form of sister-marriage. However, most scholars have now concluded that there is very little basis for assuming that Abraham had such a document in mind, since the details of patriarchal and Hurrian marriage documents are quite different.
What, then, was Abraham’s motivation? Was he willing to sacrifice his wife’s honor and allow her to marry any suitor in order to save his own skin and possibly get some financial gain? Though Genesis 12:13 might appear to support such an interpretation, subsequent events (Gen 12:15–16) provide a basis for questioning its correctness.
Oriental attitudes toward adultery were much more sensitive than ours (Gen 20:2–9).
It is doubtful that Abraham would have allowed his wife to bear that sin on her conscience, much less allow himself to be an accomplice in it.
The medieval commentators suggested that what Abraham hoped to get out of his
“brother” status was the right to receive and deny all suitors’ requests to be Sarai’s husband. This suggestion works in those stories where brothers attempt to delay their sister’s marriage (Laban and Rebekah in Gen 24:55, and Dinah and her brothers in Gen 34:13–17).
Abraham and Isaac are to be condemned for their complicity in lying, no matter how noble a motive they may have had, or how much truth the lie contained. Still, God was not to be deterred in his plan to bring life and blessing to the nations through the offspring of Sarai and Rebekah.
See also comment on exodus 1:15–21; 3:18.
14:18–19 Who Was Melchizedek?
Melchizedek was a Canaanite, but he is called a “priest of God Most High.” In addition to his office of priest, he also is described as the king of Salem, apparently a reference to the shortened name for Jerusalem, which at that time was occupied by the Canaanites.
This Gentile, about whom we have had no previous notice, either in the text or anywhere else for that matter, comes forward to pay homage to Abram. He brings with him bread and wine as he goes out to meet Abram on his return from the amazing victory by the 318 servants of the patriarch over four Mesopotamian kings. In so doing, the priest-king pays respect to Abram, yet he acknowledges that what has been accomplished could only be attributed to God Most High.
This is a most unexpected turn of events, for out of the grossly pagan world of the Canaanites emerges not only one who shares belief and worship in the same God as the Semitic Abram but one who pronounces the blessing on the patriarch whom God had already blessed. Abram also acknowledges the priestly dignity of this Canaanite priest-king by giving him a tithe.
This situation is very similar to that of Jethro in Exodus 18. He too was a priest who worshiped the same God Moses did, yet he too was a Gentile Midianite (Ex 2:16; 3:1; 18:12). Evidently God was also calling out a people for his own name from among the Gentiles even though the text rarely pauses in its pursuit of the promise-plan of God through the Hebrew people to reflect on this phenomenon.
Who then was Melchizedek? Was he an early preincarnate appearance of Christ or, as theologians label this type of happening, a christophany? Or was he a type of Christ, since Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 6:20–7:21 link Christ’s priesthood not to Aaron and the famous Levitical priestly line in Israel, but to Melchizedek?
The sudden and almost mysterious appearance of Melchizedek is what gives him that quality of timelessness and uniqueness. There can be little doubt that the text treats him as if he were a real historical character who touched the life of the biblical patriarch at a very crucial time in his service for God.
But Melchizedek also has a typological aspect to his character, not in all aspects of his person and character, but most significantly in the fact that we know absolutely nothing about his parentage or his age. This fact sets him apart from all other priests we are told about in the biblical narrative. Thus the author of Hebrews likens Melchizedek to Jesus: “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever” (Heb 7:3).
What is intended, of course, is that the biblical record does not mention Melchizedek’s
parents, his ancestry, his birth or his death. In that sense he was different from any other individual found in the biblical narrative. This fact uniquely fits him to be a type of Christ. As such, he functions as a symbol of eternity. His unique priesthood offers a picture of the eternal and universal priesthood of Jesus Christ.
This explains how the Messiah could come from the promise line of Abram and eventually from the tribe of Judah and could also be a priest as well as a prophet and a king. Messiah could not come from two tribes at once, both from Judah (as king) and from Levi (as priest). But he solved the dilemma by becoming a priest “not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry [that is, a legal requirement concerning bodily descent] but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (Heb 7:16).
One more point needs to be made: Abram gave a tenth to this priest-king, not the other way around. The “everything” of which Abram gave a tithe was the spoils Abram had taken in battle. This was Abram’s response to Melchizedek’s offer of bread and wine and the blessing which Melchizedek had offered—a blessing which normally comes from the greater person to the lesser. Strangely enough, as the author of Hebrews points out (Heb 7:10), in this sense Levi paid tithes and recognized a priesthood which would supersede his own line even before he was born, because “Levi was still in the body of his ancestor” when Abram offered the tithe to Melchizedek.
16:1–4 Was It Right for Abraham to Sleep with Hagar?
Why would a wife ever urge her husband to have an affair with another woman who was living and serving in their home? Is this action approved by the Bible and suggested as normative for us—at least under certain kinds of conditions? Is this the biblical basis for some kind of open marriage?
What Sarai did was in accord with the practice and culture of the day. This can be seen from numerous clay tablets that come from this period of time. Thus, for example, the Code of Hammurabi, the Nuzi Tablets, the Alalakh Tablets and the Mari Tablets (all derived from approximately the larger Near Eastern area and a period of two to three centuries around the time of the patriarchs) provide for exactly the very eventuality listed here in this text. A barren wife could be credited with children that her maidservant bore to the wife’s husband. A similar instance arose in Genesis 30:3, 9
concerning Rachel, and in part in Ruth 4:11. Sarai’s motivation for so acting is clearly stated: “Perhaps I can build a family through her.” The idea was that a family could be built with children from a concubine similar to the way a building was built with blocks.
But did it accord with the morality and ethics given by God? Abram was wrong to go along with his wife’s proposal, for now it appeared that he thought he could help God to fulfill the divine promise given to him about a “seed” by indulging in polygamy. This seems to be an ancient variant on the saying “God helps those who help themselves!”
At the creation of the first couple, God had stated a strong case for monogamous relationships as being the norm for marriage. The first departure from this standard came with Lamech in Genesis 4:19, when he took two wives. But the exceptions to this rule of one wife for each man are not so numerous as first impressions may seem.
Apart from the kings of Judah and Israel (wherein other considerations were also operating, such as the possibility of using the foreign wife as a hostage in order to
assure compliance with treaties), there are hardly more than a dozen and a half examples of polygamous marriages in the entire Old Testament.
In the meantime, the model of the monogamous marriage was held forth throughout the Old Testament as the norm. For example, Proverbs 5:15–23 taught the same truth by means of the allegory of drinking water from one’s own well (a delicate but clear figure of speech for the coital act within a monogamous marriage). Moreover, a whole book of the Old Testament was dedicated to celebrating the joys and desirability of reserving oneself for only one other person of a different sex, even if the one trying to interrupt that commitment was a wealthy king like Solomon—the book of Song of Songs.
While the Bible does not stop to moralize on Abram’s cohabitation with Hagar, it nevertheless expects each reader to realize that what was taking place was contrary to the will and morality that God approved.
See also comment on genesis 29:25–28; 2 samuel 20:3; proverbs 5:15–21.
16:7–12 Who Is the Angel of the Lord?
See comment on judges 6:22–23.
17:17; 18:12–15 Discriminatory Treatment of Abraham and Sarah?
It is clear that both Abraham and Sarah laughed at the news that they would have a son so late in life. The question, then, is this: Why was Sarah the only one who was rebuked? Is this a case where male chauvinism shines through the text of the older testament?
Some have tried to explain the difference between the two laughters as arising from two different states of mind: Abraham’s from a state of surprise and ecstasy; Sarah’s from a state of unbelief. But the text will not let Abraham off that easily. There is no reason to connect Abraham’s laughter with that of Psalm 126:2 (when the Lord brought back the captives from Babylon, “our mouths were filled with laughter”) or even that of Job 8:21 (“he will yet fill your mouth with laughter”). Both the Jerusalem Targum and Calvin were too hasty in getting Abraham off the hook here by equating his laughter with joyous amazement.
The fact that Abraham immediately posed the issue of Ishmael and how he would fit into the promised seed if another son were born shows that he too spoke out of unbelief, just as much as did Sarah. The issue was not just Ishmael’s person, but his posterity as well. The promise of another son, Abraham feared, would destroy all hope that he had placed in the one already given. So Abraham was equally guilty of unbelief.
So why the rebuke on Sarah?
It is true that Sarah only laughed to herself; but so did Abraham. Nevertheless, the Lord saw what transpired in her inner being and openly spoke of his displeasure of the same. And since the principle from which both of their inward laughing sprang was the same (that is, unbelief, and not that one was a laugh of admiration and joy whereas the other was a laugh of disbelief and distrust), the unbelief of both of them was the main
The question “Why did Sarah laugh?” was not addressed to her, but to Abraham. But Sarah felt the sting of inquiry most pointedly, for she felt that she had been trapped in her unbelief. Thus it was that she blurted out, “I did not laugh.” This foolish and untruthful reaction was also rebuked when the Lord said, “Yes, you did laugh.”
Does this mean that Abraham’s unbelief was without blame, but Sarah’s was? No, for the condemnation of one was equally a condemnation of the other. The text focuses on Sarah’s unbelief because she went on to deny it (thereby making the issue memorable and newsworthy) and because when the whole matter was ended, it also became the basis for the naming of Isaac, which is associated with the word “he laughs” or
“laughter” (Gen 21:3, 6).
18:19 Covenant Blessings Conditional or Unconditional?
See comment on genesis 26:3–5.
18:20; 19:1–29 Homosexuality Condemned?
See comment on romans 1:27.
20:1–3 Sarah Is My Sister?
See comment on genesis 12:11–13.
21:14 Was It Wrong for Abraham to Send Hagar Away?
Was it not wrong and heartless of Abraham to turn out Hagar, whom he had taken as a wife? In fact, was it not even contrary to the social conventions of the day to refuse food and lodging in his own dwelling to a woman who had honored him by bearing him a son? And was it not all the more reprehensible since the boy was so young that he had to be carried on the shoulders of Hagar as they left?
A number of commentators have insisted on the fact that Ishmael was placed on the shoulders of Hagar when she left. This would imply that at the time the boy was a mere infant who needed to be carried by his mother. Then in Genesis 21:15 he is spoken of as being cast or placed under a bush. Now after these interpreters have reached these conclusions about Ishmael being a mere infant, they go on to declare that this assessment is in conflict with Genesis 16:16, 17:25 and 21:5, where the boy seems to be at least thirteen or fourteen years old, and that this is the mark of multiple sources, for the texts were not edited as carefully as they should have been.
The solution to the question of the boy’s age is rather straightforward. There is no basis for the translation of the Septuagint or the Peshitta: “and laid the boy on her shoulder.” If this were the correct reading, there would be no way to explain the present Hebrew text, which does not make “the boy” the object of the verb “lay” or
“set”; instead, it is the object of the verb “gave.” The literal rendering of the Hebrew is: “And Abraham rose up early in the morning and he took bread and a skin of water,
and he gave [them] unto Hagar putting [them] on her shoulder, and he gave [her] the boy, and he sent her away, and she went and she wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.”
Since Abraham was living at the time in Gerar between Kadesh and Shur, Hagar wandered in the desert far to the north of Abraham, rather than heading south to Egypt, as she had done when she fled from Sarah on a previous occasion (Gen 16:7).
There is no basis for insisting, as some have, that Abraham was at Hebron at the time, and therefore Hagar was on her way to Egypt when her location was given at Beersheba.
But what of Abraham’s action? Can it be justified?
It is clear that God instructed Abra- ham to follow Sarah’s wishes (Gen 21:12–13), even though it grieved Abraham greatly (Gen 21:11). But as George Bush commented,
“God does not require Abraham to acquiesce in Sarah’s proposal because he approved the spirit which prompted it, but because it accorded with his counsel and his repeated declarations that all the blessings of the covenant were to belong pre-eminently to Isaac.”3 [3 George Bush, Notes on Genesis, vol. 1 (1860; reprint, Minneapolis, Minn.: James and Klock, 1976), p. 352.]
Accordingly, there is more here than a mere domestic scuffle. Surely it demonstrates how much evil can come from a polygamous marriage. But it also demonstrates that the promise made to Abraham in the covenant could not be abandoned, even when it was due to the unwise actions of the one to whom the promise had been made.
God requires that Abraham deny his natural feelings, based on the promise that he would also make the son of the maidservant the ancestor of a nation because he came from Abraham and because God would perform his word. And from what follows, it appears that Hagar met with no great difficulty in providing for herself or her son, whether it came indirectly from Abraham or from some other means that God had provided.
