A Readable Study of the Tabernacle (Ex. 25-40)

  Reformation Trust sent me a copy of this recently released monograph, God in Our Midst by Daniel Hyde, so I want to mention it here.  It is basically a devotional commentary on Exodus 25-40, the section of the Pentateuch that describes the OT tabernacle in much detail.  To be even more precise, the book is based on a series of sermons Hyde preached on this portion of Scripture.  God in Our Midst is just over 200 pages and includes a Scripture index, a topical index, and a brief appendix on preaching the Pentateuch.  (Unfortunately there are end notes rather than footnotes, but this publishing annoyance doesn’t detract from Hyde’s commentary at all.)

The contents of the book are quite straightforward: each chapter covers the different aspects of the tabernacle (and its construction).  For example, chapter three covers the ark of the covenant, chapter four is on the table and the bread, chapter five discusses the golden lamp stand, and so forth.  The chapters are divided into readable sections and are around 10 pages long.  This book would be a good one for a Bible study, personal study, and even a pastor’s shelf.

I appreciated the fact that Hyde explained and applied the truths of the tabernacle in a level-headed and biblical manner.  You won’t find any hyper redemptive historical interpretation here (which borders on allegory); he doesn’t talk about eschatological curtain loops.  At the same time, he doesn’t moralize the text into oblivion by saying we need to make our own tabernacles in our personal wildernesses.  His method is more historical (in line with the Reformation), biblical (using other Scripture), Christ-centered (he argues well that the tabernacle points us to Christ), and applicable (these truths are relevant for the Christian life).

I recommend this book; it is just what students of Scripture need to help them understand and apply this portion of the Bible which is too often overlooked because of its detail and supposed irrelevance. If you’re going to study Exodus, if you don’t know much about the tabernacle, or if you want to see how the tabernacle directs us to Christ and godly living in him, add God in Our Midst to your library.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Song of the Sea: An ANE Taunt

Peter Craigie wrote a great little article in Vetus Testamentum (vol. 20, #1, 1970: pp 83-86) called  “An Egyptian Expression in the Song of the Sea (Exodus XV.4).”  In this article, he argues that Ex 15.4 contains a word of Egyptian origin (šälìšäyw; “chosen officers” ESV); others have argued similarly for other words in the Song of the Sea (Ex 15.14 & 15 for example).

This isn’t a boring textual/critical note just for scholars.  What Craigie is saying is that the author of the Song of the Sea used “a Hebrew form of a foreign title in an accurate sense” (p. 85).  Craigie notes that the author wasn’t doing this to be historically accurate per se, but probably as a deliberate way to taunt Egypt in a poetic way.  “One aspect of victory songs as a genre in the ancient Near East is the use of taunt.  The use of Egyptian-type phraseology in a Song celebrating Israel’s victory would be an effective sarcasm and taunt, in a rhetorical sense, of the Egyptians” (p. 85-6).  This adds some depth to the song/poem, a richness that sits next to the narrative exodus account in chapter 14 in a wonderful way.

Of course, the Israelites weren’t foreign to Egyptian language of the day, so “the use of Egyptian expressions or formulae in a context describing the Egyptian military disaster would be most suitable” (p. 86).  In other words, this victory song celebrating the omnipotence of Yahweh over Egypt was also a ridicule of the enemy using the enemy’s own terms (like we do when we use the opposing football team’s own name to mock them).  This Ex 15 poetry is Nehemiah 4.4 worked out: they were turning the enemy’s taunt (Ex 15.9) back on their own head (Ex 15.4) in their song of praise to Yahweh.

A “praise song” like this probably wouldn’t make the top 40 today!

Side note: Craigie wrote the WBC commentaries on Psalms 1-50 (2nd ed.), Jeremiah 1-25, and Deuteronomy for the NICOT series, along with others.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Childs on Exodus 6

Brevard Childs has a great “theological reflection” on Exodus 6 – the ‘sermon’ Yahweh gave to doubting and mutinous Moses.

