Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 39-40.
Today’s passage describes the making of the outfits worn by the priests in detail. Once again, earlier we saw the description of the design God had given Moses for these, now we have the description of how they were actually made. Sometimes I wish I had enough knowledge of sewing to see if I could duplicate these (without the carved gemstones). Additionally, I would like to see two completely different people attempt to duplicate these from these instructions to see how different (or not different) they turned out. Once the writer is done describing how the Tabernacle and the priestly garments were made, he describes the process of setting up the Tabernacle for the first time. A casual reading of the passage would lead one to believe that Moses put the pieces of the Tabernacle together by himself. However, several of the items would have been extremely difficult for one person to do and a few seem impossible.
Having written all of that, this passage conveys the value of ritual and careful attention to detail in worship. They are not always necessary, but they sometimes help us get into the right frame of mind to worship God properly.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 36-38.
I wrote a couple of days ago that I struggled with what to write about the passage where it described the plans God gave the Israelites for the Tabernacle. I have a similar problem with today’s description of how the Tabernacle was constructed. Initially, today’s passage felt like it was merely a rehash of the previous, with a few more details thrown in. However, there are some differences. The passage describing the plans gives an idea of what the Tabernacle, and its accoutrements , would have looked like. Today’s passage actually describes details necessary to make the parts actually functional. Or, to put that another way, the previous passage would have allowed you to make a model of the Tabernacle, while today’s passage would allow you to produce a working replica.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 33-35.
In this passage it refers to Moses going out to the Tent of Meeting then a little later mentions Moses telling people to bring offerings for building the Tabernacle. Yet later in the Bible the Tabernacle is referred to as the Tent of Meeting. So, what does this mean? Well, the Tabernacle was overseen by the priests, but this Tent of Meeting appears to have been Moses’ special province. My reading suggests that the Tent of Meeting referred to here was a tent which Moses set up outside the camp to go to to speak with God. Later, the Tabernacle took over that purpose, once it was completed. Now I find it interesting that Moses went back and forth from the Tent of Meeting and the camp, but Joshua appears to have lived there. It appears to me that Joshua spending all of his time in the Tent of Meeting served two purposes. First, since the Tent of Meeting was outside the camp someone needed to be there to take care of the tent and ensure that it was secured against weather. That was Joshua’s job. Second, and more important, Joshua was training to become Moses’ successor. He needed to spend time there studying and learning to do God’s will. By maintaining a separation from the rest of the camp, Joshua was able to develop his skills without the distractions of the camp.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 30-32.
There are a couple of points in the account about the Israelites and the gold calf which Aaron made for them which I don’t think I have ever seen anyone discuss. A casual reading of the passage leads one to believe that all of the Israelites were involved in worshiping the gold calf, but a closer reading suggests otherwise. The first hint that not all of the Israelites comes when Moses calls for people to join him and side with the Lord. Now, if all of the people were taking part in the celebratory worship of the calf, why would Moses expect anyone to join him? More importantly, after the Levites joined him, he told them to go through the camp and kill everyone, yet they only killed around 3,000. Does that mean that only 3,000 of the Israelites were worshiping the golden calf? No, probably not.
It reads to me like a group of malcontents became convinced that everyone was looking for an alternative now that Moses had been gone for over a month, but in fact only a small portion of the population had given his extended absence any thought. When Aaron declared the celebration many of those who were part of the original group and many others joined the celebration, but when Moses called for people to join him a lot of those sobered up and moved away from the celebration. The 3,000 killed represents those who chose to oppose Moses reasserting his authority over the Israelites. Another point worth examining is that the passage says that all of the Levites sided with Moses. Yet, after the battle to re-establish Moses’ control, Moses told them that some of them had killed their own sons and brothers. That tells me that either some members of the tribe of Levi did not side with Moses, or the “Levites” mentioned here were not necessarily members of the tribe of Levi, instead being those who sided with Moses whether they were descendants of Levi or not.
Now that I have said all of that, what does this mean for us? It tells us that it does not take a large number of people to start a larger group down the wrong path and, more importantly, it only takes a small number of people willing to stand up to them to get people to come to their senses. It may seem like everyone is doing wrong, like their is no point in standing up for what is right. But, you will usually find that if you stand up and say, “Wait, that is wrong,” more people will side with what is right than you expect…and fewer people will stand with the wrong than you thought.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 25-27.
This is one of those passages which I struggle to find something to write about because I just don’t find the detailed description of how something would be built/look like very interesting. However, it is important that it be here so that we can the significance of symbolism used elsewhere in the Bible. Without the detailed description of the construction of the Tabernacle here we would not fully comprehend the description of the curtain in the Temple which tore in half when Jesus died. Which brings me to the thing which I truly noticed for the first time today. God told Moses, and by implication the high priests, that He would speak to them from between the two cherubim which made up the atonement cover of the Ark. I had known sort of known that God did this, but never noticed that He explicitly said that He would.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 22-24.