Thus Sarah sinned in recommending that Abraham take Hagar as his wife and sinned again in the attitude that prompted her to urge Abraham to send her away. But just as in the case of Joseph, where his brothers intended him harm, God meant it for good—
the good of both Isaac and Ishmael.
See also comment on genesis 29:25–28; 50:19–21.
22:1 Why Did God Test Abraham?
Even though the writer carefully couches his description of God’s command to Abraham as a “test,” many people have puzzled over God’s being involved in what many view as entrapment. How then shall we view this test from God?
The term used here for “to test” is used in eight other Old Testament passages where God is said to be the “tester.” In six of these (Ex 15:22–26; 16:4; 20:18–20; Deut 8:2, 16; Judg 2:21–22; 3:1–4), Israel is tested. In 2 Chronicles 32:31 King Hezekiah was tested, and in Psalm 26:2 David appealed to God to test him. In five of the six cases where Israel was tested, the context shows the testing stemmed from concern over the nation’s obedience to God’s commands, laws or ways. That same concern is implied in Exodus 20:18–20, where the issue is the fear of the Lord, just as it is here in Genesis
22:1, 12. Likewise the passages in Psalm 26 and 2 Chronicles 32:31 focus on the matter of obedience and invite God to prove whether David and Hezekiah are not willing to obey God with all their hearts and souls.
Therefore, based on these eight passages where God is the subject and author of the testing, we may conclude that God wanted to test Abraham to know his heart and to see if he would obey and fear the Lord who gave him the son he loved so dearly. Just as the queen of Sheba came to “test” Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kings 10:1), so God also tests without any sinister connotations.
When the word “test” is used as a term in which man tests or tries God, the meaning is altogether different (Ex 17:2, 7; Num 14:22; Is 7:12). Such a test flows from an attitude of doubt and a sinful heart on man’s part. In this situation, man wants to determine whether God’s power will be adequate, the effect of which is to “tempt”
God.
But when used of God, there is no connotation of doubt or a desire to trick or deceive the one placed under the test. His testing was only concerned with obedience or with the fear of God, that is to say, an attitude which expressed that same spirit of obedience to God. Deuteronomy 8:2 describes the wilderness wanderings with its particularly harsh experiences along the way as a testing by God—“Remember how the Lord your God led you … in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart.”
Such a test demonstrated in action what Abraham claimed: he was willing to trust the God who had provided this son born so late in the patriarch’s life.
The old English word for test was prove. In the context of this passage it does not have the sense of exciting to sin or provoking someone to commit an evil. Indeed, James 1:13 states, “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.”
Temptation or testing in the bad sense always proceeds from the malice of Satan working on the corruptions of our own hearts. God, however, may bring his creatures into circumstances of special testing, not for the purpose of supplying information for himself, but in order to manifest to individuals and others the dispositions of their hearts. In this context, all forms of divine testing, putting to the proof and trying individuals are used in such a way as to leave God’s attributes unimpeachable.
But if it is asked, “How could a holy God put his servant through such an ordeal as this?” the answer rests in the special relationship that Abraham and the Lord enjoyed.
The relationship of father and son that existed between Abraham and Isaac was exactly the same relationship that existed between God and Abraham. Abraham’s test was indeed a qualifying test that had as much evidential value for Abraham as it had for the Lord who issued the test.
The point is that the test was not a temptation to do evil or a test that was meant to trap the hapless patriarch. Instead, it had the opposite purpose: it was intended to strengthen him and to build him up, as did the numerous tests in the desert. As used here, the ideas of tempting, testing or trying are religious concepts. It is God’s testing the partner of the covenant to see if he is keeping his side of the agreement. God never tests the heathen; he tests his own people exclusively. Thus the test is ever a test of God’s own in order to know whether they will love, fear, obey, worship and serve him.
Testing, finally, is one of the means by which God carries out his saving purposes.
Often people do not know why they were tested until after the test is over. Only after they have been preserved, proved, purified, disciplined and taught can they move beyond the situation, strong in faith and strengthened for the more difficult tasks ahead.
See also comment on genesis 2:16–17; james 1:13.
22:2 Sacrifice Your Son?
What can be said of such an astonishing demand? Does God really demand or approve of human sacrifice?
This chapter has been linked with the blind obedience operative in the tragedy at Jonestown, Guyana. But God did not command Abraham to commit murder. This incident is not to be classed with the foolish sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter (Judg 11:30–40); Gibeon’s demands (2 Sam 21:8, 9, 14); or the practices of Ahaz or Manasseh (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6, 2 Chron 33:6). It was this practice of human sacrifice that Josiah abolished (2 Kings 23:10) and the prophets condemned (Jer 19:5; Ezek 20:30–31; 23:36–39). Indeed, the law clearly prohibited the sacrifice of individuals and spoke scornfully of those who offered their eldest sons to Molech as human sacrifices (Lev 18:21; 20:2).
In the abstract, human sacrifice cannot be condemned on principle. The truth is that God owns all life and has a right to give or take it as he wills. To reject on all grounds God’s legitimate right to ask for life under any conditions would be to remove his sovereignty and question his justice in providing his own sacrifice as the central work of redemption.
However, our God has chosen to prohibit human sacrifice. It is this dilemma of the forthrightness of the command to Abraham versus the clear prohibition against human sacrifice that must be solved. From the chapter, it seems clear that God never intended that this command be executed. The proof of this is that God restrained Abraham’s hand just as he was about to take his son’s life. “‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son’” (Gen 22:12). God’s purpose was simply to test Abraham’s faith. Since the deed was not carried out, there is nothing unworthy of divine goodness in having instituted the trial of his faith.
The testing may have been of greater benefit to Abraham than we often suppose.
Some, such as the ancient Bishop Warburton, supposed that Abraham wanted to know how it was that God would bless all the families of the earth through his seed as promised in Genesis 12:3. On this supposition, it is conjectured that our Lord designed a way to teach him through an experience what he had already communicated to him in words. He was given a prefiguration, or a type, of the sacrifice that the last in the line of the seed, even Christ, would accomplish.
John 8:56 substantiates this claim when Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” The reply of the Jewish audience, “You are not yet fifty years old, … and you have seen Abraham!” (Jn 8:57), indicates that they understood the verb to see in a most literal way. Our Lord does not correct them in this notion. But it must be noticed that it was not he himself that Christ
asserted that Abraham rejoiced to see, but his day, by which he meant the circumstance of his life which was of the greatest importance.
That the term day will permit this interpretation is clear from the parallel words hour and time. Throughout the Gospels we read, “his time has not yet come” (Jn 7:30); “he
… prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him” (Mk 14:35); or “the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (Jn 12:23). In all of these instances it is not merely a portion of time that is being referred to but some particular life circumstance unique to Christ and his mission.
But if day functions in the same manner as hour, and the peculiar circumstance referred to is the one in which Jesus became the Savior of the world, where is it recorded in the Old Testament that Abraham saw anything pertaining to the death of Christ?
Nothing in the Old Testament says in so many words that Abraham saw the death of Messiah as the Savior of the world. It is possible, however, that what our Lord is referring to is the transaction in Genesis 22 when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son on Mount Moriah. In offering his son, Abraham would have had a lively figure of the future offering of the Son of God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
Several factors point to this conclusion: (1) the place where the binding of Isaac took place was “the region of Moriah” (a land which included the site of Jerusalem and a well-known mountain by the same name); (2) the distance to which Abraham is asked to go is most unusual if the purpose was simply to test his faith (a test which could have been accomplished many miles closer to home than the Jerusalem area where he was sent by God); and (3) the fact that Isaac was the promised seed who bore in his person and in his life the promise of all that God was going to do in the future.
There were two kinds of child or human sacrifice known in the Old Testament. First there were those sacrifices of children or older individuals offered as a building sacrifice at the laying of the cornerstone of a city and its gates (1 Kings 16:34) or in a particular time of crisis, such as when a city was under siege or in imminent prospect of being captured (2 Kings 3:27; Mic 6:7). Probably this category should also include sacrifices of individuals as a gift to the pagan gods for granting victory (Judg 11) and the taking of prisoners of war for sacrifice.
But this is separate from the sacrifice required in the Old Testament of all the firstborn (Ex 13:12–13; 34:19–20; Num 3:44–51). Of course it must be hastily added that nowhere in Scripture did God require the sacrifice of persons as he did of animals and the produce of the field; instead he took one Levite for service at the temple for the eldest son in each household as a substitute for the life which was owed to God.
As stated earlier, God has the right to require human sacrifice. All biblical sacrifice rests on the idea that the gift of life to God, either in consecration or in expiation, is necessary to restore the broken fellowship with God caused by sin. What passes from man to God is not regarded as property belonging to us but only what is symbolically regarded as property and thus is the gift of life of the offerer.
However, the offerer is in no shape, because of sin, to make such a gift. Thus the principle of vicariousness is brought into play: one life takes the place of another.
Accordingly, Abraham is asked by God to offer life, the life that is dearest to him, his only son’s. But in the provision of God, a ram caught in the thicket is interposed by the
angel of the Lord, thus pointing out that the substitution of one life for another is indeed acceptable to God. But this in no way gives comfort to the devotees of nature-worship systems whose alleged deities were subject to life and death and who therefore wrongly required their worshipers to immolate themselves or their children to achieve fellowship with these nonbeings.
25:8 What Does “Gathered to His People” Imply?
What was the Old Testament saints’ concept of life after death? Did they have a clear belief in life after death? If so, what did it involve? For example, was it a ghostly existence? Did it involve personal, conscious awareness? Did they expect the spirit to be joined with a body? At what point? All of these questions are relevant to understanding this text about Abraham.
The expression “to be gathered to one’s people” is similar to another expression, “to go to one’s fathers,” found in Genesis 15:15. The former phrase is found frequently—
for example, here in Genesis 25:8, 17; 49:29, 33; Deuteronomy 32:50; and 2 Kings 22:20.
Do these phrases simply mean, as many scholars claim, that the Old Testament individual was laid to rest in the family grave? Is it true that there was no thought of an afterlife?
By Abraham’s time, the human life span had been so curtailed, due to the physical effects of the Fall, that 175 years was regarded as a “good old age.” What happened after Abraham died? Was he simply buried with his ancestors, end of story?
Unfortunately, too many carelessly conclude that this is precisely the case.
Actually, the expression “he was gathered to his people” or “he went to his fathers”
cannot mean that he was buried with his relatives and ancestors. In Genesis 25:8–9
such an analysis is impossible, because we know that none of Abraham’s kin, except his wife, was buried at the cave of Machpelah.
In the Old Testament, those who have already died are regarded as still existing. The event of being “gathered to one’s people” is always distinguished from the act of burial, which is described separately (Gen 25:8–9; 35:29; 49:29, 31, 33). In many cases only one ancestor was in the tomb (1 Kings 11:43; 22:40) or none at all (Deut 31:16; 1
Kings 2:10; 16:28; 2 Kings 21:18), so that being “gathered to one’s people” could not mean being laid in the family sepulcher.
Readers of the text should not infer something special from the use of Sheol in some of these texts. In every one of the sixty-five instances of Sheol in the Old Testament, it refers simply to “the grave,” not to the shadowy region of the netherworld. The writer of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament supports the notion that the patriarchs expected an afterlife:
All these people [from Abel to Abraham] were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.
Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not
ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. (Heb 11:13–16) Here is a clear testimony that through faith these early participants in the promises of God were fully expecting to enjoy life after death. While the full revelation of the life hereafter and the resurrection of the body awaited a later unveiling in the Old and New Testaments, the common assertion that the Old Testament saint knew nothing at all about such a possibility is an error caused by preconceptions.
In Genesis 17:8 Abraham was given a promise by God: “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you.” The rabbis reasoned that since Abraham never actually enjoyed the fulfillment of this promise, he would be raised from the dead to possess the land.
While this reasoning is curious, it is not all that far off. It is no more fanciful than the reasoning of our Lord in reminding the Sadducees—who did not believe in the resurrection—that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was not the God of the dead but of the living. Thus the patriarchs were not to be counted out of the hope of resurrection (Mt 22:23–32). The believer’s relationship to God carries with it life in the body now and immortality in the future.
If some object that such concepts are too “developed” for the primitive times and minds of Old Testament people, we need only remind each other that life after death was already the overriding passion of the Egyptian culture. It was to be a life of material things, with real bodies, real wine, women and song. That concept had been imaged in the pyramid monuments for a thousand years before Abraham arrived in Egypt. How, then, could the afterlife be an impossible concept for him?