Perhaps the greatest theological significance of Ex. 6 in the context of the canon is the tremendous theocentric emphasis of the Biblical author’s understanding of the exodus.  Although the shape of a call narrative is still present in ch. 6, interest in the manner of God’s appearing or the human reactions to a theophany have receded to a vanishing point.  Rather, the whole focus falls on God revealing himself in a majestic act of self-identification: I am Yahweh.  Although there is a history of revelation which includes a past and future, the theocentric focus on God’s initiative in making himself known tends to encompass all the various times into the one great act of disclosure.  To know God’s name is to know his purpose for all mankind from the beginning to the end.  Ezekiel pursues the same line of thought even more consistently when he sees all of God’s intervention into human history arising from this concern for his name (20.9).  In his testimony that nothing in human history shares the glory which belongs alone to God, the writer reduces Pharaoh to a pawn on God’s great chess-board, and Israel, far from being viewed as a partner in the plan of God, is judged for consistent disobedience and allegiance to the idols of Egypt (Ezek. 20.8).

Childs ends the section rightly in the NT, explaining how John’s understanding of Israel’s history “centered in the great act of self-revelation in Jesus Christ.”  Read the above quote again (and again!), with Christ in mind.

Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 119-120.

Exodus 4.24-26: The Bloody “Bridegroom”

Though the brief and “bloody” episode of the circumcision that Zipporah performed is tucked away in the OT, there have been scores of articles and essays written on it.  It would be too tedious to list them all here, but for the record the ones I found helpful were written (in various commentaries and journals) by William Propp “That Bloody Bridegroom,” Ronald Allen “The ‘Bloody Bridegroom’ in Exodus 4:24-26,” Bernard Robinson “Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6,” Julian Morgenstern “The ‘Bloody Husband’ (?) (Exod. 4:24-26) Once Again,” and commentaries by Brevard Childs, Peter Enns, Nahum Sarna, Terrence Fretheim, John Calvin, and a few others.  One should also consult Wellhausen’s etiological description, as well as important Jewish commentaries.

We  note from the outset that the Hebrew text is anything but crystal clear:  On whose “feet” does Zipporah wipe (nagah) the bloody foreskin?  Does ‘feet’ (regel) mean legs, feet, or private parts here?  Which son does Zipporah circumcise?  Who is the ‘bridegroom’ (hatan) of blood?  What does ‘bridegroom’ (hatan) mean here – relative, in-law, or wife’s father?  Who let whom go?  Certainly there are more questions that are not so easy to answer; the LXX is only somewhat helpful on this passage.

Here are a few things from the passage that can be stated with relative certainty: 1) Yahweh is angry with Moses and put him in a death grip.  2) Zipporah circumcised her son.  3) Zipporah’s bloody actions rescued Moses from death.

Here are two major OT episodes that parallel this passage grammatically and theologically: 1) Look back – Gen 32.24-30 – Jacob wrestling with the man/angel.  In the Moses episode and in the Jacob episode, there was a struggle (someone held someone), both struggles happened during a return journey, both involve a “touching” (nagah), both involve resistance to God’s call, both are followed by a favorable meeting with and kiss from a brother (Esau, Aaron).  You’ll find more parallels as well, making the connection quite tight.

2) Look forward – the Passover.  Both the Moses episode and the Passover involve the anger of Yahweh against sin, cutting, a son(s), blood, smearing (nagah) blood, and death being avoided by the shedding of blood.  Again, you’ll find more parallels, making the connection even more striking.

As Enns and Childs both note, circumcision here is quite important, also making the reader recall Gen 17, where the penalty for being uncircumcised was to be “cut off” from the covenant community.  Perhaps Yahweh is angry with Moses for unbelief and disobedience (cf. Ex 3.1-4.17, esp. 4.14), perhaps he is angry with Moses for not circumcising his son (possibly Gershom).  Perhaps both.  Either way, Yahweh was angry with Moses for sin, there was a cutting and a blood-shedding; the wiping of the bloody foreskin on (possibly) Moses may symbolize a cutting off in the stead of Moses.  Again, this has Passover written all over it.  Ultimately then, though maybe indirectly, it points to the first Passover. Then it brings us through the first Passover to the last, the final shedding of blood for sin in the “cutting” of the Lamb, the Son of God, the Messiah.