Today’s passage continues from yesterday with the laws God gave Moses about how the Israelites were to order their society. I want to highlight a point made in chapter 23. Justice should not be slanted either in favor of or against the poor. Scattered throughout the passage are multiple instructions which paint a picture of taking personal responsibility to help those around us. One of the laws warns us against falsely accusing others of wrongdoing. While the context of that particular verse suggests it is talking about doing so before the authorities, it seems to me to also cover falsely accusing someone of wrongdoing to other people. Another verse tells us that if our enemy’s valuable animal has strayed and we find it, we should return it. Taken all together, justice should be meted out evenly to the rich and the poor, to those we like and those we dislike, everyone should be treated with respect and dignity. If we take advantage of those who cannot defend their own interests, God will step in. If we see those who cannot defend their own interests being taken advantage of, we should defend their interests as best we can.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 19-21.
Two months to the day after leaving Egypt the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai. I will point out that we do not really know which mountain was Mount Sinai. There are several theories, and I have heard one that sounds likely, but there is unlikely any way to be sure that any of them are correct. At Mount Sinai, God made His presence known to the Israelites. The Israelites were so intimidated by God speaking to them as He gave them what we know as the Ten Commandments that they asked that He just speak to Moses and Moses convey His commands to them.
I want to focus on what is the second or third commandment, depending on how you divide and number them, Exodus 20, verse 7. In the King James Version it reads, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” This led me, and many others, to misunderstand what it means. To a large degree my misunderstanding resulted from those who taught me its meaning misunderstanding it. I was taught that using “God” was a violation of this commandment. I want to note that this interpretation derives from something many Jews still practice, and something which influenced the use of YVWH by many of those who wrote portions of the Old Testament. Somehow, using other foul words as an expletive was a violation of this commandment as well.
This training was so thorough that I did not notice for a long time that the NIV (and other modern translations) say something completely different: “You shall not MISUSE the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” What we realize is that the teaching to avoid using “God” or “YVWH” derived from a desire to make it harder to misuse God’s name. However, that misses the point. When you use God, or people’s desire to be righteous, to further your self-interest, you are violating this command, even if you do not explicitly say “God”, or “YVWH”, or any of the other terms we use to refer to Him.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 16-18.
Generally, I believe that most miracles are about timing, not about something where natural laws are suspended. That is, many times God’s providence is demonstrated by Him arranging for completely ordinary things to happen at just the right time. However, the story of the Israelites collecting manna in the wilderness does not fit into that. The account tells us that for six days of the week there was manna on the ground each morning, but on the seventh day there was none to be found. Furthermore, for five days of the week if they kept any of the manna until the next morning it went bad overnight, but on the sixth day they could keep it for the seventh. I know of no purely natural mechanism which works in such a manner. It tells us a lot about human nature that despite this Divine provision for their needs, the Israelites still complained and worshiped other gods.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 13-15.
As I read Moses’ instructions to the Children of Israel concerning the dedication of firstborn male offspring to God I am reminded of Abraham’s offering of Isaac. Both accounts address the issue of child sacrifice and dedicating children to God. The Abraham/Isaac account addresses the idea that we can be dedicated to God and can dedicate our children to God without sacrificing our children. This passage tells us that not only can we dedicate ourselves and our children to God without sacrificing our children, but that God commands us not to sacrifice our children. Thus, sacrificing our children goes directly counter to being dedicated to God.
The passage describes how the Israelites left Egypt in a roundabout, indirect fashion. Many people over the years have attempted to determine what path they followed. Unfortunately, we do not actually know to what actual location many of the place names listed in the Book of Exodus refer. For that matter, we do not really know the date of Exodus, although this site makes a case I find compelling for 1446 BC. The important point of all of this being that later when the Israelites spend 40 years in the wilderness we do not know with any precision where that wilderness was.
Today, I am reading and commenting on Exodus 10-12.
I want to highlight Moses anger when he left Pharaoh’s presence for the last time. Throughout the Bible we are warned against giving in to our anger. However, sometimes that anger is justified. In this case Moses’ anger was justified and appropriate. Pharaoh had repeatedly agreed to let the people of Israel go, only to renege on that agreement when the crisis passed. As a result, the people of Egypt, who had had no say in any of this, were about to pay a steep price. Pharaoh had backed himself into a corner. Pharaoh’s power was based on the idea that he was the embodiment of the gods of Egypt. If he had let the people go after the frogs or the gnats, he could have passed it off as Moses had demonstrated that he was the representative of a god other than the gods of Egypt and he let them go to avoid a war among the gods. However, after refusing to let them go then, he made it so that when he did let them go he was conceding that God was more powerful than the gods of Egypt. Moses anger resulted from knowing that many innocent people were going to pay the price for Pharaoh’s stubbornness. All too many leaders make the same mistake as Pharaoh out of stubbornness and pride, and those they should be serving end up paying the price.