Other evidences of the belief of a real life after death are afforded by the stern warnings from Mosaic times about any dabbling in necromancy, the cult of contacting the dead. What harm would there have been in fooling around with something that had no reality? Already in the middle of the second millennium b.c., the Israelites knew the afterlife was real, and thus they were warned not to be involved in any contacting of individuals who had passed beyond this world.
Abraham died and was buried. But he also joined a community of believers who had gone on before. No details of the nature of that community are given at this point. But these expressions, “to be gathered to one’s people” and “to go to one’s fathers,” are not a mere euphemism for death without any clear theological import. The evidence argues to the contrary.
See also comment on genesis 5:23–24; job 19:23–27; psalm 49:12, 20; ecclesiastes 3:19–21.
26:3–5 Obedience the Way to Blessing?
Did God grant his gracious gifts to Abraham on the basis of works? Are we to surmise that Old Testament men and women got salvation the old-fashioned Smith-Barney way: “They earned it”?
It is the word because in Genesis 26:3–5 that causes us to raise our eyebrows and see this as a hard saying. There does appear to be a tension here between the free and
unconditional offer of the promise to Abraham and the promise conditioned on Abraham’s keeping all God’s commands, decrees and laws. Surely law and grace are on a theological collision course.
There are five key passages that are cited as demonstrating that the patriarch Abraham performed the requirements of God and in return God offered to him the everlasting covenant as a gift for his obedience: Genesis 12:1; 17:1, 9–14; 22:16; 26:3–5. Some have added additional commands to this list, but generally these are not as directly related to the promise-plan as the five already cited.
The difficulty of this argument for conditionality and earning the promise is the stress the text makes on God’s actively conferring this covenant on Abraham. In one of the most dramatic scenes in the patriarch’s life, Genesis 15:12–21 depicts Abraham as being only a passive party to the formalization of the covenant, while the Lord, appearing as a “smoking firepot with a blazing torch,” passes between the pieces of the animals in the act of making a covenant with Abraham. It is well worth noting that only God passed between the pieces and therefore obligated himself. Had this been a bilateral covenant in which the covenant depended equally on both parties fulfilling their sides of the bargain, then both God and Abraham would have had to move between the pieces of the animals divided in half and thus say in effect, “May it happen to me what has happened to these animals if I do not uphold my side of the covenant.”
So how shall we explain the disparity that now seems to intrude, requiring obedience from Abraham if the covenant is to be maintained?
The answer will be this: promise and blessing still precede the command to obey and to keep the commands of God. Obedience is no more a condition for Abraham than it is for the church living under the command “If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love” (Jn 15:10) or “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (Jn 14:15).
The promise does not oppose God’s law, either in Abraham’s gift of the promise or in our gift of eternal life. The promise-giver who initiated the covenant with the patriarchs is the same one who gave the commandments, laws and statutes. Obedience, then, was not a condition for receiving the promise-blessing of God but was instead the evidence of real participation in that same promise. Because God was faithful, it was possible for these patriarchs to receive the promised blessings even if they themselves did not participate in them through their own belief. Even those who were not personal participants in the benefits of the covenant still had to pass on these benefits to those who followed in the line of the seed of the patriarchs. That belief was most easily demonstrated by the way in which individuals obeyed God—just as John puts it in his Gospel for the believing community of the New Testament.
Therefore, the alleged conditional elements in the Abrahamic (and Davidic) covenant never threatened the constituent elements of the promise, nor did they add any stipulations to them. The matter of duty or obedience, which indeed is intimately bound up with the promise, is a matter of outcome and sequel rather than a prior condition to being a participant in its benefits by faith.
The most remarkable text expressing the unconditional nature of the promise is Leviticus 26:44–45—“Yet in spite of this [the sins of disobedience], … I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors.” Surely that
sounds as if it is indeed an unconditional covenant!
See also comment on leviticus 18:5; micah 6:6–8; james 2:24.
26:7–11 Rebekah Is My Sister?
See comment on genesis 12:11–13.
29:25–28 Is Polygamy Approved by God?
Is this episode a case of polygamy? Or did the special circumstances excuse Jacob, Laban or both? If it is polygamy, what is the case for or against polygamy?
Polygamy was never lawful for any of the persons in the Bible. There never existed an express biblical permission for such a deviation from the ordinance of God made at the institution of marriage in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:21–24).
There are at least four passages that conceivably could be construed as giving temporary permission from God to override the general law of marriage found in Genesis 2:24. They are Exodus 21:7–11, Leviticus 18:18, Deuteronomy 21:15–17 and 2 Samuel 12:7–8.4 [4 For a full discussion of these passages see Walter Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 182–90.] But each one falls far short of proving that anything like divine permission was being granted in these passages.
Scripture does not always pause to state the obvious. In many cases there is no need for the reader to imagine what God thinks of such states of affairs, for the misfortune and strife that come into the domestic lives of these polygamists cannot be read as a sign of divine approval.
It is true that Jacob was deceived by Laban on Jacob’s wedding night, but that did not justify Jacob in agreeing to Laban’s crafty plan to get him to stay around for another seven years to ensure continued prosperity. Two wrongs in this case did not make a right.
See also comment on genesis 16:1–4; 2 samuel 20:3.
31:11–13 Who Is the Angel of God?
See comment on judges 6:22–23.
31:34 Why Did Rachel Have Household Gods?
Why did Rachel steal the household gods of her father Laban? Does the text thereby indicate that she put some sort of trust or belief in them?
It is clear that what was involved here was nothing less than images of Laban’s gods, for his angry accusation against his son-in-law was “Why did you steal my gods?”
(Gen 31:30). These images must have been small, portable figurines, for this is the only way that Rachel could have managed to conceal them in her camel saddle or cushion.
The significance of these images has been debated for the last three decades. Ever since the Nuzi documents with an adoption contract were found, it has been popular to link them with rights to the family inheritance or the will. The text from Nuzi stipulates, “If Nashwi has a son of his own, he shall divide [the estate] equally with Wullu, but the son of Nashwi shall take the gods of Nashwi. However, if Nashwi does not have a son of his own, then Wullu shall take the gods of Nashwi.”5 [5 James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955), pp. 219–20.] The thought that possession of the household gods somehow was connected with a legal claim to the inheritance has had general acceptance previously, but now is not as firmly held as it once was.6 [6 See Cyrus H. Gordon, “Biblical Customs and the Nuzi Tablets,” Biblical Archaeologist 3 (1940): 6. Gordon was the strongest advocate of this position.]
Thus, while we do not know for certain what the significance of these gods was, we know that they normally would belong to the father of the family. Did Rachel steal them in order to assure that she would have the leverage when it came time to assessing the inheritance, or were these deities in some way attached to her own religious feelings and commitments at the time? It is impossible to say which, if either of these options, is correct.
The fact that the Nuzi Tablets come from North Mesopotamia several centuries removed in time from the patriarchs makes it uncertain whether the same cultural coloration is shared by the two ends of this comparison.
However, a clue may be gleaned from Genesis 35:2, where Jacob must be commanded by God later on to “get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves.” Could some of these gods be the ones that Rachel had stolen? It seems more than likely. Thus Rachel may well have been attached religiously to these false gods as she left her father’s house.
See also comment on 1 samuel 19:13.
32:20 Is Bribery Permitted?
See comment on proverbs 21:14.
32:23–32 With Whom Did Jacob Wrestle?
According to Martin Luther, “Every man holds that this text is one of the most obscure in the Old Testament.” The principal issue is the identity of the man who wrestled with Jacob at the Jabbok ford all night until the dawn of the next day. Was he a mere mortal, or was he an angel? Or, still more startling, was this individual actually a preincarnate form of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity?
Some have attempted to solve the interpretive problem by making the whole sequence a dream narrative. Josephus understood it as a dream wherein the apparition made use of words and voices ( Antiquities 1.20.2). Others have been content to allegorize the story, viewing it as the fight of the soul against the passions and vices hidden within oneself (for example, Philo Legum Allegoriae 3.190). Clement of Alexandria did equate the wrestler with the Logos of John’s Gospel, but he argues that the Logos remained unknown by name to Jacob because Jesus had not yet appeared in the flesh
Jewish literature, recognizing that there was an actual fight at the heart of the story, says that the struggle was with the prince or angel of Esau, named Samael, rather than with any theophany, much less a christophany.
Others, like Jerome, have tried to make the episode a portrayal of long and earnest prayer. Such prayer involved meditation on the divine presence, confession of sin and a deep yearning for communication with the divine.
Modern interpreters, chary of assuming any real contact of mortals with the immortal or supernatural, prefer to identify the story with the types of myth that have gods fighting with heroes. Of course this point of view would devalue the narrative into pure fiction and attribute its source not to revelation, but to literary borrowing from other polytheistic mythologies. Such a solution stands condemned under the weight of its own assertions when lined up against the claims of the biblical text itself.
The best commentary ever written on this passage is to be found in Hosea 12:3–4: As a man [Jacob] struggled with God. He struggled with the angel and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor. He found him at Bethel and there [God] talked with us. (my translation)
Hosea 12:4 describes the antagonist, then, as an “angel.” But since Old Testament appearances of God, or theophanies, are routinely described as involving the “angel of the Lord,” it should not surprise us that the Lord of glory took the guise or form of an angel. In fact, that is exactly what God would do later on in his enfleshment, or incarnation. He would take on flesh; in his coming as a babe to Bethlehem, however, he took on human flesh forever.
But what really clinches the argument for this identification is the fact that in verse 3 of Hosea 12, the parallel clause equates this “angel” with God himself. Jacob struggled with an “angel,” yes, but he also “struggled with God.”
What makes this identification difficult to conceive is the fact that the encounter involved wrestling. How is it possible for the second person of the Trinity—for that is the person connected with the “angel of the Lord” so frequently—to grapple in such a physical way with a mortal?
Clearly there is a sort of punning wordplay in this story with Jacob (ya<‡qoµb_), Jabbok ( yabbo_q) and the action of wrestling ( yeµ<aµbeµq). These similar-sounding words attract hearers’ and readers’ attention to the linking of the story’s key ideas.
The wrestling took place at the threshold of the Promised Land. Ever since Jacob’s flight from his disaffected brother Esau, Jacob had been outside the land God had deeded to him in his promise.
As a result of this wrestling, Jacob was renamed Israel and prepared for his part in fathering the nation that God had promised. In order to preserve Jacob’s memory of this spiritual crisis, God left a permanent mark on his body. God touched Jacob’s thigh and dislocated it; so he limped from that point onward.
Unfortunately, we cannot identify the exact nature of the wrestling. It is clear,
however, that it involved more than a battle in the spiritual realm. It left Jacob with a real physical impairment. And although the narrative says only that Jacob wrestled with a “man,” he was told by this individual that he had wrestled “with God” and had
“overcome” (Gen 32:28); similarly, Hosea says that Jacob “overcame” an angel (Hos 12:4).
Incidentally, the touch on Jacob’s thigh became the basis in postexilic times for a food taboo in the Jewish community. Jews may not eat the sinew of the nerve along the thigh joint, called the nervus ischiadicus or sciatic nerve.
It thus appears that the “man” or “angel” with whom Jacob wrestled was Jesus himself, in a temporary incarnate form prior to his permanent enfleshment when he would come to earth as a human baby. This is consistent with other places in the Old Testament where the “angel of the Lord” can be identified as the second person of the Trinity.
See also comment on judges 6:22–23; exodus 33:18–23.
35:29 Gathered to His People?
See comment on genesis 25:8.
38:26 Was Tamar Righteous?
See comment on genesis 6:9.
42:7 Was Joseph Cruel to His Brothers?
Why does Joseph pretend that he does not know his brothers and proceed to speak to them so harshly? Is this in character with how he is portrayed elsewhere in Scripture?
While Joseph recognized his brothers, they did not at first link this high Egyptian official with their younger brother whom they had sold into slavery over a decade and a half ago. Thus Joseph had the advantage of learning some answers to questions that had been on his mind over the past years.
It does not appear that Joseph spoke to his brothers out of a revengeful spirit. There is no indication that he ever dealt unfairly, unkindly or unjustly with those who treated him in that way. Even after his heart had been made tender by the distress of his brethren, he continued to speak roughly with them.
What, then, could his motives have been for assuming such a stern demeanor? In part it was, no doubt, to obtain the much-desired information about his father and mother’s family without revealing who he was. But there was another motive for his strange actions: it was to bring them to a sense of the real evil it was to deal with others in an unjust or harsh manner. By this means also, he could determine if there was any evidence of remorse for the wrong the brothers had done to him and to their father. It was a case of kindness putting on a stern or angry appearance in order to bring the guilty parties to a realization of the dreadful wrong in which they had been involved.