One more interesting interpretation – another plausible one, perhaps even complementary – is how Moses represents Israel.  Moses really pre-lives Israel’s journey, from a birth-deliverance through water to Mount Sinai in the wilderness, to this episode of Yahweh being angry with a recalcitrant child.  More specifically, in Fretheim’s terms, “Just as Moses was saved by the blood of his firstborn, so Israel would be saved by the blood of the Egyptian firstborn” (Exodus, p. 80).  In Isaiah’s terms, “I give Egypt as your ransom (kofer)” (43.3).  As still one more interesting side note, a few verses before this episode, Yahweh calls Israel his firstborn and declares that he will cut off Egypt’s firstborn to save his.  Yahweh’s sermon before this instance of the bloody briedgroom should help contextually interpret it.

This is just one tiny step forward in discussing this difficult text while noting and summarizing the scholarly positions.  Again, see the above named authors for more detailed information.  My presuppositions are akin to Enns’: the fact that Christ has risen from the dead profoundly affects our interpretation of the OT (Exodus, 26).  In other words, there are glimmers, shadows, types, symbols, events, prophecies, hints, and arrows in the OT that bring us to the cross, empty tomb, and session of the Messiah.  In Jesus’ own terms, Moses wrote about me.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

What Does Open Theism Sound Like? Moses and Open Theism

I knew Terence Fretheim’s name was attached to the Open Theism camp; I see why now in his commentary on Exodus (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991).  In discussing Yahweh’s dialogue with Moses in Exodus 3-4.17, Fretheim writes this: “God treats the dialogue with Moses with integrity and honors his insights as important ingredients for the shaping of the task.  God has so entered into a relationship with him that God is not the only one who has something important to say.  God will move with Moses, even adapting original divine plans … in view of Moses’ considerations.”

“God’s way into the future is not dictated solely by the divine word and will.  God places the divine word and will into the hands of another for him to do with what he will.  That is for God a risky venture, fraught with negative possibilities.  God will now have to work in and through Moses’ frailties as well as strengths.  This will mean something less than what would have been possible had God acted alone; God is not in total control of the ensuing events.”

Fretheim then explains how God lacked “initial success” in trying to persuade Moses to follow his call.  “God’s best efforts do not meet with instant success.” “…But God goes with what is possible…God must often work with options that are less than the best.  God often has to accept what people do with the powers they have been given” (p. 53; emphasis original).

Wow. Ironically, this text (3.22) talks about Israel “stripping” (nzl – Piel) Egypt of her wealth; Fretheim turns the tables and strips God of his omniscience and omnipotence.  Fretheim’s portrayal of God is like Ironman fighting his nemesis, surprised by a few secret weapons and quick shots, but able to adapt in the end to overcome the surprisingly strong enemy – all while taking a few hard hits.  Makes for a fun movie, but a worthless redemption story and a pitiful redeemer.  Or, in another analogy, Fretheim’s portrayal of God is like a cosmic dancing with the stars (see the words “moves with” above): God is the lead dancer, but Moses sometimes pulls a few tricks of his own, to which God adapts and utilizes to win the contest.

Notice: the text does speak about Yahweh’s omniscience and omnipotence (as does the entire Exodus event!): v19 notes that Yahweh knows that Pharaoh will not let Israel go (future) except by a strong hand (future Exodus “wonders of God;” cf. Jesus’ interpretation of this passage as proving the divine power of Yahweh in Mark 12.26, Luke 20.37, and Matt 22.29).  How can Yahweh (I AM WHO I AM) make a promise to deliver his people if he’s not sure how they’ll react or what Pharaoh will do?

Good commentary, but this section puts a red flag on the whole thing; read it and use it, but do so with care.  Also, now you know what Open Theism “sounds like” on the popular level, in case you haven’t heard it so clearly before.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa