Perspective

The “letter” to the Hebrews is different from any other “letter” among the Christian Scriptures for many reasons. One of those reasons is its organization as a single topic. It is truly focused on one thing, the supremacy of Jesus, specifically of His intercession on behalf of His disciples. The book begins with this focus and continues to the end with that same focus.

Each segment of this book builds upon the previous segment, each premise dependent upon the previous premise. In order to claim that Jesus’ ministry on our behalf is superior, the writer must appropriate Jeremiah 31:32-34. But, before he can apply that passage and the “new covenant” as he needs to, he must first establish Jesus as a priest outside of the Levitical Priesthood. To do that, he uses Psalm 110, a “royal” or “enthronement” psalm.

But even before the writer can apply Psalm 110 to Jesus, he must first argue Jesus’ supremacy over angels, over Moses, and then, over the law itself. Only then can he apply Psalm 110, with its unexpected reference to the priestly order of Melchizedek, to Jesus. The reason this is so important, that it forms the hinge pin on which his claims of Jesus pivot, can be found within the Psalm itself.

Psalm 110 is supposed to be written by David, and we have no reason to think otherwise. So, imagine David, sitting in his palace, the tent with the Ark in view from a window or terrace, writing this poem about one of his eventual children on his throne:

The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”
Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;
In holy array, from the womb of the dawn,
Your youth are to You as the dew.

Psalms 110:1-3 NASB

It is not difficult to see the “royal” or “enthronement” quality in the first half of the psalm. You have Yahweh (The LORD) establishing a “Lord” beside Him, fighting for this Lord, establishing the rule of this Lord even in the midst of opposition, and sanctifying the people this Lord rules. This coincides well with the Gospels and writings of Paul, John, and Peter.

Jesus uses this Psalm to show that the Messiah can’t be David’s son, because David calls him “my Lord”. Which is an interesting element of this Psalm. Why would David write it that way? Because, under the inspiration of the Spirit, David writes of what Yahweh will do in the future: not just give David a son on the throne, but an epic Messiah, someone greater than himself. While that may surprise David, possibly humble him, what he writes next had to floor him:

The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Psalms 110:4

Yahweh utters an unalterable oath that He will establish this “Lord” as a priest, not just a king. Even as he writes those words, David knows that only Levites can be priests, right? He does have his sons function as priests, he himself has taken the ephod at times, and Samuel, who anointed David, functioned as a priest, though from the Tribe of Manasseh. Still, there is no order of priests other than those of Aaron’s line, or is there?

David writes this poem in Jerusalem, which was once named Salem, before Jebusites took it over and renamed it. When it was Salem, it was ruled by a king who functioned also as a priest, Melchizedek. More likely than not, David knew the story, and was aware that he was in the very city where this priest-king ruled and ministered. And now, it was the place where the Ark now sat, the Ark of the same God this priest-king represented. The worship of Yahweh had returned, and a king who worshiped Yahweh now reigned. If you think about it, all the elements are there when David wrote this poem.

But it still had to be a weird thing for David to write. It had to be a strange impression for God to make on this man, so different than what others thought, what the priests taught, or the prophets spoke. Melchizedek remains a legendary figure for almost 1,000 years after David. Even the Qumran group think of Melchizedek as a super-human figure. And so he remains until, the writer of Hebrews finally explains the revelation given to David so many years ago.

The writer of Hebrews fastens on to this amazing revelation of God given to David. And for him it becomes the piece that God reveals as the connection to the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31. Prior to this, people just figured that the “new covenant” written on their hearts would be the “same song, different refrain”, basically the old covenant, but now doable. But for the writer of Hebrews, the new covenant changes everything. Now, there is no sacrificial system, no line of priests, no more blood of animals, no continual sacrifice requirement for sin any more. Jesus replaces all of it, even though He is of the line of Judah. It’s shocking.

So, is the penalty of sin removed? How can human creatures draw near to their Creator without an intermediary? How can we be justified before our Creator without the shedding of blood? What the writer of Hebrews does with the temple cultic practice is relocate the activity into heaven, make Jesus the permanent High Priest, and supersede all blood sacrifices with the one-time self-sacrifice of Jesus. This, in turn, releases people from the cultic practice of sacrificing animals, over and over. It was no longer necessary.

But there’s the end of the Psalm we haven’t looked at yet:

The Lord is at Your right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
He will judge among the nations,
He will fill them with corpses,
He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.
He will drink from the brook by the wayside;
Therefore He will lift up His head.

Psalms 110:5-7 NASB

War is coming. This “Lord” David foresees, once established beside Yahweh, having gathered His holy people, once installed as both King and Priest of God Most High, will eventually go to war. Remember that Jesus didn’t come to bring peace, but war (Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51), whether with the sword or division, He knew that there would be no peace on this planet until the end. And so it goes. So, what do we do now?

The rest of Hebrews, chapters 11 through 13, speaks of how we respond to the reality of our Heavenly Intercessor. Faith, perseverance, and love become the marks of our life. We participate in the war fought, and won, by Jesus when we live out faith, perseverance, and love. Our war remains a fight against the spiritual forces of darkness in the heavenly realms. Our tactics remain persistent prayer and loving service.

That’s my view through, well, through a large knothole this afternoon. Good grief. What’s your view like?

Advertisement

So, Let’s Review…

I’ve been very inconsistent, lately, in my blogging. I don’t know how many have noticed because my readership has been falling off of late. I was looking at my stats, and it was both confusing and depressing. I suppose, as a blogger, I’m not much of a success. And, while it’s nice when people read, like, and comment on my entries, I don’t blog for recognition. I can’t. It would make me nuts, and I’d eventually quit.

I blog because I think through things externally. It’s how my Master “wired” me. It helps me think through what He has inspired in Scripture, and that is truly my point in blogging. Essentially, those who visit get a peek at my thought process, such as it is. And they may or may not find my conclusions valuable. At least, in those entries where I actually come to a conclusion, they may find value.

As I have been going through the letter to the Hebrews, I have had a very difficult time finding conclusions. It always seems like I’m in the middle of some point or another, never at a conclusion. More than any other letter or book, Hebrews seems more cohesive and linear, something to be taken all at once, not piece-by-piece. It’s a singular argument made up of supporting elements which all lead back to the singular argument. It’s the most unified writing in Scripture that I’ve ever worked with. And that has also made it difficult.

The difficulty has been that this book does not lend itself to my usual pattern of study. What I normally do is find a point within a passage of Scripture (pericope). Hebrews doesn’t lend itself to this sort of study, I haven’t been able to do independent studies using various passages. And, therefore, it has been difficult to blog on various specific topics within chapters.

I have touched on some topics, like becoming “unsaved”, which have garnered some attention, albeit, not terribly positive. I’m not whining, because it was actually very helpful to be pushed to think through the topic more thoroughly. And, after all, that is really the point of my blogging anyway. So, it may not have been positive, but it was certainly helpful.

Okay, but still, what’s the point? The title of this entry claims that this entry is a review, and I’ve claimed in this entry that Hebrews is a singular linear argument. Therefore there should be a singular point, right? I have a previous entry, called “The Main Thing“, in which I claim that the main point of Hebrews, according to the author, is that Jesus’ High Priestly ministry in the heavenly temple is superior to the ministry of the Aaronic High Priesthood in the earthly tabernacle/temple.

Two things make that highly probable as the focus of the entire letter. First, and most obvious, the author says so. The second is that this statement of the author occurs in the middle of the letter. Putting the main point in the very middle is “hebraic” method of structuring an argument, especially in poetry. Then the supporting points move out from it concentrically. So, the points build toward in from the beginning. And, then work out from it in corresponding elements toward the end. It’s called a “chiastic” structure after the Greek letter X (chai).

Since I’ve only made it halfway through, I don’t know that Nicodemus builds the back-end of the structure. So, I don’t truly know if we actually have a chiastic structure or not. It’s also possible that he has structured his argument after the fashion of Philo of Alexandria. This connection is so strong that most commentators accept that the writer of Hebrews is from Alexandria, Egypt. Philo used more the structures of Greek philosophy, especially Plato (rhetoric), which is typically building to an ending main point. So, this reference in the middle is a bit out of place.

The way the reference could make sense is if Nicodemus builds his point to here, and then unpacks the meaning from here on. Again, I don’t know if that’s what happens or not, but I don’t think so. Here’s the “map” to chapter 8 (chapters 1 through 7):

1. Jesus is superior:
   1. To Angels (chapters 1 & 2)
   2. To Moses (chapters 3 & 4)
   1. To the Aaronic Priesthood (chapters 5 through 7)

All along, Nicodemus has pointed out the effects of each of these contrasts with Jesus. And the effect of His superiority to Aaron’s Priesthood begins in chapter 8 and continues on through 10 (I think – I have only worked on chapter 8 so far). So, that’s the review up to chapter 8.

The point of Jesus’ superiority has built up to the discussion of Jesus’ ministry as High Priest. There is something that Nicodemus sees as the main need of his audience, something that necessitated this letter to them. He is solving a problem with this letter, and by examination of his solution, we can, hopefully, divine the problem he is trying to solve. That’s the message. That’s what we can transmit forward to our day, the solution-problem connection.

We probably face the same problem, and, therefore, need this solution. It’s too easy to play down what we read because we are probably not Jewish believers. We can dismiss the arguments because we don’t see the connection between ourselves and the audience. But we need to. The reality we skip is that this letter was inspired not just written “for fun”, or for some other lowly purpose. There is a reason our Savior has in it, not just the writer. There is a message for us today. I’m just not yet clear on what it is because I’m not yet completely through the linear argument. But it will build, and I will post more as it becomes clearer to me. But this is where I am so far.

What’s In a Name?

As I have been cruising through Hebrews, the writer (I call him Nicodemus now), refers to an obscure character from the Hebrew Scriptures, Melchizedek. He refers to both his appearance in Genesis 14:18, and a strange reference to him in Psalm 110:4. What if the reference in Psalm 110 isn’t a name at all?

The Hebrew text has the following construction: מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק (see Strong’s H4442) for what is typically referred to as the name of the king of Salem in Genesis 14:18. To break this down a bit, it is a compound construction of two words, “meleki” and “tsedek”. The first word has a suffix (the “i”) which adds a first-person possessive meaning, “my”, to “melek” which renders, “my king”. The second word is the Hebrew word for “righteousness”. And between these two words is a bar, called a “maqaf” which is both a separator and a connector. That sounds odd, but it’s not that peculiar in Hebrew, and it’s the meaning of this punctuation mark that’s in question here.

So, if this is a name, then it could mean, “my king is righteous”, “my king of righteousness”, or even other options. Now, unfortunately, the Hebrew unicode in this entry is tiny, but you may see the various combination of dots under the Hebrew letters. Those are the “vowels”, which do not appear in ancient or modern Hebrew. The ancient group of Jewish scholars from Europe, known as the Masoretes, added those to enable a consistent use of Scripture in Jewish Synagogues. They also added a lot of notations to enable consistent pronunciation as well, including the maqaf.

And there’s the thing, the maqaf wouldn’t be in the ancient/original text. So, it’s possible that this was originally two words, and the guy who comes out to Abram was known as a “righteous king”, and Abram calls him “my righteous king”. You can see how this might be possible, but also it’s obviously very improbable. Yet, the more modern Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has the following translation of Psalm 110:4

The LORD has sworn and will not relent,
"You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree."

Now that is very different than most every translation, including the 1917 edition of the same JPS Tanakh which has the following:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent:
"Thou art a priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek."

So, a change was made in the 1985 edition to remove the reference to Melchizedek. Now, why would that option be chosen? By the way, there is a footnote in the 1985 edition that says, “Or ‘After the manner of Melchizedek.'” So, the translator’s acknowledge that the reference to Melchizedek is still valid. But it’s the maqaf, right? Well, maybe not.

The place where David was born is Bethlehem, right? Well, that, too, is a compound word made up of “house” and “bread”. Guess what is always found between the two words in Hebrew? You guessed it, the maqaf. And yet, this is translated as “Bethlehem” throughout the 1985 Tanakh.

When the Jewish scholars of Alexandria Egypt translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek about 150 years Before the Christian Era (for those for whom this a more comfortable reference) or 150 BC (for those more comfortable with the traditional reference), they transliterated Melchizedek into Greek. So, before the Masoretes added punctuation, these brilliant Jewish scholars also understood both references to be a name, not some other reference. In the time of Nicodemus writing Hebrews (you never know, it could have been), the accepted understanding of Psalm 110 was that it referred to the man who brought bread and wine out to Abram after his successful rescue of Lot. And so should we.

And yet, there are those who would see this differently, focus on the slim possibility that David didn’t have this obscure character in mind when he penned this Psalm. Let’s accept that possibility, and still point out that even so, it does not take away from Jesus’ role as our High Priest. So, His order of priesthood would be as a righteous king. I’m good with that. Jesus remains our King, Priest, and Prophet. He is the Anointed One in all roles, and will one day appear on a white horse with a robe dipped in blood. The High Priest will lead the hosts of heaven as King of Kings. I hope to be among the host. You?

I’m excited! Let’s ride!

What’s your view through the knothole this morning?

Confusing Clarification

I am well aware that many of my attempts at clarity tend toward obfuscation. Sometimes, it’s even intentional. Therefore, I suppose this blog really isn’t designed for a massive readership, and I’m fortunate and blessed when anyone reads this stuff.

In my defense, such as it is, or is required (which I don’t think it is), I deal with Scriptures that often are confusing without being obviously confusing. So, my obfuscation actually clarifies the problem before I lamely attempt to clarify. It’s like so many that believe they must, and actually attempt to, “get people lost before they can be saved.” I always thought that was an insane approach to sharing the good news of Jesus, but I’m learning to appreciate it.

I realized that I’ve been confusing to clarify just this morning, although I wouldn’t have disagreed had someone brought it to my attention. I was working on a Greek passage in Hebrews that was difficult for me, but it wasn’t the vocabulary that was difficult. The different grammatical parts were unexpected, and difficult for me to conceptualize in English. So, there weren’t any difficult words to explain, only difficult grammatical constructions.

When we read a translation of Scripture, we’re getting the grammatical sort of confusion clarified for us. It’s only when we read a passage in multiple translations that we get some sense of the difficulty, and then, only when the translators disagree on how to translate the grammatical elements. So, it’s not always easy for us to spot confusing passages when the vocabulary used is familiar.

So, enough with my self-defense of obfuscating Scripture (or making clear the obfuscation already there). Here’s an example:

and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Hebrews 2:15 NASB

That seems simple enough, and most translations sound very similar. But here’s how I translated it:

and liberate these, as many as were caught by fear of death through slavery of every living thing.

my own translation

That’s a big difference, especially “every living thing” instead of “all their lives”. And, to be clear, I’m wrong. The problem I faced was that the grammatical construction in Greek was unfamiliar to me. The construction is composed of a preposition (through), a pronoun (all), the definite article (the), and an infinitive (to live), all in that order. For translators for hundreds of years, that means “all their life”. For me, I’m missing stuff like “them” or “their” in the construction. In fact, I think I completely missed the noun this phrase modifies. All the life of whom? Well, all translations seem to agree that the phrase modifies “those…subject to slavery” (see any other translation, even King James). I opted to modify “slavery”. Yeah, no.

So, I suppose my point is not simply that I’m wrong a lot, or that Greek isn’t easy (It’s Greek to me! You were thinking it). My point is that sometimes what seems merely odd is actually more peculiar than you imagine. And then, sometimes what seems clear actually isn’t. I consider part of my calling and gifting to perceive the ironies of our life with our Creator. I’m still working out how to communicate what I discover to others. Whether others care or not depends partly on my ability to communicate, and partly on who’s reading.

So, I’ll spend some time improving my understanding of Greek grammar. And I hope to be back with another entry, clarifying the obscure. Please forgive me if I obscure the clear on the path to clarifying. Irony is like that, sometimes, ironically.

What Were You Thinking?

Predictable: It’s not what you want from your story plot. Who wants to be thought of as a predictable writer? Unless, of course, you’re Moses, then you want predictability. Or, at least, it seems that he does. In chapter 5 of Exodus, we have the first encounter between Moses and Pharaoh, and it’s not exactly what Moses was hoping for. But the reader is expecting something precisely like this.

And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness.'” But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and besides, I will not let Israel go.”

Exodus 5:1-2 NASB

But why? Why is the reader not surprised, but Moses seems to be? Perhaps you’re not sure he is. Okay, then review Moses’ two responses, the first one in verse 3 and the second in verses 22 and 23:

Then they said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please, let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God, otherwise He will fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.”

Exodus 5:3 NASB

Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, “O Lord, why have You brought harm to this people? Why did You ever send me? Ever since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has done harm to this people, and You have not delivered Your people at all.”

Exodus 5:22-23 NASB

The surprising thing about Moses being surprised is that God has already told him that Pharaoh will not let the sons of Israel leave willingly:

“They will pay heed to what you say; and you with the elders of Israel will come to the king of Egypt and you will say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. So now, please, let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.’ But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go.

Exodus 3:18-20 NASB

And yet, Moses seems surprised by Pharaoh’s response. Which is surprising, or it should be. But think back to the discussion Moses and God were having. It was choppy, and Moses kept asking “what if…” questions, and making excuses. Is it possible that Moses stopped listening to God somewhere in the middle of God’s explanation?

Surely, we never do that. Who would refuse to give a burning bush their entire attention, and listen to every single word said? A burning bush has never spoken to you? Then, perhaps there is a danger you didn’t listen to everything your Savior has told you? Let’s be honest, this happens a lot. We will often find a nugget in Scripture, and run, excited about our discovered promise, and charge into a new ministry without listening to the whole… Wait, not you?

Oh, then perhaps we’re more like Moses, formulating our next protest rather than listening to God’s next detail? We read that passage of Scripture that’s supposed to launch us into a ministry, but excuse ourselves because we’re sure it’s for someone else. Still not you? You do read the Bible, right? One of those two things should happen. Either you read and become inspired to act, or you read, and excuse yourself from acting. If you’re not sure, then, by default, you fall into the second one. I’m there a lot with you, so, we can be embarrassed together.

Let’s be honest, we do that. We’re often Moses: surprised that what God told us would happen, actually happens. In this chapter Pharaoh sounds like a parent or mean teacher at school. He ramps up the work because we seem to have time to complain, therefore not enough work to keep us busy. Those of you who have been through basic training in the military should recognize this tactic.

Pharaoh’s response is common sense. Moses’ surprise is not. Our surprise is not. Not paying attention to the Creator of the universe isn’t smart, and we do it all the time. The real blessing in all of this is that God isn’t surprised. He doesn’t berate Moses, look at chapter 6 verse 1. God seems to know Moses wasn’t listening, or, at least He’s not surprised.

He is that way with us as well. When the consequences of not listening to our Creator come to haunt us, God is right there, ready to continue working with us. We excuse ourselves from service, we suffer some sort of loss, and suddenly, there is our Savior, coming alongside to help us minister to others. Oh wait, not you? Seriously? Have you never complained loudly to your Savior? Okay, then, when you did, He listened. Did you? Or, like me at times, did you stomp off and pout first? Either way, He listened, and He is ready to use you again.

How do I know? I wrote this blog entry. And right now, if you’re thinking about God using you in His Kingdom, then, even though I shouted and pouted, God used me in your life. If He is willing to use me, then you’re a shoe-in.

Exception-al Hebrew

Have you ever known someone for whom the normal rules of humanity don’t seem to apply? It’s not necessarily that they get special privileges, as much as they seem to be able to escape the consequences. The ones I find most frustrating are those who aren’t doing it intentionally, they are mostly oblivious to the incongruity.

Moses is one of those, sort of. He is supposed to die as a Hebrew boy as soon as he is born. The Egyptians are supposed to throw him into the Nile, possibly feed him to Nile crocodiles. And yet, instead, he is placed in a basket, and adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter. Now, keep in mind, this whole time, everyone knows he is a Hebrew, and that he’s escaping the normal fate of other Hebrew boys:

The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the Nile, with her maidens walking alongside the Nile; and she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid, and she brought it to her. When she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the boy was crying. And she had pity on him and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”

Exodus 2:5-6 NASB

An exception is made for Moses, almost immediately. He is a Hebrew boy who is allowed to live, and allowed by the very people killing all the rest. It’s obvious, but it’s not fair. Not is it obviously not fair, but both Hebrews and Egyptians seem okay with this. So, it is doubly not fair. Not to add insult to injury, but the Creator of the universe is also okay with it, so perhaps it becomes triply unfair. Yet, this exception to the rule is part of His purpose.

It’s possible that if this were the only exception Moses receives, it would be merely interesting, but not obnoxious. The exceptions don’t stop here. Remember that everyone knew he was a Hebrew? It wasn’t like Charlton Heston in the Ten Commandments, it was a well known fact that Moses wasn’t an Egyptian. Notice the entire absence of any “discovery” by Moses in the passage below:

Then Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this child away and nurse him for me and I will give you your wages.” So the woman took the child and nursed him. The child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. And she named him Moses, and said, “Because I drew him out of the water.” Now it came about in those days, when Moses had grown up, that he went out to his brethren and looked on their hard labors; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren.

Exodus 2:9-11 NASB

These paranoid Egyptians, who want to subjugate the Hebrews for national security reasons, then allow an entitled one of their own to move among them. So, what happened to the national security issue? It seems an exception was made to their paranoid policy in the case of Moses. Perhaps these Egyptians figured they had “bought Moses off” with the riches of his entitled adoption as “grandson of Pharaoh”. But it’s clear they hadn’t “bought him off” at all. Moses commits murder on behalf of his people, leading to another exception.

He went out the next day, and behold, two Hebrews were fighting with each other; and he said to the offender, “Why are you striking your companion?” But he said, “Who made you a prince or a judge over us? Are you intending to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” Then Moses was afraid and said, “Surely the matter has become known.” When Pharaoh heard of this matter, he tried to kill Moses. But Moses fled from the presence of Pharaoh and settled in the land of Midian, and he sat down by a well.

Exodus 2:13-15 NASB

Here Moses intercedes, knowing which one of the two is the offender. That’s the first surprise, but the second is the extortion used by the offender (making him truly offensive – pun intended). He knows Moses killed the Egyptian, and uses that knowledge against this powerful grandson of Pharaoh. But notice Moses notices the matter has become known, but doesn’t run until Pharaoh finds out. Did you miss the “exception”?

It can’t be that only this offensive Hebrew knew of the death of the Egyptian. The Hebrews apparently knew, but said nothing. Were they hoping that Moses would do more? Were they waiting to see if he would lead them against Egyptians? We don’t know why only that they made an exception in the case of Moses, and didn’t inform their task masters about him.

Well, obviously, the secret eventually was made known to Pharaoh, and he sought to kill Moses, and Moses flees (again, not so much like the movie). Which leads to the next exception. Why wasn’t Moses pursued? I’m pretty sure the paranoid Egyptians wouldn’t tolerate a loose murder from the Hebrews being allowed to roam free. And yet, they do, and he does. And the exceptions are allowed to continue. Only the next one isn’t necessarily in his favor.

Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came to draw water and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. Then the shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses stood up and helped them and watered their flock. When they came to Reuel their father, he said, “Why have you come back so soon today?” So they said, “An Egyptian delivered us from the hand of the shepherds, and what is more, he even drew the water for us and watered the flock.” He said to his daughters, “Where is he then? Why is it that you have left the man behind? Invite him to have something to eat.”

Exodus 2:16-20 NASB

It seems the heroic Moses was left behind by the very people he helped…again. First the Hebrews sell him out, meaning he has to flee. And then the daughters of the priest of Midian leave him behind after he defends them, and waters their sheep. It seems that sometimes exceptions don’t always work in our favor. Some consequences are good, and sometimes those consequences are excepted as well.

Hopefully the lesson here becomes obvious to us. In the economy of our Master, we don’t always get the consequences of our actions, good or bad. Grace works in God’s favor, for it is His favor that grace contains. In so many ways, we too are exceptional, in that we receive exceptions to the normal rules from our Master. It’s not that everyone is okay with that, but that we become okay with it, both as we discover it about ourselves, but also as we find it in others.

And, to continue the application, we are to treat others with the same exceptions we receive from our Savior. His mercy and His grace we so freely receive from Him, this becomes the content of our communion with our fellow disciples. Sometimes these exceptions work in our favor, and sometimes, we need to let our Master define the favor for us. And so, our fellow disciples may misunderstand us, and we may suffer for the good we do them. This too becomes an exception we receive from the hand of our Master, who was also misunderstood, and suffered at their hands.

Who is more exceptional than our Savior, He who gathers plain people and makes exceptions for them, transforming them into exceptional people? Pretty crazy, huh? Or is it just extraordinarily exceptional?

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

Egyptian Retention Method

One of the unanswerable questions of humanity asks how one human society or culture can excuse the subjugation and oppression of another human society or culture. When does oppression and subjugation make sense? Just for the record, never. It happens, even the people of Yahweh did it, but it never makes sense.

Have you ever wondered why the people of Israel in Egypt didn’t just leave after Joseph died? Why didn’t they simply take his body to Canaan to bury it, and not return? But even so, why didn’t they leave before being enslaved? No one saw that coming? No one figured their time had come to an end in Goshen?

But, why, then, did Egypt consider it necessary to oppress the people of Israel in the first place? We’re given the explanation by Pharaoh in Exodus 1:9-11, where he claims that the sons of Israel have become so numerous that they are dangerous to the native Egyptians. But there are three reasons given, one of which surprised me.

He said to his people, “Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal wisely with them, or else they will multiply and in the event of war, they will also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us and depart from the land.” So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses.

Exodus 1:9-11 NASB

The reasons given in verse 11 for why oppression of the Hebrews made sense (dealing wisely) are: they will 1) continue to multiply, 2) join the enemies of Egypt in time of war, and 3) depart the land. I can understand the first two. Verse 7 sets up the consistent increasing of the people of Israel as a thematic element of the chapter.

The second reason, that Israel would join Egypt’s enemies, only makes sense when we remember that there was an enormous divide between the two cultures. The Hebrews were nomadic herdsmen, and Egyptian society was based on domestic farming, and less on animal husbandry. The Egyptians couldn’t even eat with or associate with nomadic peoples (see Genesis 43:32).

The third reason is where I become confused. If the people of Israel are dangerous, why not expel them? There has to be some contribution to the culture and life of Egypt by the people of Israel that is important to the Egyptians. The people they cannot live with, they cannot live without. In many translations, the last phrase in verse 10 is translated “escape” rather than “depart” the land. And yet, the Hebrews aren’t slaves just yet.

There are all sorts of lessons which can be derived from this simple, strange reason for enslaving the Hebrews. Perhaps the Hebrews remained too long, content to pasture among those who were never their people. Maybe they were oblivious to the growing resentment toward them by the native Egyptians. Did the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob call them out sooner, and they missed the call?

The truth of Scripture is that we’re never told what error the sons of Israel may have made which brought on their enslavement. It seems no failure on their part is relevant to the point God inspires here. We can hypothesize, theorize, and opine until we’re old, grey, and drooling in paper cups in a memory-care facility. But there’s no purpose. If God didn’t think it necessary to provide a criticism, then that’s not where His lesson for us will be found.

Okay, so where is the lesson God inspired here? Well, what do we know from these verses? We know that this Pharaoh doesn’t know Joseph, so the Hebrew vizier is no longer a national hero. We know that the people of Israel have literally “swarmed” over the land (see verse 7). And we know that the Egyptians considered the Hebrews more numerous than they.

So, then, knowing that, what can we learn? Where’s the lesson for us today? Isn’t it two-fold? Sometimes we are oppressed, and sometimes we are oppressors; or at least we’re tempted to be oppressors. What drove the Egyptians was fear. They feared this people who they perceived to be bigger and stronger than they. But they also recognized that they couldn’t let these scary people leave either.

And the sons of Israel were simply living their lives, contributing to the society of Egypt in some ways. And, as a result, they proliferated in the fertile land of Goshen. For this, they were oppressed, and forced to work building the cities of Pithom and Ramses. It wasn’t fair, and it didn’t make a lot of sense. These nomadic herdsmen were singled out for the hard labor simply because they were different and numerous.

We go back and forth between these two. There are times we are faced with scary people, and we are tempted to mistreat them. There are other times when we’re the scary ones, and we are mistreated. So, here it comes: we’re all necessary, we all contribute, and fear is unnecessary.

Those homeless people who are camping all over your town, yeah, they’re not to be feared. They’re actually able to contribute to the community. Those rich people who seem to have more money than they need, yeah, they’re not scary either. They also have something to contribute to the community. Do you fear the “Trailer Trash”, blue-collar workers, and those just scraping by? Are you offended by those “while-collar” workers living within picket-fences?

The powerful and the lowly, both, we all have something to contribute, and we’ll find we are all necessary. Liberals and conservatives, men and women, old and young, white, black, Asian, and Hispanic; we all have our part to play, our contribution to make. And it doesn’t require oppression to retain those contributions and protect our society.