46:27 How Many Went to Egypt?
48:20 How Many Tribes?
When Jacob blessed Joseph’s two sons and made them part of the twelve-tribe confederacy in place of Joseph, why is it that the number of tribes does not now add up to thirteen?
The answer to this question will be worked out in the history of Israel. But in general it involved the curse of Simeon and Levi being dispersed among the tribes of Judah and Israel (Gen 48:5–7) for their savagery when they killed all the inhabitants of the small town of Shechem as revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen 34), even after the men of the town had agreed to be circumcised.
Depending on the period of history, Simeon tended to be absorbed into Judah both in territory and name, while Levi, which never was assigned any landed territory, turned the curse into a means of ministering to all twelve tribes. Thus Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, take not only Joseph’s place in the list of the twelve, but also either that of Levi, or at other times, when Levi is also listed, the place of Simeon.
49:10 Who or What Is Shiloh?
Rarely, if ever, has one word had as many possible meanings or emendations attached to it with no general agreement being reached as the word Shiloh here. The clause in the NIV [NIV New International Version] rendered “until he comes to whom it belongs” is more literally “until Shiloh comes.”
What did the patriarch Jacob have in mind as he spoke his blessing to his fourth son, Judah, and predicted the arrival of “Shiloh”? It is clear from a postexilic text (1 Chron 5:1–2) that Joseph and Judah shared what would have been the blessings normally inherited by the firstborn, Reuben. Joseph received the double portion, and through Judah the line of the “ruler” was to come. This helps us understand the way later generations were taught under inspiration to regard the role Judah played, but what are we to make of Jacob’s understanding of the blessing he pronounced on Judah in Genesis 49?
Did Jacob intend to point to a future city where the ark of the covenant would rest until that city came to an end? Why then did Jacob speak of “his feet” and the obedience that would be his? The antecedent of the pronouns seems to be a person, not an object like the city Shiloh.
If Jacob did not intend to point to a city named Shiloh, did he have a specific person in mind? And if he did, did the name mean “Rest” or “Peace-giver?” Or are we to take the alleged Akkadian cognate word and conclude that the name means “Ruler”?
Perhaps this name is only a title meaning something like “His Peace.” Or perhaps we are to accept one or another of the numerous emendations (changes in spelling of the Hebrew shéÆloµh, all of which have particular nuances of meaning).
Most startling of all is the statement that someone from the tribe of Judah would own
the obedience not just of the tribe or even of all Israel, but of all the nations. This suggests a kingship that would extend well beyond the boundaries of the ancient land of Israel.
The problem, then, is clear; the solution is more difficult. Let us note first of all that the scepter symbolizes the rule and dominion exercised by a ruler. The “ruler’s staff” or
“commander’s staff” may be a parallel synonym to “scepter.” But since its verbal root means “to inscribe” or “to cut,” as in setting forth a decree, the term may refer to the concept of a lawgiver, one who proclaims the law or rules and governs on the basis of law. Given the context of Judah as the person in view, it would seem better to take
“ruler’s staff” as a correlative term with “scepter.” It would then mean one who wields the scepter with power and authority on the basis of the decree or law given to him.
Now comes the more difficult phrase, “until Shiloh comes.” The until is used not in an exclusive but in an inclusive sense. That is, the coming of Shiloh does not mark the limits of Judah’s domination over the nation of Israel, for if it did it would constitute a threat and not a blessing. Instead, the idea is that the sovereignty of Judah is brought to its highest point under the arrival and rule of Shiloh.
Who or what, then, is Shiloh? It cannot refer to the place where the tabernacle would be pitched centuries later. If it did, Jacob would be prophesying about a place that was unknown at the time of prediction, and one that was rarely if ever mentioned in the literature of later years except as a symbol of judgment. This interpretation would also involve changing the verb “comes” to “comes to an end,” a meaning that adds more than the text says and only raises another question: What end and why?
Martin Luther connected “Shiloh” with the Hebrew shilyaÆh, which he translated
“womb.” This would suggest the son of the womb, the Messiah. John Calvin had a similar idea. He connected Shiloh with the Hebrew shéÆl, plus the third-person suffix, giving the meaning “his son.” But Luther and Calvin failed to realize that these were two different words. ShéÆl does not mean “son.” In modern Hebrew shl or shiléÆl means “embryo.” The closest biblical Hebrew comes to the form Calvin was thinking of is shilyaÆh, “afterbirth.”
Others have looked for a verbal root rather than a nominal one. One connects it to shaµlaÆh, “to be peaceful”—hence “rest,” or perhaps “Man of Peace.” Another suggests the verb shaµlal, “to draw out or plunder,” with the pronoun “his”—hence
“his drawn-out one” or “his child to be born.” One other view connects the word with shaµlah\ “to send.” This would yield “until he who is sent comes.”
Since the second half of the poetic line begins with “and to him” in the emphatic position, it is proper to assume that we are dealing with a coming person. Moreover, since “the obedience of the nations is his,” he will be a ruler who will emanate from the line of Judah.
The rabbis were convinced that Ezekiel 21:27 (v. 32 in the Hebrew) provided the proper clue for the meaning of Shiloh. They suggested that behind this word lies shel, meaning “which,” and loµoh, meaning “belongs to him.” Thus understood, the meaning of Shiloh accords with Ezekiel 21:27, “until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs.”
It was the tribe of Judah that led the march through the wilderness (Num 10:14). When
the Israelites reached the Promised Land, Judah’s inheritance was allotted first (Josh 15:1). Later, Judah would emerge as the leader of the tribes in a totally new way. Thus Jacob referred as much to Judah as he did to the successor who would come through his line.
The verses that follow this passage, Genesis 49:11–12, have a lush rural setting. They describe the rich blessings in store for Judah and this ruling successor, the Messiah himself. There would be great prosperity for the coming royal one, but there would also be pain and bloodshed (perhaps the references to wine and the treading of the winepress imply this struggle).
Shiloh, we conclude, is the royal Messiah who comes through the line of Judah and who will take the throne that rightfully belongs to him.
49:29, 33 What Does “Gathered to His People” Imply?
See comment on genesis 25:8.
50:19–20 Human Intentions Versus God’s Intentions
How can God be God if individuals are truly free to make their own choices? It would appear that sooner or later these two free agents would collide and one would need to give way to the other.
This passage has comforted many and helped them better understand how the principles of divine sovereignty, human freedom and individual responsibility relate to each other. It affirms that divine sovereignty and human freedom operate in ways that are sometimes surprising.
God hates all sin with a perfect and unremitting hatred. However, it is his prerogative to allow good to come out of the evil others devise. Indeed, no sin can be committed without his knowledge or against his holy will. In this sense, sinners are often just as much the ministers of his providential workings as are his saints.
When because of jealousy and deep hatred Joseph’s half brothers sold Joseph into slavery, God by his own mysterious working sent him to Egypt, not only to save that pagan nation (proof of common grace available to all by virtue of the decrees of creation) but to save the very people who had sold him into those horrible circumstances. By so doing, Joseph attained the position his brothers were attempting to undermine. And ultimately God was glorified.
Accordingly, Joseph was taught to acknowledge and revere God’s providence in his circumstances. He taught his brothers to share these same truths. They and we are to view God’s hand not only in his goodness and mercy to us, but in our afflictions and trials as well.
Sinners cannot undo their actions or prevent the natural consequences of sin from producing its usual miserable effects, but there are innumerable occasions to thank a gracious Lord for counteracting and mitigating the otherwise devastating effects of such evil. God can and does work all things for good to those who love him and who are called according to his purposes to be transformed into his Son’s image (Rom
This does not mean that the nature of sin is altered and that believers never experience pain caused by sin. Poison does not cease to be poison just because it can sometimes be used medicinally.
However, this text claims that God need not worry that his purposes will be countermandated by society’s sinful actions. Nor will God have to limit the freedoms which all individuals have, both believers and unbelievers, in order to preserve his sovereignty. He can cope with it, and he does succeed. The result is that God remains God and individuals remain responsible, blameworthy and culpable for all their acts.
There is both a directive will and a permissive will in the divine purpose. Men and women may be culpable and blameworthy for an act such as crucifying the Lord of glory, but as a permitted act it can still come under the total plan of God. As Acts 2:23
states, “This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” If that is true for Christ’s crucifixion, then it is no less true in the case of Joseph and all similarly besieged men and women today.
Exodus
1:5 How Many Went to Egypt?
See comment on acts 7:14–15.
1:15–21 Were the Midwives Right to Lie?
The ethical issue of lying arises with regard to the midwives Shiphrah and Puah’s report to Pharaoh. When asked by the Egyptian king if they had been carrying out his order that all Hebrew male babies must be killed as they were being delivered by the midwives, they lied by telling Pharaoh that they had not been able to be fast enough to make it to any male deliveries lately (Ex 1:19).
Surely they were lying, but the Scripture, as usual, does not stop to moralize on the point. Nevertheless, it does expect us to evaluate what is going on against the message of the whole of Scripture.
It has been argued that God blessed these women for their act of lying, but the approval of a character in one area is not an approval in all areas. For example, God declared David to be a man after his own heart, but there was also the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba. Solomon was called Jedidiah, meaning “loved of the Lord”; but I can think of a thousand things wrong with him! Exodus 1:21 specifically says that Shiphrah and Puah were blessed of the Lord because they “feared God,” not because they lied.
Thus their respect and awe of God took precedence over their allegiance to Pharaoh.
They trusted the Lord and feared falling into his hands to give an account for murdering the babies more than they feared falling into the hands of Pharaoh. But this is not to say that the women were right in everything they did or said.
The midwives had no more right to lie, even when there seemed to be such conflicting
absolutes as telling the truth and protecting life, than we do. Instead, they were obligated both to sustain and save life and to honor the truth.
See also comment on exodus 3:18; joshua 2:4–6; 1 samuel 16:1–3.
3:2–6 Who Is the Angel of the Lord?
See comment on judges 6:22–23.
3:13–15 Elohim or Yahweh?
See comment on genesis 1–2.
3:18 Is Deception Ever Justifiable?
Is this an example of a half-truth or a ruse intended to deceive Pharaoh? In other words, is Israel’s request for a three-day wilderness trip to worship God only an excuse to leave Egypt in order to make a break for Palestine before Pharaoh’s troops could easily follow?
Since this pagan king would never submit his will to God’s, would Moses and the Hebrew elders have been justified in tricking him as long as they got the children of Israel out of town? After all, does not the end justify the means? Or if that appears to be too casuistic for believers, should not Moses and the elders have chosen the lesser evil or perhaps even the greater good?
Each of these options has been offered in ethical theory. But each raises a different set of problems for the Christian. Even the appeal to Psalm 18:26 by Rabbi Rashi misses the point: “With the crooked [some interpreted to mean with Pharaoh] you [God] are crafty.” But we object that divine judgment never came until Pharaoh had rejected all divine appeals to acquiesce to God’s plan.
Instead, the best solution was proposed long ago by the fourth-century church father Augustine and the fifteenth-century Spanish exegete Abarbanel. In their view, God deliberately graded his requests of Pharaoh by first placing before him a fairly simple plea that the people of Israel be allowed a three-day journey into the wilderness after which they would return. True, this first plea would lead to requests increasingly more difficult for Pharaoh to grant; however, they would each prepare Pharaoh to do what he might otherwise be unprepared to do.
Had Pharaoh complied with this request, the Israelites could not have exceeded the bounds of this permission. After returning to Egypt they would have needed to present a series of such pleas leading to the final request for full release. Here we can see God’s tender love and concern for Pharaoh. This king is more than just a pawn in the plan of God. And Israel was responsible to honor the “powers that be.”
Remarkably, God warns Moses that the king of Egypt will deny the request. Thus God knows both what actually takes place and what could have taken place. This warning confirms Amos 3:7: “Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” Not even God’s “mighty hand” of miracles,
evidenced in the plagues, will budge Pharaoh’s obduracy and recalcitrance.
One further question might be posed here: Did not Moses, under the instigation of Yahweh, deliberately mislead Pharaoh when he concealed his real intention? If Moses ultimately intended to ask Pharaoh to release the Israelites, did not this concealment constitute a half-truth? In other words, is not the essence of falsehood the intention to deceive? If Pharaoh received the impression that Moses wanted only to journey far enough away to sacrifice without offending the Egyptians (they would sacrifice animals sacred in Egypt), are not Moses and God telling lies?
No! There is a vast difference between telling a lie and concealing information that others have forfeited a right to know because of their hostile attitude toward God or his moral standards. King Saul, for example, forfeited his right to know all the reasons for the prophet Samuel’s visit, which was actually to anoint David the next king (1
Sam 16:1–2). We must sharpen our definition of lying to mean the intentional deception of an individual who has the right to know the truth from us, and under circumstances in which he or she has a claim to such knowledge. The point is that lying is more than an intentional deception. Such deception may be a moral evil, but one cannot tell this until it is determined if such individuals have a claim to all or even part of the truth. Therefore, all men and women always have an obligation to speak only the truth, but they do not have an obligation always to speak up or tell everything they know just because they are asked—especially when some have forfeited their right to know the truth by flouting the truth they already possess.
See also comment on exodus 9:12; joshua 2:4–6; 1 samuel 16:1–3; 1 kings 22:20–22; 2 kings 6:19.
4:21 The Lord Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart?
See comment on exodus 9:12.
4:24–26 Why Was the Lord About to Kill Moses?
What surprises and puzzles us about this text is its brevity, the abruptness of its introduction, the enigmatic nature of its cryptic statements and the difficulty of establishing the correct antecedents for several of its pronouns. But most troubling of all is the bald statement that the Lord wanted to kill the leader he had worked to prepare for eighty years.
These verses are some of the most difficult in the book of Exodus. Why did the Lord wish to kill Moses? What had he done—or failed to do? Why did his Midianite wife, Zipporah, pick up a flint knife without being told to do so and immediately circumcise her son? What is the significance of her taking her son’s excised prepuce and touching Moses’ feet while complaining, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me”? Why did the Lord then let Moses go? (It would seem that Moses is the one to whom the pronoun “him” refers.)
The narrative begins with an adverb meaning “at that time.” This immediately solves one problem: this text is not an etiological story (that is, an attempt to explain why certain things function or have the meaning they do—usually based on a made-up story). Nowhere in the Old Testament is such an adverb used to introduce etiological
material. The writer wanted us to place the episode in the setting of the real world.
The link between verses 24–26 and the material before and after it is important. It is not that God is seeking Moses’ life, as Pharaoh had. There are two key themes. First, there is the matter of the sons. Pharaoh’s “firstborn” (Ex 4:23) and Moses’ son (perhaps his firstborn) are involved in a crucial contest that involves God’s call to Israel, his “firstborn” (Ex 4:22). The contrasts are deliberate, and they manifest the grace of God and a call for response to the word of God.
The second issue is the preparation of God’s commissioned servant. God had prepared the nation of Israel, by virtue of their groaning, and he had prepared Moses in leadership skills; yet there was still the small but important matter of the preparation of the family. Moses had failed to have his son circumcised, either as a concession to his wife’s scruples or because of his own relaxation of standards. As a result, he almost lost the opportunity to do what he had been prepared all his life to do—and he almost lost his life as well.
Obviously, Zipporah was moved to act quickly on her own. Without a word of instruction, she suddenly seized a flint knife (or stone) and circumcised her son.
Usually this would be a ceremony performed by the head of the house. Zipporah’s action shows that she instinctively connected her husband’s malady with the failure to place their son under God’s covenant through circumcision (Gen 17:10–14). Moses may well have been too ill to act on his own; therefore Zipporah took the initiative.
When Zipporah had excised the prepuce, she touched her husband’s feet with it and said, with what must have been a tone of disgust and scorn, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” These words cannot be understood as communicating anything but derision and revulsion for the rite of circumcision.
There may well have been a long debate in this household over whether their son would be circumcised or not. Perhaps Zipporah argued that the operation struck her as repulsive. Moses may have countered, “But God commanded that we must circumcise all of our male children.” In order to keep the peace, however, Moses may have let the matter drop and risked disobeying the command of God.
Just as he was preparing to return to Egypt and take up the mantle of leadership after a forty-year absence, however, Moses was suddenly struck down, faced with a peril that was clearly life-threatening. Zipporah knew immediately wherein the problem lay, so she acted with haste. Yet she was still unpersuaded about the rightness of the act. She complied under duress, not with a willing heart.
Moses plays no active part in this narrative at all. Some have attempted to argue that he had neglected his own circumcision, since he had spent all those years in Pharaoh’s palace and then in Midian. But there is nothing in the text to confirm this idea. It is true, of course, that the Egyptians practiced a form of adult circumcision, but some contend that it was a partial circumcision only. In any case, Scripture does not make an issue of Moses’ own circumcision.
If the scenario I have offered is reasonably close to what did indeed take place, then how can we defend God’s intent to kill Moses? Even putting it mildly, this sounds most bizarre and extreme.
The syntax of Old Testament Hebrew tends to be unconcerned with secondary causes;
thus, what God permitted is often said in the Old Testament to be done directly by him. So if, as I believe, God permitted Moses to be afflicted with a severe sickness or some other danger, the proper way to express that in Hebrew language patterns would be to say that God wanted to kill him. It was not simply that Moses was sick and near death; it was a case of the sovereignty of God, who controls all events and happenings on the earth. Thus the secondary causes were not important. The ultimate cause took precedence as a means of explanation.
6:3 Elohim or Yahweh?
See comment on genesis 1–2.
6:16–20 How Many Generations in Egypt?
The list of four generations in this text presents no problems on its face until one reads in Exodus 12:40 that the time period is 430 years. Such genealogical lists in the Old Testament have been a source of special delight and enormous difficulty. In a positive sense, they express a sense of order and attachment to history. These were real people who lived in real times with real family connections.
The difficulty, however, is that all too many interpreters have been tempted to assume that these genealogies are complete lists of names and figures and that we can therefore add up all the ages and obtain absolute dates for a number of prepatriarchal events for which we otherwise would have no data. Unfortunately the assumption is faulty. These are not complete genealogical records, and it was not the writers’
intention to provide this material for readers who might wish to add up numbers.
Usually what the text is reluctant to do, we must be reluctant to do as well.
So we must ask, Is there evidence that these genealogies were condensed through the omission of less important names? In particular, can we determine whether there were only four generations from Levi to Moses during the 430 years of bondage in Egypt?
Were Amram and Jochebed Aaron and Moses’ immediate parents? If not, why does the text say Jochebed “bore him [Amram] Aaron and Moses?” (Ex 6:20). On the other hand, why does Exodus 2:1 remain noncommittal about the names of Moses’
parents—“Now a man of the house of Levi married a Levite woman, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son [Moses]”?
A parallel genealogy for the same period of time—from the days just before Jacob went to Egypt until his descendants came out 430 years later—is preserved in the line of Joshua, a younger contemporary of Moses, given in 1 Chronicles 7:23–27; there are eleven generations listed between Jacob and Joshua.
The logical conclusion is that Moses’ genealogy is condensed. It is inconceivable that there should be eleven links between Jacob and Joshua and only four or five between Jacob and Moses.
But if more proof is needed, we have it. An altogether overwhelming set of data can be seen in Numbers 3:19, 27–28. If no abridgment is understood in the four generations of Moses’ ancestry, what results is this unbelievable set of numbers: the grandfather of Moses had, during Moses’ lifetime, 8,600 male descendants (forget, for the moment, the females!), 2,750 of whom were between the ages of thirty and fifty (Num 4:36)!
Now, all of us know that those were times of large families, but is it possible to make sense of what has been reported in these texts—unless there is considerable condensing and compression of the record to get at just the key characters?
Another piece of evidence is to be found in the fact that Levi’s son Kohath was born before Jacob and his twelve sons went down to Egypt (Gen 46:11), where the emerging nation of Israel lived for 430 years (Ex 12:40). Now if Moses was 80 years old at the exodus (Ex 7:7), he must have been born 350 years after Kohath, who, as a consequence, could not have been his grandfather. In fact, Kohath is said to have lived a total of 133 years, and his son Amram lived 137 years. These two numbers do not add up to the 350 years needed to account for the 430 years in Egypt minus Moses’ 80
years at the time of the exodus. What has happened, then, to Moses’ genealogy?
Unquestionably Levi was Jacob’s son. Likewise, Kohath was born to Levi before they went down to Egypt. There is also a strong possibility that Amram was the immediate descendant of Kohath. The missing links do not appear to come between Jacob and Levi, Levi and Kohath, or even Kohath and Amram.
But if the gaps come after Amram, why does Exodus 6:20 specifically say that Jochebed “bore” Moses to Amram? In the genealogies, such expressions are routinely used to say that individuals were descended from grandparents or even great-great-grandparents. A case in point is Genesis 46:18, where the sons of Zilpah, her grandsons and her great-grandsons are listed as “children born to Jacob by Zilpah …
sixteen in all.” Genesis 46:25 makes the same type of reckoning for the descendants of Bilhah. Therefore, the phrases “son of,” “bore to,” “born to” and “father of” have a wider range of meaning in Scripture than they have in contemporary Western usage. If we are to understand Scripture, we must accept the usage of the Hebrew writers of that time.
Some will point to Leviticus 10:4 and note that Uzziel, Amram’s brother, is called
“Aaron’s uncle.” The Hebrew word translated “uncle,” though applicable to a definite degree of relationship, has a wider scope of meaning, both etymologically and in its usage. A great-great-great-granduncle is still an uncle in the biblical usage of the term.
It is fair to conclude, then, that this is why Exodus 2:1 does not supply us with the names of the Levitical couple who were the parents of Aaron and Moses. This example should alert us not to use genealogical lists in an attempt to obtain absolute dates for events and persons. Amram and Jochebed were not the immediate parents of Aaron and Moses. How many generations intervened we cannot tell. All that must be known for the purposes of revelation, however, has been disclosed.
There is selection and arrangement in the list that appears in Exodus 6:14–25. It includes only three of Jacob’s twelve sons—Reuben, Simeon and Levi. It is framed by the near-verbatim repetition of Exodus 6:10–13 in Exodus 6:26–30, and the first part of Exodus 6:14 in the last part of Exodus 6:25. Clearly its purposes are theological, not chronological or numerical.
See also comment on “Why Don’t Bible Genealogies Always Match Up?”
7:3, 13 The Lord Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart?
See comment on exodus 9:12.
7:11, 22; 8:7 Did the Egyptian Magicians Perform Magic?
Did the Egyptian magicians actually perform magic of a miraculous kind, or were they fakes and tricksters?
The “wise men” of Egypt were the learned and schooled men of that time. The
“magicians” or “sorcerers” (from the intensive form of the Hebrew verb meaning “to pray, to offer prayers”) is used in the Old Testament only in the sense of sorcery. This word for “magicians” is derived from the Egyptian loan-word hry-hbt, later shortened to hry-tp, “the chief of the priests.”
The use of magic in Egypt is best seen in the Westcar Papyrus, where magicians are credited with changing wax crocodiles into live ones and back to wax again after seizing them by their tails. However, the relation between Aaron’s miracles and those done by the magicians, whom the apostle Paul named as Jannes and Jambres in 2
Timothy 3:8, is difficult to describe. It could well be that the magicians cast spells over serpents that were rendered immobile by catalepsy, due to pressure on the nape of their necks. However, it is just as likely that by means of demonic power they were able to keep up with Aaron and Moses by using supernatural powers from a realm other than God’s for the first two plagues. But when they came to the third plague, they bowed out with the declaration to Pharaoh that “this is the finger of God” (Ex 8:19).
9:12 The Lord Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart?
The theme of “hardening” occurs twenty times between Exodus 4 and 14. But the most troublesome aspect of these verses is that in ten out of the twenty occurrences God himself is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart. This fact troubles many readers of the Scriptures, for it appears God authors evil and then holds someone else responsible. Did God make it impossible for Pharaoh to respond and then find Pharaoh guilty for this behavior?
God twice predicts he will harden Pharaoh’s heart. These two prophetic notices were given to Moses before the whole contest began (Ex 4:21; 7:3). However, if these two occurrences appear to cast the die against Pharaoh, it must be remembered that all God’s prophecies to his prophets have a suppressed “unless you repent” attached to them. Few prophecies are unconditional; these few include God’s covenant with the seasons in Genesis 8:22; his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David; his new covenant; and his covenant with the new heavens and the new earth in Isaiah 65–66.
In general, only the promises connected with nature and our salvation have no dependence on us; all others are much like Jonah’s message to Nineveh. Even though Jonah never even hinted at the fact that Nineveh’s imminent destruction (only forty days away) could be avoided by repentance, the king assumed such was the case, and Jonah’s worst fears were realized: the nation repented and the barbarous Assyrians did not get what was coming to them!
In Pharaoh’s case, Pharaoh initiated the whole process by hardening his own heart ten times during the first five plagues (Ex 7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35; and 13:15). It was always and only Pharaoh who hardened his heart during these plagues!
Rather than letting the work of God soften his heart during these plagues and
concluding that Yahweh is the only true God, Pharaoh made this evidence the basis for hardening his heart. Meanwhile, the plagues must have had some impact on the general population of Egypt, for when the Israelites left Egypt, they were accompanied by
“many other people” (Ex 12:38). Even Pharaoh’s own magicians confessed, “This is the finger [the work] of God” (Ex 8:19), and they bowed out of the competition with the living God.
It appears that Pharaoh reached the limits of his circumscribed freedom during the fifth plague, for after that time, during the last five plagues, God consistently initiated the hardening (Ex 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17).
God is not the author of evil. There is no suggestion that he violated the freedom of Pharaoh’s will or that he manipulated Pharaoh in order to heap further vengeance on the Egyptian people. God is not opposed to the cooperation of pagan monarchs.
Pharaoh could have cooperated with God just as Cyrus did in the Babylonian exile; God was still glorified when that king decided on his own to let Israel return from Babylon. If Pharaoh had acted as King Cyrus would later do, the results of the exodus would have been the same. It is Pharaoh, not God, who is to be blamed for the hardening of his own heart.
Note that the same topic is raised again in Deuteronomy 2:30, Joshua 11:20 and 1
Samuel 6:6. While these allusions are briefer, one can be sure that the process of accountability and human responsibility was just as fair as in the case of Pharaoh.
See also comment on 1 samuel 2:25; isaiah 63:17.
10:1, 20, 27 The Lord Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart?
See comment on exodus 9:12.
11:10 The Lord Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart?
See comment on exodus 9:12.
12:35–36 Plundering the Egyptians?
Three separate passages in Exodus record the narrative generally referred to as the spoiling of the Egyptians (Ex 3:21–22; 11:2–3; 12:35–36). The problems associated with the passages are partly a modern translation problem, which existed in most translations until just recently, and partly the question of whether Israel deceived the Egyptians by borrowing clothing and jewelry they would never return. How could God have commanded them to borrow items when he knew the Israelites would never return with them?
Let us first address the verb sometimes translated “to borrow.” This verb can as easily be rendered “to ask for something [with no thought of return]” (Judg 8:24; 1 Sam 1:28). Accordingly, the third-century b.c. Greek translation of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate translated it “to ask.” This same Hebrew word is occasionally translated
“to borrow,” as in Exodus 22:14 or 2 Kings 4:3 and 6:5. In these instances, context determines its rendering.
In this case, the context also contains the verb to plunder. Here the meaning is clear, as it is in 2 Chronicles 20:25. It is a military metaphor which could, in some contexts, imply taking things by force, but never by fraud, deceit or any kind of a ruse or cunning device. It is not, however, the usual term for plundering the enemy.
The background for this thrice-recorded incident is the ancient promise God had given to Abraham in Genesis 15:14 that the Hebrews would leave Egypt “with great possessions.” God repeated this promise to Moses: Israel would “not go empty-handed” (Ex 3:20–21) away from Egypt.
God himself favorably disposed the hearts of the Egyptians toward Israel (Ps 106:46
says, “He caused them to be pitied”). Also Moses was “highly regarded” (Ex 11:3) by the Egyptians. However, such esteem was not solely attributable to Moses’ personal qualifications, though he had garnered quite a reputation with the magicians (Ex 8:18–
19), the court officials (Ex 9:20; 10:7) and Pharaoh himself (Ex 9:27; 10:16). The general populace of Egypt recognized that God was with this man and his people.
Therefore a great outpouring of generosity ensued, and that is what these three texts record. All the Israelites had to do was ask. The people were so ready to acknowledge that Israel indeed had been mistreated and that God had been remarkably present with the Jewish leadership that they gave openhandedly.
Notice that the women did not ask for such objects as weapons, armor, cattle, food supplies or goods for their homes, tables or job occupations. To avoid all suggestions in this direction, the author of Psalm 105:37 may have dropped the word articles before the words silver and gold so as not to imply that the Israelites asked for a third group of things besides the jewels and clothing.
This type of spoiling is not the usual term used of plundering someone who has fallen in battle. When one adds that the Egyptians willingly surrendered their jewels and articles of silver and gold, the apparent moral problem is resolved. One can guess that the Egyptians viewed their gifts as partial compensation for the grief and toil the Hebrews endured during their centuries of slavery in that land.
No legitimate moral questions remain once the situation is understood as a straightforward request which the Egyptians answered only too gladly, for by now almost everyone sympathized with their cause.
12:40 430 Years for Four Generations?
See comment on exodus 6:16–20.
14:4, 8, 17 The Lord Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart?
See comment on exodus 9:12.
14:21 What Happened to the Red Sea?
Did the Red Sea actually divide in two, leaving a path for the Israelites to cross over on dry land? Or did the Israelites cross over a tidal basin during low tide, assisted by
the drying effect of a strong east wind?
The sea that the Israelites crossed is called the “Red” or “Reed Sea.” The name probably comes from the Egyptian t_wf, hence Hebrew suÆp÷, meaning “reeds.”
These “reeds” appear as the same word that was used in Exodus 2:3, where Miriam hid among the “reeds” to see what would happen to her brother Moses in the small ark.
But there is no indication in the association of reeds with the place where the Israelites crossed that it was just a marshy set of wetlands or a tidal swamp. In fact, the name
“Red” or “Reed” Sea is used in Deuteronomy 1:1 and 1 Kings 9:26 of the saltwater areas of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah that surround the Sinai peninsula.
The actual crossing was either at the southern end of the Bitter Lakes or the northern end of the Red Sea rather than Lakes Ballah, Timsah, Menzaleh or even the radical suggestion that it was at the sandy strip of land that separates Lake Sirbonis from the Mediterranean Sea.
The fact that the waters formed a “wall” (Ex 14:22) on the right and the left and were piled up in a “heap” (Ex 15:8; Ps 78:13) surely gives the picture of a corridor formed by the rolling back of the waters that normally would be located there.
Some may object, of course, that Exodus 15 and Psalm 78 are poetic in form, and therefore the language may also be merely poetic. With that we can agree. But Exodus 14 is straight prose, and thus the attempt to explain its Exodus 14:22 with a “wall of water on their right and on their left” as a metaphor for God’s protection and nothing more is unconvincing.
God used the secondary means of “a strong east wind” (Ex 14:21) blowing all night to accomplish what the poetic version in Exodus 15:8 called in poetry “the blast of
[God’s] nostrils” and the “breath” of his mouth (Ex 15:10).
20:4–6 Is Art Forbidden?
Was this second of the Ten Commandments intended to stifle any or all forms of artistic expression in Israel and even in our own day? Is the depiction of any of God’s creatures or any aspect of his creation strictly forbidden, whether it be by means of oil painting or sculpting in wood, stone, clay, silver or gold?
Does this text also teach that children may be expected to pay for the sins of their evil parents, regardless of their own lifestyle or personal ethics and practices? And are some children shown great love and kindness simply because one of their relatives loved God and kept his commandments?
Exodus 20:3, generally regarded as the first commandment, deals with the internal worship of God. The third commandment, Exodus 20:7, deals with the spoken worship of God and the proper use of the tongue. Exodus 20:4–6 has to do with the external worship of God. Covered in this second commandment are both the mode of worshiping God (Ex 20:4–5) and the penalty for failing to do so (Ex 20:5–6). The prohibition is clearly aimed at the sin of idolatry.
The Old Testament is replete with synonyms and words for idols; in fact, it has
fourteen such words. The word idol used here refers to an actual statue, while the word form or resemblance applies to real or imagined pictorial representations of any sort.
But neither term is used in this context to speak to the question of what is or is not legitimate artistic expression. The context addresses the matter of worship—and only that. It is wrong to use the second commandment to forbid or curtail the visual or plastic arts.
The commandment speaks instead to the issue of using images that would, in effect, rival God. The actual proscription is “You shall not bow down to them or worship them.” Here two expressions ( bow down and worship), in a figure of speech called hendiadys, are used to convey a single idea: do not use images to offer religious worship to the living God. The worshiper must not compromise that worship by having a concrete center for that worship. Such a practice would be too close to what the heathen were doing.
This prohibition must be viewed against the background of Egyptian religion, for Israel had just emerged from its bondage in Egypt. Egyptian worship was directed toward the heavenly bodies, especially the sun, and such creatures as birds, cows, frogs and fish. Thus what is forbidden is not the making of images of fish, birds, bulls or the like.
Instead, it is forbidden to make an image of God with a view to using it as part of one’s worship. Such substitutes would only steal hearts and minds away from the true worship of God.
Should further support be needed for this interpretation, one need only remember what the Lord commanded with regard to the tabernacle. Under divine direction, all sorts of representations of the created order were included in this structure and its accouterments. Had all such representations been wrong, this would not have been commanded.
No, this commandment does not prohibit artistic representations of the created world.
It does, however, prohibit the use of images that call our hearts and minds away from focusing on the one true and living God, who is spirit and not like any of the shapes and forms that he created.
The penalty or sanction that follows the second commandment’s proscription begins with the magisterial reminder that “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” God’s jealousy does not involve being suspicious or wrongfully envious of the success of others, or even mistrusting. When used of God, the word jealous refers to that quality of his character that demands exclusive devotion to all that is just, right and fair.
Jealousy is the anger that God directs against all that opposes him. It is also the energy he expends in vindicating those who believe in the rightness of this quality and of his name.
God’s jealousy, or his zeal, is that emotion by which he is stirred up against whatever hinders the enjoyment of what he loves and desires. Therefore, the greatest insult against God’s love for us is to slight that love and to choose instead a lesser or baser love. That is idolatry. It is a spiritual form of adultery that results in neglect, substitution and finally contempt for the public and private worship of God.
20:5 Should Children Die for Their Fathers’ Sins?
See comment on deuteronomy 24:16.
20:7 Do Not Take God’s Name in Vain?
See comment on matthew 5:34.
20:8–11 Should We “Remember the Sabbath Day”?
There are a number of questions connected with the fourth commandment. It is not the meaning of the words of this commandment that makes it a hard saying, but the application of its meaning to today.
Do the origins of a sabbath day lie in the Babylonian concept of such a sabbath on the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth days? Does the name “sabbath”
come from the Babylonian shabatu, the fifteenth day of the Babylonian month? Were these days of rest in Babylon, or did they have some other meaning?
In our day, how seriously must we take the command to reserve one day each week, and on that day to avoid all forms of work done on the other six days? Is this command purely ceremonial in its origins, or does it have moral force? Further, does this command represent the law of Moses from which the Christian is freed, since it reflects forms and ceremonies that were done away with when Christ died on the cross? And what relation, if any, does the seventh-day injunction have with the new first day of worship set up by several New Testament texts?
Since this command begins with the word remember, it is clear that the sabbath day already existed prior to this Mosaic legislation. Exodus 20:11 connects it with the work pattern of the Creator, who took six “days” to create the world and then rested on the seventh day. His example is meant to be normative and therefore transcends all local custom, cultures and ceremonies of Mosaic legislation.
As for the claim that the whole concept comes from the Babylonians, it needs to be pointed out that they did not call their seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth days “days of rest.” Actually, these were “evil” or “unlucky” days when it was best not to do anything so as to avoid harm. Superstitious fear can hardly be equated with a theology of rest.
Likewise, the name “sabbath” did not originate with the Babylonians, for its Hebrew etymology is related to the semantic field of shaµb_aµt, meaning “to rest” or “to cease.” In the Old Testament the sabbath was a day of cessation, for religious reasons, from the normal routine of life. In the Babylonian culture there was a midmonth day—
unrelated to the pattern of seven—called shabatu, meaning “the day of the stilling of the heart,” that is, the heart of the gods. The Babylonians themselves made no connection between the pattern of the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth days and this fifteenth day.
Now if this ordinance goes back to creation and has as its purpose the imitation of the Lord himself, what of its continuing relevance for us? Was there any indication, even in the Old Testament itself, that the day set apart to the Lord might be changed from the
seventh to the first, as many Christians say today?
To take the latter question first, yes, there is such evidence. In Leviticus 23:15, during the Feast of Weeks, the day after the sabbath had significance along with the sabbath itself. Israel was to count off fifty days, up to the day of the seventh sabbath; then, on
“the day after the seventh Sabbath,” they were to present an offering of new grain to the Lord (Lev 23:15–16). Again on this “eighth day” Israel was to hold another
“sacred assembly and present an offering made to the Lord by fire” (Lev 23:36). “The first day is a sacred assembly; do no regular work,” the Lord said (Lev 23:35), and on the eighth day, when the closing assembly was held, they were again to do no work.
“The first day is a day of rest, and the eighth day also is a day of rest” (Lev 23:39).
Since the Feast of Booths or Tabernacles cannot be properly celebrated until the time of Israel’s kingdom rest—after they have once again been regathered in their land from all over the world—it is clear that this passage looks forward to the eternal state and the rest of all, when the tabernacle of God is once again with humanity (Rev 21:3).
These arguments, along with the fact that the early church worshiped on the first day of the week, fit the prediction of an eighth-day (that is, first-day-of-the-week) sabbath very well (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10). Justin Martyr (c. a.d. 150) indicates in his Apology 1.67–68 that in his day offerings were being brought to the church on Sunday—the first day of the week.
Many will still argue, “Isn’t this law a ceremonial piece of legislation from which we as believers are exempt?”
Actually, the fourth commandment is both ceremonial and moral. It is ceremonial in that it specifies the seventh day. It is moral because there is a sanctity of time; it sets aside a portion of time for the worship and service of God as well as for the refreshment and recuperation of human beings.
God is the Lord of time. As such, he has a legitimate right to claim a proportion of our time, just as he has a claim on a proportion of our money and our talents.
The fourth commandment’s prohibition of any forms of normal work on the seventh day was so seriously regarded that it affected not only all members of the Israelite household but also all aliens residing in the land and even the country’s cattle.
The book of Hebrews, of course, continues to argue on the basis of the relevance of the sabbath rest for the people of God. This sabbath still remains. It is a “stop” day, picturing the millennial rest of God that is to come when Christ returns the second time to rule and reign with his saints.
This commandment must not be lightly regarded as a piece of antique history or as conventional wisdom that may be used as one sees fit. Rather, it calls for an imitation of God’s own action, and it carries a blessing for all who will observe it.
See also comment on mark 2:27–28.
20:13 You Shall Not Take Life?
Is the sixth commandment a prohibition against the taking of all forms of life in any manner whatsoever? Or is it limited to the taking of human life, as the NIV [NIV New
International Version] translation suggests? And if it is limited to the taking of human life, is that a prohibition under all circumstances, by all methods, for all causes and in all times?
The Hebrew language possesses seven words related to killing, and the word used in this sixth commandment appears only forty-seven times in the Old Testament. This Hebrew verb, raµs\ah\, refers only to the killing of a person, never to killing animals, and not even to killing persons in a war. It carries no implications of the means of killing.
If any one of the seven words for killing in the Old Testament signifies what we refer to as “murder,” this is the verb. It implies premeditation and intentionality. Without exception, especially in the later Old Testament periods, it refers to intentional, violent murder (Ps 94:6; Prov 22:13; Is 1:21; Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2; 6:9). In each instance, the act was conceived in the mind first and the victim was chosen deliberately.
Thus the Old Testament would never use this verb to denote the killing of beasts for food (Gen 9:6) or the nation’s involvement in a war commanded by God. It would, however, use this verb in reference to self-murder (suicide) and in reference to the actions of accessories to a murder (2 Sam 12:9).
Note that Numbers 35:31 specifically distinguishes the capital offense of murder from the almost twenty other offenses punishable by death. Jewish and modern interpreters have long held that since this verse prohibited taking a “ransom for the life of a murderer”—a substitute of some kind—in all the other cases a substitution could be made for the death penalty. But so serious was murder that the death penalty was to be enforced.
In cases of nighttime invasion of a household by burglars, the prohibition in this verse did not apply, and raµs\ah\ is not the verb used (Ex 22:2). Nor does this commandment apply to accidental killings—that is, cases of manslaughter (Deut 19:5)—or to the execution of murderers by the recognized arm of the state (Gen 9:6).
Life was so sacred to God that all violent forms of taking human life caused guilt to fall upon the land. This was true of both manslaughter and premeditated murder. Both forms of killing demanded some type of atonement.
The reason life was so valuable was that men and women are made in the image of God. That is why the life of the murderer was owed to God, not to the bereaved relatives of the victim or to society. Capital punishment for first-degree murder was, and continues to be, mandated because God honors his image in all humanity. To fail to carry out this mandate is ultimately to attack the value, worth and dignity of all. It undermines other struggles as well, including those for racial equality, women’s rights, civil rights and human embryo rights—all are equally based on the fact that persons are made in the “image of God.”
Life was and remains sacred to the Giver of life. Under no circumstances was one to take one’s own life or lie in wait to take someone else’s life. So valuable was life, however fallen, that the only way to cleanse the evil caused by killing was atonement before God. Each murder placed blood-guilt on the land until it was solved and atoned for.
See also comment on numbers 35:21; judges 5:24–27.
21:2–11 Does God Approve of Slavery?
Does God approve of slavery? If not, why do we find so much legislation in the Old Testament on how to treat slaves?
There were basically two types of slaves in the Old Testament: the fellow Hebrew who sold himself in order to raise capital (Lev 25:39–55; Deut 15:12–18) and the foreign prisoner of war. In the postexilic days, during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, there was a third type known as the nƒt_éÆnéÆm. Their origins were probably the same as those Gibeonites of Joshua’s day who became cutters of woods and carriers of water rather than risk losing their lives in further miliary opposition to Israel.
Never, however, did Israel ever enter into the capture and sale of human life as did the Phoenician and Philistine traders and later the European nations. The third class of slaves called the nƒt_éÆnéÆm never were real serfs, but instead formed a clerical order attached to the temple with positions ranking just below that of the Levites, who also assisted in the services at the temple.
A fellow Israelite who needed to raise money to pay for debts or the like could not borrow against his property (for that was owned by the Lord according to Leviticus 25:23) but had to sell the only asset he possessed: his labor power. However, there were strict rules that governed his or her treatment during the maximum of six years that such a relationship could be entered into with another Israelite. Should any master mistreat his slave with a rod, leaving an injury, the owner forfeited his whole investment (Ex 21:20–21, 26) and the slave was immediately released, or if the master caused the slave’s death, the master was subject to capital punishment.
What about the status of non-Hebrew slaves? These captives were permanent slaves to the Israelites, but that did not mean that they could treat them as if they were mere chattel. The same rules of Exodus 21:20–21, 26 applied to them as well. One evidence of a mistreatment and they too went free. The foreign slave, along with the Hebrew household, had a day of rest each week (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14).
A female slave who was married to her captor could not be sold again as a slave. If her master, now her husband, grew to hate her, she had to be liberated and was declared a free person (Deut 21:14).
The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners of war. Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale. This type of slavery was voluntary for the Hebrew and the nƒt_éÆnéÆm; only the war prisoner was shackled involuntarily. But in all cases the institution was closely watched and divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses they spotted.
See also comment on ephesians 6:5–8.
21:7–11 Is Polygamy Approved by God?
See comment on genesis 29:25–28; 2 samuel 20:3.
21:23–25 Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth?
Lex talionis, “law of the tooth,” or the so-called law of retaliation, is found here in Exodus 21:23–25 in its fullest form. It is preserved in a shorter form in Leviticus 24:19–20 and Deuteronomy 19:21. It raises the issue of whether the Israelites were allowed to practice private vendettas and to retaliate every time they were personally wronged.
This legislation was never intended to allow individuals to avenge their own injuries. It is included in the section of Exodus addressed to the judges (Ex 21:1–22:17). These laws functioned, then, as precedents for the civil and criminal magistrates in settling disputes and administering justice, but they were not to be applied in a wooden or literalistic way.
Simply stated, the talion principle was “life for life.” But in actuality this rule functioned as a stereotyped expression for the judges who had to assign compensations and amounts of restitution in damage cases. If the law were pressed too literally, it would become an unmanageable concept conjuring up images of the most gross and barbarous infliction of recriminating justice on a society gone mad!
One must not conclude that the Bible authorized physical mutilation, because the biblical rejection and proscription against any such personal vendetta is clearly set forth in Exodus 21:26–27, the very next verses of the passage we’re looking at.
The expression “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” simply meant that the compensations paid were to match the damages inflicted—no more and no less. The modern version would be “bumper for bumper, fender for fender”—don’t try to get two years’ free tuition added on to the insurance claim by some phony story about whiplash!
In modern law, such terms as damages or compensation usually replace the term restitution. In modern law an offense is seen as against the state or one’s neighbor; in biblical law the offense was seen as against God as well.
Even in those cases where life was literally required as the punishment for the offense, a substitution was available, as Numbers 35:31 implies. This text specifies that no ransom is available for murder, implying that a commensurate compensation might be possible in cases other than first-degree murder. The Hebrew verb for to give appears in Exodus 21:23; in the surrounding verses, this verb refers to monetary compensation (see Ex 21:19, 22, 30, 32). The ordinary verb that is used for restoring in kind, or paying the exact equivalent, is the verb to make whole or repay.
The earlier stages of biblical law did not distinguish as sharply as present legislators do between criminal law (determining punishment) and civil law (determining commensurate compensation). If this is so, then Exodus 21:23–25 is not a lex talionis, a law of retaliation, but a formula for compensation. Moreover, the principle of equivalence also applies. It appears at this point because it applies not only to the laws
preceding it (theft), but also to the laws following it (assault); indeed, it applies even to third parties who were drawn involuntarily into a clash.
A literal interpretation of “hand for hand” may not be a fair and equivalent compensation if one man was a singer and the other a pianist. The formula must be understood conceptually to mean “the means of livelihood for the means of livelihood.”
Interpreters must be careful not to fall into the ditch on either side of this issue: (1) the danger of transferring to the private sector what these verses assigned solely and properly to the judges; or (2) an overliteralizing tendency that fails to see that this principle comes under the heading of restitution and not retaliation, that the compensation was to fit the damages—no more and no less. In fact, while some have thought that this text condoned excessive retribution, it actually curbed all retribution and any personal retaliation among Israel’s citizens.
See also comment on matthew 5:39.
21:28–36 Capital Punishment Mandated by God?
See comment on genesis 9:6.
22:25 Is Charging Interest Permitted?
Discussion about money divides friends, and when it comes to talking about interest on money from a biblical point of view, it divides interpreters! To be sure, the one “who lends his [or her] money without usury [interest],” according to Psalm 15:5, is a godly man who also “does not accept a bribe against the innocent.” But what is not immediately noticed is that the borrower is usually described as one who is in need and who is unable to support himself or herself. That point is made in two of the three main teaching passages on this topic, namely Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35–37. (The third passage is Deut 23:19–20.)
The reason for such a stern prohibition against charging interest was that all too many in Israel used this method to avoid helping the poor and their own fellow citizens.
Deuteronomy 23:20 did say, “You may charge a foreigner interest.” Apparently this was the same as charging interest for a business loan or an investment. The foreigner fell under the category of the “resident alien” who had taken up permanent residence among the Israelites. But where the law protected a “resident alien” with the same privileges granted a native Israelite, we may expect the same prohibitions against loaning at interest to the poor (see Lev 25:35).
Of course, all morality condemned excessive rates of interest. Proverbs 28:8 warned,
“He who increases his wealth by exorbitant interest amasses it for another, who will be kind to the poor.” The prophet Ezekiel also described the “righteous person” as one who “does not lend at usury or take excessive interest” (Ezek 18:8, see also 18:13, 17; 22:12).
What has changed the sentiment in modern times on legitimate forms of interest-taking is an altered perception of the nature and use of money. In the first place, loans today are mostly needed for quite different purposes. In that day it was only a matter of
extreme and dire need that would force a person into the position of needing to borrow. In these cases what was owed to one another was compassion. People were to help one another, not use their neighbor’s calamity as the opportunity to realize quick and illegitimate profits.
In modern times loans are required principally as a means of increasing the capital with which one works. Unless one has the increased capital, one may not be capable of bringing in the increased revenue. But in ancient times such concerns were not as large as they have become. Loans then were almost exclusively for the purpose of relieving destitution and extreme poverty.
While Hebrew uses two different terms for interest, it is doubtful one can distinguish between them, such as between a long-term and short-term loan, or an exorbitant rate of interest versus a fair rate of return for the use of one’s money. Neither can it be said that one relates to the substance loaned and the other to the method by which the loan was computed.
It is a reasonable conclusion that interest was and is still approved for those ventures not attempting to circumvent one’s obligation to the poor. This thesis is reinforced by Jesus’ allusion to and apparent approval of taking interest for commercial ventures in Matthew 25:27 and Luke 19:23.
The appropriateness of loaning money to a church or a Christian nonprofit agency at interest is also greatly debated. Some counsel that ministries that invite “investments”
with the offer to pay back the principal with interest may well end up paying the interest out of the tithes, thus robbing God.
If the reason for the prohibition on all church loans is that believers are not to be charged interest, then I must demur, since that is not the biblical reason. Scripture is concerned about our dodging our responsibilities to the poor in our midst. The absolute prohibition of lending at interest to believers will not stand scriptural scrutiny.
This is not to say that there are no other traps in this whole discussion. There are. The abuse of the tithe would be a most serious matter. However, because ministries seem to grow in proportion to their facilities, a group may choose to build ahead in order to expand both their ministry and their base of supporters. Such an expansion is not only warranted but may be a legitimate and responsible exercise of good Christian stewardship.
The Bible is anxious mainly about a profiteer’s loan which should have been a charity loan at no interest. Once that demand has been met, other principles in Christian morality must be met as well, but the pressure will no longer be to decry all forms of interest-taking as such.
23:20–23 Who Is the Angel of the Lord?
See comment on judges 6:22–23.
24:9–11 Did Moses and the Elders See God?
The claim that Moses and his company “saw the God of Israel” appears to contradict the flat denials of such a possibility in texts such as Exodus 33:20. John 1:18 affirms
that “no one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [the only Son], who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” Similarly, 1 Timothy 6:16 teaches that God is the one “who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.”
What are we to believe? Did some see God who is spirit and without form, or did they not? These passages surely look as if they contradict each other.
The translators who compiled the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, were so concerned about any wrong connotations in Exodus 24:9 that they added “in the place where he stood” to the words “they saw the God of Israel.” There is no basis for such an addition, however, except the tendency of this translation to avoid any descriptions of God in terms that are used of human beings (the so-called antianthropomorphic trend of the LXX).
Even though verse 10 clearly says that the leaders “saw the God of Israel,” the text does not go on to describe him, any more than did Isaiah when he saw Adonai exalted in the (heavenly) temple (Is 6). The verb used in verse 10 is used of seeing with one’s eyes. Only when we get to verse 11 is there a qualification, for it uses another verb that means “to see in a vision.”
Moreover, despite the assertion that Moses and the leaders saw God, the description of what they saw is of what was at his feet, not the appearance of God himself. It could well be that the group was not given permission to lift their faces toward God, but saw only the pavement beneath his feet. Maybe that is what the Greek translators were attempting to get at when they added the above-mentioned phrase.
When Moses asked to be shown the glory of God, he was refused on the grounds that humans cannot see the face of God and live (Ex 33:18–20). In the earlier text, since no request to see God’s glory is cited, we must assume that what Moses and his companions experienced was a theophany of the presence of God.
Even what little they saw of the setting of God’s presence so humbled and awed them that they apparently flung themselves down in an act of obeisance. Hence, what they saw and reported was no higher than the level of the pavement. In spite of the uniqueness and unnaturalness of this experience, Moses and his companions were not harmed or disciplined by God; he “did not raise his hand” against them (Ex 24:11). But they did experience a special nearness to God as they partook together of a covenantal meal.
We conclude that no one has ever seen God except the Son. What Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders experienced was the real presence of God and the place where he stood. When God is said to have shown his “back” or his “face” to anyone, it is an anthropomorphic usage—a description of God in terms used of humans so as to point to a definite reality, but only in ways that approximate that reality. God’s
“back” suggests his disapproval, and his “face” suggests his blessing and smile of approval. In no sense can these terms be used to denote any shape or form of God.
God remains unseen but mightily able to manifest the reality and majesty of his presence.
See also comment on exodus 33:18–23; john 1:18.
31:18 How Were the Tablets Inscribed with the Finger of God?
Readers of the New Testament know that “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:24). But this same incorporeal argument for God is in the Old Testament: “But the Egyptians are men and not God; their horses are flesh and not spirit” (Is 31:3). Clearly God and spirit are balancing concepts in the Hebrew poetic device called synonymous parallelism. How, then, can Moses describe God as having fingers to write on the tablets of stone?
Since God is not corporeal in the sense that he has bodily form (Is 31:3; Jn 4:24), all references to parts of the body such as fingers are what we call anthropomorphisms—
something about the divine person more graphically told in human terms.
The finger of God is also a figure of speech known as synecdoche, wherein a portion of the divine person is used to denote some larger aspect of his person or characteristics. In this case God’s power is being indicated by his finger.
In a similar way, when the magicians bowed out after the third plague, they stated,
“This is the finger of God [or of a god]” (Ex 8:19). Clearly, by their use of the word finger they meant they had been outmaneuvered by a supernatural power that was at work, not by some kind of cheap trickery or quackery.
Some have argued, on the alleged bases of Egyptian parallels such as chapter 153 in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, that “finger of God” refers to Aaron’s staff. This theory also presupposes an artificial distinction between the singular and plural forms for finger and cannot be supported. The statement of these Egyptian magicians, therefore, attributes to God the power they had just observed in the third plague.
God’s power is again symbolized as the “work of [his] fingers” in creating the world, according to the psalmist (Ps 8:3). What is more, it was by the same “finger of God”
that Jesus claimed to have cast demons out of individuals in Luke 11:20. We may be confident, then, that the term finger of God refers to his power.
The use of this expression in connection with the writing of the Ten Commandments on the two tablets of stone is most interesting, for while we do not believe in a mechanical view of dictation for the Bible, nevertheless this passage certainly indicates that here is one passage that is in some ways markedly different from the other portions of Scripture, which are nonetheless just as inspired. It must mean that this passage came, in some way, through the direct intervening power of God. Perhaps we are to envision something approximating the handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar’s Babylonian feast in Daniel 5:5. Some have likened it to a bolt of lightning which engraved the stones by a supernatural power.
The truth is that no one knows the method for sure, but we do know it is as much a product of the direct power of God as Jesus’ miracles or his creation of the world.
This part of the law known as the “Two Tablets of the Testimony” was the result of the direct intervention of God, most graphically described as the “finger of God.”
See also comment on exodus 24:9–11; 33:18–23.
33:18–23 Did Moses See God’s Back?
Is it possible to see God? On the one hand some texts indicate that God was seen.
Genesis 32:30 says, “So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, ‘It is because I saw God face to face.’” Exodus 24:9–10 likewise teaches that “Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel … saw the God of Israel.” Exodus 33:11 strikes another intimate note: “The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.” Judges 13:22 states that Manoah said to his wife, “We are doomed to die! … We have seen God!” Again, in Isaiah 6:1, “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted.” Finally, Daniel 7:9 affirms, “As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire.” All these texts appear to claim that at times God can be seen and was seen.
However, there are other passages that appear to argue that it is impossible to see God. Foremost among them is Exodus 33:20. Likewise, Deuteronomy 4:15 warns,
“You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire.”
Even more to the point is John 1:18, “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” And again in John 5:37, “You have never heard his voice nor seen his form.” Indeed, God is described in 1 Timothy 1:17 as “the King eternal, immortal, invisible,” the one “whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Tim 6:16).
To resolve this dilemma, note first that some of these sightings are visions, such as the cases of Isaiah and Daniel. In others the terms for sight stress the directness of access.
For instance, in Exodus 24:9–11, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders eat and drink in God’s presence, but they describe only his feet and what he stood on.
They were apparently not permitted to look on God’s face. In another instance, Jacob’s access to God is described as being “face to face,” similar to Moses’ later friendship with God. (The difference may arise from the way the term face of God was used in various contexts. In one, it expressed familiarity beyond previous visions or divine appearances; in others, it referred to knowledge of God which exceeds our abilities and hopes.) Others, such as Manoah and his wife, experienced a christophany or a theophany, which means an appearance of Christ or God through a vision or a preincarnate appearance.
What Moses requests in Exodus 33:18, “Now show me your glory,” was more than the Lord would grant for Moses’ own good. Even so, God allowed his “goodness” to pass in front of Moses and proclaimed his “name” in Moses’ presence.
Thus, instead of showing Moses his person or describing his appearance, the Lord gave Moses a description of who he is. The “name” of God included his nature, character (Ps 20:1; Lk 24:47; Jn 1:12), doctrine (Ps 22:22; Jn 17:6, 26) and standards for living righteously (Mic 4:5). Romans 9:15 quotes Exodus 33:19 and applies it to God’s sovereignty.
After God proclaims his name and sovereignty, he promises Moses a look at certain of his divine aspects. What these aspects were is still debated—needlessly, when one considers the range of meaning for the word back or the context in which it is used.
God placed Moses in a cleft in the rock, apparently a cavelike crevice, and he then caused his glory to pass by. The glory of God refers first and foremost to the sheer weight of the reality of his presence. The presence of God would come near Moses in
But Moses would not be able to endure the spectacular purity, luminosity and reality of staring at the raw glory of God himself. Instead, God would protect Moses from accidental (and apparently fatal) sight of that glory. Therefore, in a striking anthropomorphism (a description of the reality of God in terms or analogies understandable to mortals), God would protect Moses from the full effects of looking directly at the glory of God by placing his hand over Moses’ face until all his glory had passed by.
That this is a figure of speech is clear from the double effect of God passing by while simultaneously protecting Moses with the divine “hand.” Only after his glory, or presence, had passed by would God remove his gracious, protecting “hand.” Then Moses would view what God had permitted.
But what was left for Moses to see? The translators say God’s “back.” But since God is spirit (Is 31:3; Jn 4:24) and formless, what would this refer to? The word back can as easily be rendered the “after effects” of the glory that had passed by.
This would fit the context as well as the range of meanings for the Hebrew word used.
Moses did not see the glory of God directly, but once it had gone past, God did allow him to view the results, the afterglow, that his presence had produced.
See also comment on exodus 24:9–11; john 1:18.
34:7 Should Children Be Punished for Their Parents’ Sins?
See comment on deuteronomy 24:16.
Leviticus
1:2 Are Animal Sacrifices Repulsive?
In a culture where we are accustomed to buying meat packaged in plastic wrap, the whole description of slaughtering animals seems repulsive and unbelievable. What was intended by such inordinate waste (for so it would seem) of such valuable animals that could otherwise have served Israel in so many other ways?
The whole idea of sacrifice is so foreign to our day that we tend to think of a sacrifice as a loss we have suffered or something we have deprived ourselves of. But that negative concept was not how the Israelites regarded a sacrifice. It was not a matter of giving up something for some greater good; it was, rather, a joyous dedication of something valuable to one’s Lord.
The word sacrifice comes from the Latin “to make something holy.” It also implied something brought near to the altar or presence of God. Nowhere does the Bible tell us how sacrifices originated; instead, we find Cain and Abel already offering sacrifices in Genesis 4.
But there was more to it. Animal sacrifices were used mainly in connection with the human problem of sin. So serious was the problem of sin that life itself was forfeited.
To indicate this forfeiture, an animal was substituted for the person’s life. However, this animal’s life could never be compared to a person’s life; hence the act had to be repeated constantly, for sin was ever with Israel. But the impact of the sacrifice was enormous: the individual was declared forgiven and set free of the debt and the guilt that would have hung over his head from there on out had he or she not been delivered or ransomed by a substitute. Just as the blood symbolized the death of a life (Lev 17:11), so the life of the animal was given in exchange for the life of the sinner.
Anything less than such a payment would devalue sin in the eyes of the people. What the worshiper offered to God, therefore, had to be the best, the most perfect of its kind, and it had to cost the presenter something.1 [1 For a more detailed discussion of the seven major sacrifices in Leviticus 1–7, see Walter Kaiser Jr., “The Book of Leviticus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), pp. 1005–55.]
Sacrifices are not as gross as our culture sometimes makes them out to be, since we are so far removed from the slaughter process by which our meat is made available for us. While we are shocked by the presence of blood and the scene of death, the Old Testament offerer concentrated on freedom from the debt of his or her sin and found new life in exchange for a forfeited life.
See also comment on genesis 4:3–4.
10:1–3 Why Did God Destroy Nadab and Abihu?
See comment on 2 samuel 6:6–7.
11:3–6 Do the Camel, the Coney and the Rabbit Chew the Cud?
Do the animals listed in Leviticus 11:3–6 actually “chew the cud” in the scientific sense of having a gastronomical system wherein several stomachs are used for processing food?
True ruminants generally have four stomachs. As the stomachs work, the food is regurgitated into the mouth, where it is chewed up again. Do the camel, coney and rabbit qualify as ruminants? If not, how do we explain the presence of this classification here?